Senate Votes Curbs on Textile, Apparel Imports : Backers Tell Need for ‘Protectionism,’ Debate Strategy in Face of Expected Veto

The Senate today approved new limits on imports of textiles, clothing and shoes, defying the threat of a veto just weeks before November elections.

The bill, aimed at protecting American manufacturers from foreign competition, would freeze this year’s imports of textiles, apparel and non-rubber footwear at 1987 levels and limit their growth to 1% annually thereafter.

It also would bar foreign manufacturers of non-rubber footwear from increasing their share of the American market beyond existing levels.

“Yes, I’m a protectionist,” Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.), the bill’s sponsor, said after the Senate approved the measure 57 to 32. “Man, foreign importers are trading our shirts off of us. We’re going broke. We need protection.”

Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.), a supporter of the legislation, said failing to act now would “deprive American workers of jobs they could have.”

Both supporters and opponents of the bill were frustrated by the roll call, which produced neither the two-thirds support needed to guarantee an override of a presidential veto nor enough opposition to assure that a veto would be sustained.

11 Senators Not Voting

Eleven senators did not vote.

Reagan Administration officials have said they would recommend a presidential veto.

If the legislation, as now seems likely, arrives on President Reagan’s desk, the Administration will be forced to make a political decision.

A veto would hand Democrats the material to paint Republicans as insensitive to the blue-collar workers that Vice President George Bush is attempting to court. There has been some talk in the cloakroom about dragging out the proceedings long enough to enable Reagan to use a so-called pocket veto after Congress adjourns a month from now. When Congress is not in session, the President may in effect veto the legislation simply by refusing to sign it.

Opponents are seeking to delay until next week sending the bill back to the House, which passed a similar version in September, 1987, but now must decide whether to go along with the Senate changes.

Supporters say the bill would save American jobs that would be lost to overseas competition without some protection for hard-pressed U.S. companies. Critics say textile companies are thriving, partly because of import restraints already in place and also due to modernization that followed a surge in imports in the early 1980s.

Dull Competitive Edge

Additional protection would merely dull U.S. industry’s competitive edge, the critics say.

“Somewhere along the way, we became slack or fat and we did not have to compete,” Sen. Bob Packwood (R-Ore.) said. “Anything we made, good or shoddy, could be sold in the United States or sold overseas.”

He said the rejuvenation of European and Japanese industry after World War II and the resulting surge of competition came as a shock to American industry.

“We weren’t used to it, but we’re getting used to it now,” Packwood said. “There’s no question that we can compete and we are competing now.”

Hollings said after the vote that he is not worried about an expected veto.

“Veto or no veto, I’ll be back next year,” Hollings said. “I’ve been doing this for 25 years and each year we pick up more and more support because each year we pick up more understanding as to the dilemma the United States finds itself in in industrial competition.”