Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ben

Protecting American Textile Manufacturing Act

Recommended Posts

 

 

Quote

 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 

Mr. Seymour (for himself, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Tilsley, Mr. Hall, Mr. Augustus King, Mr. Blackstone, Ms. DuBois-Granger, and Mr. Krol, with thanks to Mr. Butler and Mr. McMillan) introduced the following bill;

A BILL

 

To protect the textile industry in the United States.

 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

 This Act may be cited as the “Protecting American Textile Manufacturing Act”.

SECTION 2. PROHIBITION OF RUSSIAN IMPORTS.

(a) The importation of textiles or textile products, broadly defined, from the Soviet Union is hereby illegal.

(b) Individuals or firms which illegally bring textiles or textile products into the United States from the Soviet Union, whether directly or indirectly, are liable for prosecution under appropriate statutes.

 

SECTION 3. TEXTILE MACHINERY IMPROVEMENTS.

(a) There is hereby established in the Treasury the Textile Machinery Modernization Fund.

(b) All customs duties imposed on textile machinery and parts imported into the United States shall be deposited into the Textile Machinery Modernization Fund, established in subsection (a) of this section.

(c) Revenues in the Textile Machinery Modernization Fund shall be appropriated to research projects for the modernization of the United States textile machinery industry.

 

SECTION 4. INCREASE IN IMPORT QUOTAS.

(a) For imports of textiles and textile products:

(i) In 1987, the total amount of such imports shall not exceed 101 percent of the total allowable amount of such imports in 1986;

(ii) For each subsequent year, the total amount of such exports shall not exceed 101 percent of the total allowable amount of such imports in the preceding year.

(b) For imports of nonrubber footwear:

(i) In 1987, the total amount of such imports shall not exceed 101 percent of the total allowable amount of such imports in 1986;

(ii) For each subsequent year, the total amount of such exports shall not exceed 101 percent of the total allowable amount of such imports in the preceding year.

(c) The limitation imposed under this section shall not apply to imports of textiles, textile products, and nonrubber footwear if both:

(i) such articles are exempt from duty under the Tariff Schedules of the United States; and

(ii) such articles are manufactured by U.S. citizens, nationals, or permanent residents.

 

SECTION 5. TRADE NEGOTIATIONS.

(a) The President is hereby authorized to:

(i) enter into trade agreements to grant new concessions as compensation, to the extent required under U.S. trade agreements for the import limits imposed by this Act; and

(ii) proclaim such modification or continuance of any existing duty on textiles, textile products, and nonrubber footwear as necessary to carry out such agreements, consistent with this Act.

(b) The President is hereby prohibited from:

(i) reducing any rate of duty on textiles, textile products, or nonrubber footwear by more than ten percent;

(ii) entering into trade negotiations with any country with respect to duties on textiles, textile products, and nonrubber footwear outside of the provisions of this Act; and

(iii) decreasing or proposing a decrease in any such duty by any means, including an implementing bill or a proclamation, outside of the provisions of this Act.

(c) Before entering into any trade agreement covering textiles, textile products, or nonrubber footwear, the President must consider whether such country has violated trade concessions of benefit to the United States and such violation has not been adequately offset by U.S. action or by the action of such country.

 

References:

Section 2

Section 3

Section 4 et seq.

 

 

 

72 Hours to Debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Storm said:

Mr.Speaker,

 

I motion for unanimous consent.

 

I Yield

 

UC recognized, 24 hours to object.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr.Speaker,

 

I would like to ask why the Congresswoman from California 45th congressional district  objected to this bill?, cause objecting to this bill due to the fact of just pure partisanship is ridiculous. This bill not revives our textiles manufacturing sector, but it stands firm in our opposition to the Soviet Union and eliminates any type of trade with them. Denying this bill right of passage is sympathizing with communists.sympathizing with a regime that deny's the basic liberties that we enjoy within our own nation, everywhere else in this world.

