Historical Newspapers of South Carolina

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

Textile trade legislation: what it is, where it stands, what to do What it is Bill would enforce trade agreements You've been reading a lot lately, both in “TheClothmak- er" and your local newspapers, about the Textile Fair Trade Bill now before Congress. You've probably heard it called a number of things: the textile bill, textile legislation, import legislation. You've probably even heard it called by its Senate and House designations: S.680and H.R. 1562. Its proper name is the Textile and Apparel Trade En forcement Act of 1985. This issue of ‘The Clothmaker” is devoted exclusively to the legislation and what employees and others should do to help get it passed, But, before you go on to the other stories, here is a recap of what the Textile and Apparel Trade Enforcement Act of 1985 will accomplish if passed by Congress and signed into law by President Reagan: •It would rollback imports for the major exporting countries—those that account for 1.25.percent or more of total U.S. imports. This group includes the big Far Eastern importers: China, Hong Kong, Japan and Taiwan. •The rollback would be based on the growth that would have taken place in imports if our textile trade agreements had been properly enforced since 1980. Some countries would face rollbacks as small as one percent. Others might face as much as six percent. •It would limit import growth sharply for product categories where imports equal 40 percent, or more U.S. production. Trousers, blouses, shirts, suits, skirts and sweaters, for example, would fall in these categories. •It would establish a U.S. import licensing program. Anyone who wants to import a textile or apparel product must first obtain a license. This is a key to strong enforce ment of our laws. •It excludes Canada and European Economic Commun ity (Common Market), where recent import increases have been due more to the value of the dollar than to unfair, low-wage competition. •It, over time, shifts more of our import trade'from the Far East to the developing nations of the Caribbean and to Mexico. •It, in effect, goes back to 1980 and enforces the Multifiber Arrangement (MFA) as it should have been enforced. The MFA, which is designed to allow growth in developing nations without disrupting the markets in de veloped nations, calls for a maximum six percent per year growth in imports. Imports have actually averaged growing 19 percent per year. •It creates about 300,000 new jobs in textiles, apparel and fiber production, plus about 250,000 additional jobs in supplier and support businesses. •It expands the coverage of our trade laws. Existing quotas now cover only about 65 percent of our imports. The new bill would sharply increase that percentage. Where it stands Administration opposes passage of trade act The Reagan administration has mounted fierce—but not unexpected—opposition to the textile trade bill now before Congress. In a letter to all Congressmen, top cabinet officials said. the proposed legislation, which would limit imports of textiles and apparel, would do more to harm the United States than help: “If enacted, this legislation would impose a very high cost on U.S. consumers, invite retaliation against U.S. exports, spur inflation, violate our international obligations and provide the domestic textile and apparel industry an unprecedented level of protection,” the letter said. The letter was signed by, among others, Secretary of State George Shultz, Secretary of Commerce Malcolm Baldridge and Secretary of the Treasury James Baker. President Reagan did not sign the letter, although the letter conveyed an official position of his administration. Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., said he was disappointed with the administration’s stance and offered a detailed response to the points the letter made. The Senator’s response was read into “The Congressional Record.” The administration’s response to the bill is not in keep ing with earlier promises, Thurmond said. “While the administration’s opposition to this bill was not unexpected, it is, in a sense, Ironic,” he said. “In September 19801 was given a written commitment that this administration would work to achieve the goal of relating import growth from afl sources to the domestic market growth. Key officials in the administration have not kept this commitment.” The Senator continued: “The point to be emphasized is that if the administration had carried out this commitment, there would have been no need to introduce (the textile trade legislation). However, because the ad ministration has failed to uphold this commitment by not implementing an adequate textile trade policy, there now exists an urgent need for Congress to correct this problem.” Relating import growth to growth in the domestic market means that the amount of imports coming into the United States cannot exceed the total growth in demand for textile products, both domestic and imported, in the United States. Addressing this tie-in, Thurmond told the Senate: “Since the time when this commitment of tying import growth to market growth was given, the following has occurred: “First, domestic market growth for textile and apparel goods over the past four years has been only 1 to 1.5 percent—about the rate of population growth. “Second, import growth over that same period, however, has averaged 19 percent per year. This includes to two recession years of 1981 and 1982 in which the average import growth was lower than recent figures. It also includ ed 1983 when there was a record increase in imports of 25 percent, and the tremendous surge that occurred last year when a new import record increase of 32 percent was set. “Third, U.S. Department statistics show that 300,000 textile/apparel/fiber jobs have been lost in this country over the past five years. “Fourth, many others who are still employed in this industry are working short weeks, resulting in reduced income. “Fifth, 50 percent of all finished apparel sold in this country is now imported.” The Senator continued: “It is abundantly clear that there is a massive import problem facing the American textile industry. Many economists have stated that if this trend continues, the American textile/apparel/fiber indus try will cease to exist by 1995. With the death of this industry will come the direct loss of over two million jobs, more than the steel, auto and chemical industries com bined. ki addition to these direct losses, there will be over two million additional related jobs lost in this country with the demise of the textile industry.” Thurmond said he would not stand idly by and “watch one of American’s most economically and strategically important industries crumble. “I regret the administration’s position and I urge them to strongly reconsider their stand,” he said. The bill as of August 1, had 291 co-sponsors in the House and 54 in the Senate What to do Send a message to Washington There’s a great deal each of us can do to help slow the tide of imported textile and apparel goods coming into this country. One way is to let President Reagan know how you and your family feel. The President and his staff need your thoughts regarding this important trade matter. As a priv ate citizen of this country, every Clinton Mills' employee has not only the right but an obligation to make his voice heard in Washington. Since foreign textile and apparel imports pose a threat to our jobs, every employee should send a message to the White House. All messages should be addressed to: President Ronald Reagan The White House Washington, DC 20500 Suggested messages which should be re-written and expressed in employee's own words are: (1) Dear Mr. President: Please use your influence and power to assure passage of the Textile Fair Trade Bill. I’m a textile employee and we need your support* Sincerely, Signature and mailing address (2) Dear Mr. President: Please don’t put (my husband, my mother,and myself) out of work by vetoing the Textile Fair Trade Bill. Sincerely, Signature and mailing address