Fever Pitch

Protection fever is sweeping Capitol Hill, and the contagion is placing at risk the carefully constructed trade arrangements that need to be strengthened, not weakened. The latest symptom is the so-called Textile and Apparel Trade Enforcement Act of 1985, already co-sponsored by a majority of the members of the House of Representatives and almost half the senators.

The legislation looks more like a renewal of the bash-Tokyo campaign that abounds in Congress than a constructive response to trade problems. In its extraordinary restrictions, however, it would bash all exporters, not just Japan. All of the exporters, including some of the developing nations that are most in need of expanding their exports, would be hit with quotas. The 12 principal suppliers would be cut back 35% to 40% under their 1984 shipments. The legislation also would do violence to the multifiber arrangement--the single most important international effort to bring some order, regulation and control to the volatile world trade in this sector.

Southern textile-state legislators, who are the key sponsors, offer the restrictions on the grounds that employment is falling in the U.S. industry. So it is. But what they do not say is that employment is falling even as American production is increasing, suggesting that the principal reason for the loss of jobs is the automation introduced by American companies--not the spiraling imports. Furthermore, opponents of the new protectionism note that American textile manufacturers have a double standard on the question of imports: Almost half the new machinery used by the American mills is imported, according to one study.

There has been substantial growth in imports, that is true. Last year was the record year. But even last year the penetration of imports reached only 20% of the dollar volume of the apparel market and only 6% of the textile market. That is significantly below the import levels existing in some other industries, including steel. Furthermore, in the first months of this year there has been a deceleration in the growth of imports and a decline in some areas, according to preliminary figures.

Members of the House and the Senate who have rushed to support this punitive and reckless bill seem oblivious to the American consumer. The already excessive structures of tariffs and quotas on textiles and apparels are costing consumers at least $4 billion a year in higher prices, according to one estimate, with an overall negative effect on the economy of as much as $6 billion. Under the proposed legislation, the burden probably would be increased by at least 50%. Overall, imports would be reduced by 40%, according to an analysis based on official figures. This would place an additional burden on less affluent shoppers. Trade restrictions already in force have reduced the availability of less costly apparel.

President Reagan wisely has made known his strong opposition to the legislation. That is consistent with his commitment to free trade. In the meantime, voters who are not among the 2 million textile and apparel workers might study the list of protection-minded members of Congress and ponder what interests they are protecting. It is obvious that they are not acting to protect the interests of the vast majority of citizens.