In recent months the complex of US fiber, textile and apparel industries was pleased to witness the passage of legislation by large majorities of both houses of Congress which would mandate binding import quotas on textile and apparel products coming into the United States. In passing such legislation, the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives agreed that these measures were needed in order to put into effect import-slowing measures that should have and could have been implemented if the Administration had fully utilized the provisions available to it in international and bilateral agreements. In the debate preceding the passage of this legislation, its opponents claimed that the legislation was unnecessary because the industry was already highly protected and the legislation was inflationary and would cost consumers billions of dollars. It was also claimed that this legislation would seriously harm foreign exporters of textiles and apparel to the U.S. and would lead to significant retaliation by these same countries. The President of the United States, citing some of these arguments, vetoed the legislation on December 18.

The purpose of this paper is:

(1) To argue that the objections raised against textile quotas are incorrect, misleading and not supported by the facts. (2) To argue that the textile quotas themselves can produce benefits to those very elements which have argued against them -- namely, domestic consumers, foreign suppliers, and US agricultural interests. (3) To argue that the import problems of the U.S. fiber, textile and apparel industry, if left unattended, will spill over into other U.S. manufacturing and service industries.