Message to the House of
Representatives Returning Without Approval the Textile Apparel and Footwear
Trade Act of 1988
To
the House of Representatives:
I
am returning without my approval H.R. 1154, the ``Textile Apparel and Footwear
Trade Act of 1988,'' a bill that would have disastrous effects on the
This
bill represents protectionism at its worst. The supposed benefits of the bill
would be temporary at best. Protectionism does not save jobs. Only improved
competitiveness can truly protect jobs, yet there is nothing in this bill that
would encourage domestic industries to become more competitive. At a time when
American exports are booming, the
Moreover,
there is no economic justification for the bill. Fibers consumed by
When
I vetoed an earlier version of the textile bill 3 years ago, I directed the
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to renegotiate the Multi-Fiber
Arrangement -- the multilateral agreement that sets the rules for trade in
textiles -- in order to strengthen our ability to control textile and apparel
imports. That task was accomplished on
At
the same time I am sensitive to the difficulties that families and communities
face because of internal restructuring in the textile, apparel, and footwear
industries. This bill would not stop these trends. They are the inevitable
result of a dynamic, expanding economy. The best way to help displaced workers
is to retrain them for new jobs. Thanks to dislocated workers assistance, Trade
Adjustment Assistance, and the Worker Readjustment Assistance Program I
proposed, many services are now available for workers who must shift jobs as
the economy adjusts to competitive challenges. Our goal must be to retrain and
move dislocated workers into the industries of the future, not to maintain them
in noncompetitive and inefficient facilities at all costs.
Our
free and fair trade policies have created 17 million new jobs in the past 6
years. The percentage of the working-age population now employed is the highest
in our Nation's history. Exports are running at record levels, and our
manufacturing industries are stronger and more competitive than they have been
in a decade. H.R. 1154 would threaten these gains by setting off a dangerous
chain reaction of retaliation and counter-retaliation in the international
trade system.
Three
years ago I announced an aggressive, growth-oriented trade strategy aimed at
opening markets currently closed to American exporters. Since then we have
challenged unfair trade practices around the world and negotiated trade
agreements that have created significant export opportunities for American
firms. In August I signed into law the ``Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act
of 1988,'' which provides additional tools for prying open closed foreign
markets. And today I am approving legislation to implement the U.S.-Canada Free
Trade Agreement, a historic trade pact that will create the world's largest
free trade area. The protectionism of H.R. 1154 is the antithesis of the free
trade principles of these two laws.
Ronald
Reagan
The
White House,