Extensions of Remarks

September 16, 1988 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS 24339 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS DEFEAT THE TEXTILE BILL an estimated 3.6% of their income to subsi fashion or out, the American producers dize fat-cat textile shareholders and union would be guaranteed their present share of ists. The Reagan administration figures the the market under this law. No matter how HON. JOHN J. LaFALCE new bill-which would impose even stiffer poorly they performed, they would be pro OF NEW YORK quotas-would cost consumers an additional tected. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES $7 billion a year. The textile industry is already one of the Friday, September 16, 1988 The textile lobby nonetheless wants more, most heavily protected industries in this and its doting politicians are only too happy country, and has been for more than 30 Mr. LAFALCE. Mr. Speaker, once again we to serve. The House already passed its own years. It is profitable and even does some face the prospect of a Presidential veto of a protectionist bill 263 to 156 and the Reagan exporting. but it likes having a captive textile bill and, possibly, a subsequent con administration frets it may not get 34 veto market, and no amount of protection is ever gressional attempt to override. I believe this sustaining votes when the Senate weighs in enough. as early as today. GOP statesmen such as The purpose of the bill is to preserve Jobs. legislation ultimately will be, and deserves to William Cohen <Maine shoemakers), Jesse be, defeated, as it has been in the past. Sen. Ernest F. Hollings, the chief sponsor, Helms <protectionist on principle> and Orrin says that 350,000 jobs have been lost in tex Just a few weeks ago, the President signed Hatch <who knows what in Utah) are stand tile and clothing production since 1980. into law sound bipartian trade legislation that ing tall behind the bill lest they are consid True, some were lost to imports. Equally will improve this Nation's ability to compete in ered soft on Sri Lankan seamstresses. If the true but not mentioned by the senator, international markets. We are just beginning to world trading system, the GATT and U.S. many of those jobs were lost to rising pro make some minimal progress in turning our exporters <who will suffer from retaliation> ductivity. The same thing is happening gets creamed as well, that's all right, be throughout American industry. trade deficit around. If we are to succeed, it cause Sri Lankans don't vote. can only be through a meaningful program to You can probably think of a good many As for the national-as opposed to the senators who are urgent and forceful in ar improve our competitiveness and an aggres special-interest, here's surely an opportuni guing that the United States must make sive export strategy, not through closing our ty for the presidential candidates. Michael itself more competitive in world markets. markets to foreign goods. Approval of protec Dukakis claims he wants a competitive That means pushing steadily for higher pro tionist textile legislation will only ensure for America, and nothing is more uncompetitive ductivity. You would be astonished to see eign retaliation that will close foreign markets than an American rag trade that is so cod that many of those same senators are co dled it has no incentive to modernize. Alas, sponsors of this bill, the central purpose of to U.S. goods, eliminating any possibility of a Mr. Dukakis will have to shun the advice of successful U.S. export strategy. which is to take the competitive pressure his running mate, Lloyd Bentsen, who keeps off this favored industry. The Wall Street Journal, the Washington saying he's not a protectionist even as he But in the end this bill won't save jobs. Post, and the Buffalo News respectively have wraps both of his mercantilists arms around Protectionist bills never do. They only shift recently published editorials opposing this this textile bill. No wonder Big Business lob byists were willing to pay Mr. Bentsen the impact of change from one industry to troubling legislation. I commend them to my $10,000 for bacon and eggs. another. While legislation can save some colleagues. jobs in textiles, clothing and shoe produc For his part, George Bush could find the tion, it will cost jobs in importing and retail [From the Wall Street Journal, Sept. 7, textile issue looks a lot like it did in South ing. On balance, the losses to the country 1988) Carolina in March. That's when he blew away protectionism's Big Mo-and Bob will be greater than the gains. If the Senate is trying to make the American economy TEXTILE WORSHIP Dole-by opposing the textile interests even in the heart of textile country. He also less efficient and less competitive, this tex Who