House Backs Veto of Curb on Imports : Vote, Eight Short of Override, Hands Reagan Major Trade Policy Victory

President Reagan won a major victory for his trade policy Wednesday as the House upheld his veto of a bill that would have cut deeply into textile and apparel imports.

After a spirited debate, the House voted 276 to 149 to approve the bill over the President’s objection--but fell eight votes short of the required two-thirds majority.

Supporters of the bill described it as a last-ditch effort to save disappearing American jobs, but President Reagan had warned that it would touch off a world trade war against the United States.

‘Gratifying Victory’

“It’s a very gratifying victory because so much was at stake,” an elated Clayton K. Yeutter, Reagan’s special trade representative, told a news conference after the vote. “We would have had sheer chaos in international trade had this bill become law.”

Even in defeat, the bill’s supporters said that their campaign should force the Reagan Administration to take a harder line against unfair foreign trading practices.

“I have lost this battle, but the President knows I’ve been there,” said Rep. Ed Jenkins (D-Ga.), the bill’s prime sponsor. “We hope the Administration begins to take some very tough action.”

The vetoed bill would have reduced textile and apparel imports by 30%, fixed shoe imports at 60% of the U.S. market, compared to the current 80% level, and required the President to arrange production cutbacks by copper-producing countries.

The textile industry, which has lost more than 300,000 jobs in the last five years, while imports rose 17% annually, campaigned hard for the bill.

“We are bitterly disappointed” by the defeat of “this badly needed piece of legislation,” said Dewey L. Trogdon, president of the American Textile Manufacturers Institute. “Because the Administration failed miserably to address this problem, it is obvious legislation is the only solution, and it is reassuring to know we have such strong support in Congress,” he said.

During the hourlong, sometimes emotional debate, the bill’s supporters spoke of suffering workers, while opponents said that the legislation would drive up retail prices for clothing and spur retaliation against American exports.

Either the House “votes to take a stand or runs up the white flag of surrender in the international marketplace,” said Rep. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Me.), who said that 32 shoe factories have closed and 6,200 jobs have been lost in her state in the last year. “You can hardly find a shoe made in the U.S.,” she said, adding that the bill provides “nothing more than survival.”

Beseeching Forecast

But Rep. Don Bonker (D-Wash.) said that giving special help to the textile industry would bring to Washington a long line of other businesses beseeching Congress for protection against imports. “What do I tell my workers when Congress protects textiles but not timber?” he asked.

Most of the textile industry workers, who earn an average of $5.87 an hour, are women, often members of minority groups living in rural areas, Jenkins said. They cannot leave their families and move elsewhere for retraining in other jobs, he said.

He concluded his oration with a firm appeal to the House: “I’m calling in my chips (sic); I have helped automobiles and I have helped steel. This is an American fight.” He received a standing ovation.

Rep. Sam Gibbons (D-Fla.) responded: “I have no chips; I don’t play poker with the country’s future. In 6,500 years of recorded history . . . no nation has ever raised its standard of living by restricting its imports.”

Gibbons contended that the reduction in imports would increase clothing prices, becoming “a new tax Americans will pay as they purchase their shoes, their coats, their underwear, their socks.”

The import legislation, approved by Congress in December, became the focus of political concern and resentment over the trade issue: Employment is slumping in manufacturing industries and the nation’s trade deficit is headed toward a record.

The Administration feared that other countries would curtail their purchases of American goods, ranging from farm products to computer components, in response to any curbs on textiles. And Democrats foresaw trade as a strong election-year issue.

43 Democrats Back Veto

In Wednesday’s action, 205 Democrats and 71 Republicans voted to override the veto, while the President was supported by 43 Democrats and 106 Republicans.

The bill’s backers had hoped to win more GOP votes. But the White House picked up some wavering votes through the recent agreement to open Japan’s market to U.S.-made computer chips and through the decision to sell grain to the Soviet Union at bargain prices, Jenkins said. “The President pulled eight (Republican) votes off me,” he said after the vote.

On Monday, the Administration announced a virtual freeze on textile imports from South Korea, emphasizing that it was acting in a determined fashion to protect American interests. But the domestic textile industry was not satisfied with the last-minute announcement and insisted that imports must be significantly reduced.