 

I call for my fellow congresswoman to remove her opposition to this bill, and allow it pass with UC. Stand with your country, oppose communism, and help revitalize our textile manufacturers

 

I Yield. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker,

 

What's the rush? I happen to support this bill, but I feel some of my colleagues don't support it or have some problems with this bill. We should use this time allotted to work on this bill and maybe we, as a congress, can come off as bi-partisan working together, just an idea for the House Minority Leader. Lets not rush this and make this bill as perfect as it can be and not mess up this great opportunity that my colleague from South Carolina has presented us. 

 

I yield

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Christopher Williams said:

Mr. Speaker, 

 

I reject. 

 

I yield.

 

I assume you mean you "object"? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker,

 

I rise out of concern. My distinguished colleague from Virginia has asked "what's the rush?" to pass this bill. That is incredibly alarming. The rush is to protect American jobs, and American workers my dear Americans. I am certainly willing to work with others in this chamber on how to improve the bill, but to casually ask why we would be in a hurry to protect these workers and these American jobs, that is incredibly alarming to me, and I strongly ask my colleague to reconsider his stance on that. Please all who are in this chamber, please do take into account the well being of the American worker, and not be so dismissive of their well being. I am sure that was not my colleague's intention, but that is how it came off to me, and undoubtedly many Americans would feel the same as well. With that said, 

I Yield. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker,

 

I didn't mean it like that, to answer my colleague from Massachusetts concern, however what's alarming to me is that the House Minority Leader has motion to suspend the rules and pass every bill on the docket via UC, not to mention all the bills he put on the docket have been introduced from his party, but WE are the highly partisan party *chuckles*. Anyways, that's not the point. The point is that we shouldn't rush this bill. We should debate on it, vote on it, and move along, like stated in the rules of this chamber. I get some bills are time sensitive due to certain situations, but I don't feel like this bill needs to be pushed through to meet a certain time frame. Let's do this the right way and not mess this opportunity up.

 

I yield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Rangerboy said:

Mr. Speaker,

 

What's the rush? I happen to support this bill, but I feel some of my colleagues don't support it or have some problems with this bill. We should use this time allotted to work on this bill and maybe we, as a congress, can come off as bi-partisan working together, just an idea for the House Minority Leader. Lets not rush this and make this bill as perfect as it can be and not mess up this great opportunity that my colleague from South Carolina has presented us. 

 

I yield

 

Mr.Speaker,

 

It's actually House Majority Leader, Congressman. What's the rush?, I know that under the Reagan administration, many members in the Republican party have become more emboldened to their rich donors, than the blue collar working Americans.  The rush Congressman, is that our textile manufacturing sector is losing steam. Textile workers are losing jobs, being paid low wages, and are being left behind as the Rich surges forwards. 

 

What's the rush?, the rush is that we must do everything we can to ensure that hard working American families can pay their bills on time and make ends meet, and we must do so also by not supporting the dangerous communist Soviet Union regime.

 

But since there is no sense of urgency as provided by the Gentlemen from Virginia, lets make this bill better then.

 

  If you want to make this bill better then provide a suggestion, better yet tell us what is wrong with this bill in it's present state. An objection without cause  is simply just political gridlock. An objection to a bill that halts textile trade to a communist nation seems to be  just sympathizing with a derogatory regime.  But I do believe in the spirit of bipartisanship to get the job done, and I would like  to believe that my "comrades" excuse me colleagues within the Republican party stand firmly against the Soviet Union as much as the rest of the nation. So I will ask once again for the Gentlelady from California to explain her opposition and for the Gentlemen from Virginia to provide a fix to this bill as he has insinuated. 

 

I Yield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr.Speaker,

 

The Gentleman from Virginia seems to have a problem with me using the powers which have granted to me within my position, and procedures within the house. The gentleman maybe having a long day as I have only requested Unanimous consent on this bill due to ability to halt trade with the soviet union, the esteemed gentleman can't even get my position right. But we have been here for hours and trust me I understand.

