On some segments, certainly, on some segments. For example, after World
War Two, largely because of its own fault, the American textile
machinery industry lost large portions of its world market to Japanese
and European manufacturers. Certain marketing decisions were made,
certain manufacturing decisions were made that contributed to this
problem. Other structural reasons came about. In
Page 26
Germany, Dornier [unknown] was no longer allowed to
produce bombers so they produced looms and they did a very good job of
it. The Japanese had to start rebuilding from scratch. So sometimes they
didn't have the old mills still in place, still dragging back people who
wanted to move ahead. But a great part of it was the fault of our own
people that didn't look ahead, and see ahead. So what has happened is
we've lost a large part of that industry now. The cost to get back in,
once you've lost it, becomes so awesome, that what I think that we ought
to do, both the industry and the government is look at the segments of
our industry, which we didn't do, for example, in the shoe industry, and
say, which of these segments is it in our national interest to protect?
I really am embarrassed because if we had a general mobilization we
could not shoe our soldiers, sailors, marines, and air force. And I
think that's awful, I really do. We don't even have that capacity to
take care of ourselves.
I don't think that we should give long-term blanket protection—no way—I
do feel that there are elements of our industry, and I think we've
defined some of them in our report to the Congress, to the OTA, that do
not need any protection. They compete very well in the global market.
Leave them alone. Fine. There are elements of the industry that are
never going to be competitive on a global standpoint, if there is no
strategic necessity, don't try. It's just putting money down a sink
hole. In the middle,
Page 27 there are some segments of
the industry where I think we deserve to look at them and say Ok there
are certain of these segments that we want to maintain at least some
manufacturing capacity in the U.S. What will it take in the way of some
scheme, say, of some short-term protection, maybe five years
maximum—combined with some research funds, maybe Fund X supplied by the
federal government that has to be matched by Y from industry and maybe
even by Z from states? I don't know. But something that says, Hey, we'll
give you time and help but when we come to that kind of subsidation of
research, don't do like you do with the cotton—just give them the
money—institute some control. I want a report. I want to see what you do
with the money. The Japanese did this with their fiber industry. They
had a five-year plan, rationalization. Get it into shape. At the end of
the five years, all of the fiber producers had been able to get to the
point at the end of five years of both subsidation and control that they
were competitive. Except for their polyester and the government then
said, OK, you guys have screwed up. You really didn't do as well as you
should… But you made some progress so we're going to give you another
five years. And here's what you've got to do. So they started that. As
long as you've got some control, some monitor for it, I think it's a
perfectly reasonable thing to do with public money. I don't think it's
lies to throw money down a sink hole. Hell, no. It's my tax money, too.
But this is the type of thing that I would certainly advocate,
Page 28 that we take that long hard look.
Now, in the question of something like Benetton…is it of national
importance for us to be able to produce women's and children's sweaters
in the United States? Probably not. Is it important for us, on the other
hand, to be able to produce thermal-type clothing from the military
standpoint? Yes. Do we have to do it by knitting them in
sweaters—traditionally, people in the Navy have always had big bulky
sweaters and so forth—or, is it better to do it with some non-wovens and
some type of nylon and so forth as a substitute? It doesn't take that
much to look at that and say, Hey, well, we really need to protect some
segment of the sweater industry or we don't. But, when you come down to
things like socks. I've been in the Army, and socks are terribly
important. Socks and underwear. Far more important than the rest of the
stuff. There's a comfort factor that's really awfully important. Right
now, the socks and underwear are not being threatened by imports. Mostly
because you've got about 4% labor factor in that so that the cheap labor
doesn't give them an advantage. But, at some point, they may be
threatened, because of marketing, because of other reasons. I don't
know. So I think that we ought to start taking a look at that, right
now. Before something happens, before the stuff hits the fan. And say,
hey, in this industry, how much of this kind of product should we
maintain in the U.S. and how do we do it?
And I think the most important part of the equation, to
Page 29 me, is the research. Really set up national research policy
that keeps us in tune with the market. The Japanese put 60 million
dollars into their project—public money. The European community—I'll be
over there in Brussels on May 13th, talking with them—they put up 30
million bucks. Has to be matched, 50-50, with industry. To do the same
kind of research. In the United States, we have a few projects,
sponsored by the Department of Commerce, the Department of Defense—with
a few institutions like N.C. State, Georgia Tech—doing some research.
It's not coordinated, much less controlled, much less supervised. It's
happening. I think it's important enough for us to say that we really
ought to insist that somewhere along the line that the importance of
this industrial complex and base to this country is being recognized by
saying that here is a focus, that all of the people who are interested,
all of the people who are concerned, all of the people who want to do
some research and so forth can focus on. I think that's terribly
important. And I think the protection is only important as it helps,
once an area of valid research is defined, if we say, OK, it's going to
take four years, three years, six years, whatever. And for that period
of time, we are going to have quotas.
Actually, of course, what you could do, too, is you could finance the
whole damn thing with the tariff income. If you decided, hey, we need a
hundred million dollars for research, every penny of it could be taken
out of the tariffs
Page 30 because that much more than
that flows in. So it could be a self-supporting type of thing.