was it who said passing the trade bill might find that defending consumers tile bill is the way to go. would kill protectionism as a political issue? CFrom the Buffalo News, Sept. 14, 19881 We recall it was the same Reagan adminis against business interests turns the tables on which candidate is the real economic BAD-NEWS TRADE BILL tration that is this week scrambling to find populist. We suspect Americans voters care enough votes in the Senate to derail a new much less about making offerings to the The Senate has now Joined the House in textile-protection bill. Maybe former Treas textile lobby than do the parochial inhabit approving an economically shortsighted ury Secretary James Baker and trade rep ants of Congress hunting for PAC money on measure that would clamp sweeping new Clayton Yeutter now will agree that the Capitol Hill. limits on import levels of apparel, textiles special-interest gods are never satisfied with and footwear-thus inviting higher costs for merely one sacrifice. CFrom the Washington Post, Sept, 7, 19881 American consumers and triggering foreign Indeed, the textile and apparel industries THE TEXTILE GIVEAWAY retaliation. and their unions demand regular care and Protectionist trade bills are usually bad Even its chief sponsor, Sen. Ernest Hol feeding. As the most protected U.S. Indus news, but the Senate's textile legislation is lings, D-S.C., acknowledges that the bill is tries, they already benefit from tariffs aver flagrantly, recklessly, almost comically "protectionist." aging close to 18%, not to mention more wrongheaded. Since half the Senate has Since the Reagan administration opposes than 1,500 quotas. Naturally, this govern signed on as cosponsors, it will certainly be the measure, a presidential veto is possible. ment cosseting has been good for business. passed. Equally certainly, President Reagan But so is an override by a Congress con Factories are running flat out while profits will veto it. One question is whether there cerned with election-year pressures. · soar-by 8.6% last year, after a 67% leap in are enough votes to override a veto. Another Hollings and other proponents contend 1986. This is what economists call "monopo is why the Senate is seized with this passion that rising imports from foreign manufac ly profits." to pass another squalid giveaway to the tex turers paying low wages is weakening the Which means consumers are paying mo tile producers. domestic textile industry and killing jobs in nopoly subsidies. Consumer apparel prices The bill would allow imports of textiles the United States, expecially in the South. rose at about double the rate of inflation in and clothing to increase 1 percent a year, on But while imports may be hurting small, the first half of 1988, which even Mikhail grounds that the market is expanding only less-efficient domestic producers, U.S. Trade Gorbachev now understands is what hap that fast. No matter how attractive the im Representative Clayton Yeutter argues that pens when demand exceeds a government ports might be, or how competitive, Ameri the industry has generally rebounded from controlled supply. cans would be forbidden by law to buy more earlier difficulties. He cites a 54 percent William Kline of the Institute for Interna than the current proportion of them. The gain in industry profits over the last two tional Economics has estimated that textile bill also freezes shoe imports at the present years. And he says textile import levels fell protection costs the average U.S. household level. The American producers lost most of during the early months of this year. $238 a year for apparel-a total of some $20 the market for women's shoes because they Further, the administration has already billion. The poor get hit the worst, with the didn't keep up with the fashions as deftly as negotiated separate quotas for apparel and poorest one-fifth of U.S. households paying shoemakers in Italy and Brazil did. But in textiles with 42 nations, including four of e This "bullet" symbol identifies statements or. insertions which are not spoken by a Member of the Senate on the floor. Matter set in this typeface indicates words inserted or appended, rather than spoken, by a Member of the House on the floor. 24340 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS September 16, 1988 the five largest foreign suppliers-Japan, has pushed the regime to be more flexible in Suite 150, Southfield, Ml 48076, 313-450- South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong. the area of religious rights. 4310. The Senate bill would simply brush aside In 1968, the valiant attempt of the Czecho those mutually negotiated agreements, re placing them with broad and less flexible slovak people to gain control of their own des tiny was crushed by tanks and soldiers.

Load more