 

This bill has been up for vote for a while now, and I don't see an amendment or a suggestion in sight. So I ask for my esteemed colleges in the minority to please let us know what you're objections are so we use our time working on the bill, instead of staring at each other.

 

I Yield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Christopher Williams said:

 

Your assumption would be accurate, Mr. Speaker.

 

UC objected to, debate continues.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker,

 

I motion to amend the bill, as follows:

 

Quote

 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

 This Act may be cited as the “Protecting American Textile Manufacturing Act”.

SECTION 2. PROHIBITION OF RUSSIAN IMPORTS.

(a) The importation of textiles or textile products, broadly defined, from the Soviet Union is hereby illegal.

(b) Individuals or firms which illegally bring textiles or textile products into the United States from the Soviet Union, whether directly or indirectly, are liable for prosecution under appropriate statutes.

 

SECTION 3. TEXTILE MACHINERY IMPROVEMENTS.

(a) There is hereby established in the Treasury the Textile Machinery Modernization Fund.

(b) All customs duties imposed on textile machinery and parts imported into the United States shall be deposited into the Textile Machinery Modernization Fund, established in subsection (a) of this section.

(c) Revenues in the Textile Machinery Modernization Fund shall be appropriated to research projects for the modernization of the United States textile machinery industry.

 

SECTION 4. INCREASE IN IMPORT QUOTAS.

(a) For imports of textiles and textile products:

(i) In 1987, the total amount of such imports shall not exceed 101 percent of the total allowable amount of such imports in 1986;

(ii) For each subsequent year, the total amount of such exports shall not exceed 101 percent of the total allowable amount of such imports in the preceding year.

(b) For imports of nonrubber footwear:

(i) In 1987, the total amount of such imports shall not exceed 101 percent of the total allowable amount of such imports in 1986;

(ii) For each subsequent year, the total amount of such exports shall not exceed 101 percent of the total allowable amount of such imports in the preceding year.

(c) The limitation imposed under this section shall not apply to imports of textiles, textile products, and nonrubber footwear if both:

(i) such articles are exempt from duty under the Tariff Schedules of the United States; and

(ii) such articles are manufactured by U.S. citizens, nationals, or permanent residents.

 

SECTION 5. TRADE NEGOTIATIONS.

(a) The President is hereby authorized to:

(i) enter into trade agreements to grant new concessions as compensation, to the extent required under U.S. trade agreements for the import limits imposed by this Act; and

(ii) proclaim such modification or continuance of any existing duty on textiles, textile products, and nonrubber footwear as necessary to carry out such agreements, consistent with this Act.

(b) The President is hereby prohibited from:

(i) reducing any rate of duty on textiles, textile products, or nonrubber footwear by more than ten percent;

(ii) entering into trade negotiations with any country with respect to duties on textiles, textile products, and nonrubber footwear outside of the provisions of this Act; and

(iii) decreasing or proposing a decrease in any such duty by any means, including an implementing bill or a proclamation, outside of the provisions of this Act.

(c) Before entering into any trade agreement covering textiles, textile products, or nonrubber footwear, the President must consider whether such country has violated trade concessions of benefit to the United States and such violation has not been adequately offset by U.S. action or by the action of such country.


 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker,

 

I also object to my colleague's amendment. It is a move to remove any teeth from this legislation and that is a frustrating attempt at politics by the minority party. Let's work to aid our American workers, that is what we were sent here to do. 

 

I Yield. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr.Speaker,

 

I second the gentlelady from California's amendment.

 

I yield. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr.Speaker,

 

I applaud my colleague from California's  45th for finally proposing an amendment, despite having to be asked to, but I digress. I second the Gentlelady's amendment.

 

I Yield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Motion to Amend recognized, please vote here:

 

 

As for the objections to the amendment, they are noted, but have no parliamentary bearing.

Edited by Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.