CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE

March 1, 1967

Page 4983

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I wish to support the eloquent remarks of the senior Senator from Rhode Island.

What we are talking about, here today, is preventive medicine. We do not want another situation to develop as it did in the 1950's when many textile mills were forced to close or relocate. If we act now, to see that the textile program adopted by the Federal Government in 1961 is fully and effectively implemented, we can lick this problem.

We are discussing the livelihood of some 4 million Americans. During the last 5 years, textile imports have risen threefold from 1 to 3 billion square yards. Under the terms of the original long-term cotton agreement, imports were permitted a growth of 5 percent a year, whereas in actual practice during the last 3 years, cotton imports have expanded by 53, 66 and 39 percent, respectively. Imports agreements have never been concluded with respect to wool and synthetic fibers. The effect has been to create job opportunities in other nations at the expense of the domestic textile industry. Unless our Government takes a firm stand, many of our existing jobs could well be in jeopardy.

I would like to emphasize a specific example, wool import loopholes. There is a long record of importers using technicalities in existing customs regulations to import wool-blend products, taking advantage of lower wool tariff rates rather than the higher rate normally imposed on the blend product. On two occasions, bills have been enacted into law closing loopholes. This year I have joined the junior Senator from Georgia, as I did in the last Congress, in cosponsoring legislation designed to close another loophole, that of wool/silk blend textiles. In the meantime, still one more loophole has already appeared -- laminated wool cloth.

To close one of these loopholes requires the enactment of legislation. Administration support must be obtained. Hearings must be held. Because of the cumbersome process required, it takes a period between 2 to 3 years to close the door on a given loophole once imports begin to flow through. For example, domestic woolen manufacturers are still facing competition from wool/rabbit fur blend products on the dealers' shelves today even though the loophole was closed by enactment of legislation in April 1966.

If we take wool/silk blend imports from Italy, as a. concrete example, we see that imports have risen from 1,216 square yards in 1964, to 82,250 square yards in 1965, to 1,849,629 square yards in 1966. In the face of this clearly unfair competition, I know of two mills in my State that have closed while others have been forced to curtail their production, operating with a vastly reduced work force.

Since loopholes are only one small part of the overall textile import problem, it is easy to see that the dimensions are awesome, the impact devastating on employment in the domestic industry.

Strong medicine is needed now before the patient faces the chronic problems encountered in the 1950's.

One answer is through more rapid action to close loopholes. We must do away with the lengthy period between identification and closing wool loopholes. Quicker action by the Tariff Commission and the Congress is an urgent necessity.

Another approach must be enforcement of the existing Wool Products Labeling Act provisions to eliminate deliberate mislabeling of foreign products. That act requires strict compliance with expensive and extensive record keeping by domestic manufacturers and sellers subject to the law.

While the act always has applied to imports entering interstate commerce, as well as to domestic articles, in fact there has been little or no enforcement on foreign-made wool products. It has become increasingly apparent that foreign manufacturers were not conforming to the law. This gives imports an added, wholly unwarranted advantage over properly labeled domestic articles and misinforms the consumer.

To correct this enforcement inequity, the Federal Trade Commission late in 1966 issued proposed rule 36 to the Wool Products Labeling Act and held a public hearing on it. In essence the proposed rule would require that importers establish by tests that their goods are correctly labeled before importing them to the United States. The proposed rule has drawn strong complaints from importers and exporting nations. I understand representations have been made to the State Department alleging that the rule would constitute a non-tariff barrier to trade and would violate GATT.

It cannot be overlooked that the Wool Products Labeling Act, a congressional statute, had been in effect years before the GATT, an executive agreement, came into being. Moreover, the objections would seem to indicate that the complainants fear that a major portion of their exports are mislabeled. To say the least, it is difficult to understand why anyone properly labeling his exports to the United States should complain of a procedure aimed at increasing his protection against mislabeled wool products in the American market.

I commend the Federal Trade Commission for its proposal to enforce the WPLA against imported wool products and urge that rule 36 be put into effect as soon as possible.

The message is clear. We have a problem. Action is justified. We can see where some of the answers lie: greater control over wool, cotton, and synthetic imports as envisioned by the textile policy originally adopted in 1961, the rapid closing of all wool-blend import loopholes and strict enforcement of the Wool Products Labeling Act. If these actions are not taken, stronger medicine may be required. If we cannot accomplish the job with the tools we now have, stronger laws must be enacted, more rigid import controls must be imposed. The livelihood of 4 million Americans is at stake_