U.S. Textile Policy Is No Bargain : How a crazy quilt of protectionist laws drives up the price of clothing

Once again ugly protectionist sentiments that could wreck attempts to put new order to world trade are emerging in Washington. If myopic legislators have their way, consumers will wind up paying more for clothes and shoes while U.S. textile and apparel makers will get fat, happy and complacent because of less competition from imports.

That’s unfair, uncompetitive and unrealistic given today’s global marketplace. Nevertheless, the House is expected to pass a textile bill that would further restrict imports of textiles, apparel and footwear. The Senate already has overwhelmingly approved a similar measure that would limit the growth of such imports to 1% a year. The Bush Administration has threatened to veto the ill-conceived bill--and rightly so.

Legislators are alarmingly persistent when it comes to protecting textile and apparel makers. Two earlier textile bills were killed by presidential vetoes. The textile and apparel industries already are heavily protected by 1,000 quotas established under 38 bilateral agreements and negotiated under the international Multifiber Agreement.

The new bill not only would abrogate these agreements but would jeopardize the current international trade talks where the Bush Administration has proposed global textile quotas. The plan would phase down the hodgepodge of current quotas over a 10-year period to allow adequate transition time to more normal textiles- and apparel-trading arrangements.

Notably, the American Apparel Manufacturers Assn. is backing the Administration. And its neutral stance on the textile bill is a big departure from its usual knee-jerk support of U.S. textile interests. Perhaps apparel makers see the potential in opening more overseas markets: U.S. clothing exports rose 38% in 1989 and were up 22% in the first quarter of this year.

It’s hard to justify expanded protection for the textile industry. Mills are operating at a better utilization rate than the U.S. manufacturing sector as a whole, and shipments are up. Unemployment in the major textile states has been generally lower than the national unemployment average.

Ultimately, consumers would wind up paying the costs of the textile bill--$160 billion in the first five years. Current quotas and tariffs, for example, already add $2,100 to the annual clothing costs of a family of four. That would rise to $2,600 in five years under the bill. Low-income shoppers would suffer the most.

California would, too. If our trading partners import less cotton (the state’s No. 1 agricultural export) because we won’t take their finished cloth products, fewer goods are likely to wend through the ports of Los Angeles, where the garment center is second only to New York. The textile bill is a no-win proposition. The House should dump it.