U.S. Textile Manufacturing and the
Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations
Michaela D. Platzer
Specialist in Industrial Organization and Business
October 5, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42772
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

---

U.S. Textile Manufacturing and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations

Summary
Textiles are a major issue in the ongoing Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations to establish
a free-trade zone across the Pacific. Because the negotiating parties include Vietnam, a major
apparel producer that now mainly sources yarns and fabrics from China and other Asian nations,
the agreement has the potential to shift global trading patterns for textiles and demand for U.S.
textile exports. Canada and Mexico, both significant regional textile markets for the United
States, have also been accepted into the TPP talks.
U.S. textile manufacturers produce yarn, thread, and fabric for apparel, home furnishings, and for
various industrial applications. In 2011, the U.S. textile industry generated $53 billion in
shipments and directly employed about 238,000 Americans, accounting for 2% of all U.S. factory
jobs. Approximately one-third of U.S. textile production is exported, with the bulk of the exports
going to Western Hemisphere nations that are members of the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) or the Central American-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement
(CAFTA-DR). Both free trade agreements provide that certain exports from member countries
may enter the U.S. market duty-free only if they are made from textiles produced in the region.
This has encouraged manufacturers in Mexico and Central America to use U.S.-made yarns and
fabrics in apparel, home furnishings, and other products. Exports to the NAFTA and CAFTA-DR
countries contributed to a U.S. trade surplus of $2.5 billion in yarns and fabrics in 2011.
The TPP has the potential to affect U.S. textile exporters in at least two ways. First, it could
enable Asian apparel producers, principally Vietnam, to export clothing to the United States duty-
free. This would eliminate much of the advantage now enjoyed by Western Hemisphere apparel
producers in the U.S. market and, because Vietnamese manufacturers make little use of U.S.-
made textiles, could reduce demand for U.S. textile exports. Second, if the TPP were to allow
Western Hemisphere apparel manufacturers to use yarn and fabric made anywhere in the TPP
region and still enjoy preferential access to the U.S. market, an enlarged Vietnamese textile
industry could, at some future time, compete with U.S. exporters in Mexico and Central America.
Textile industry trade groups have urged the United States to insist on a “yarn forward” rule,
requiring that yarn production, fabric production, and cutting and sewing of the finished garment
all occur within the TPP region for the garment to enter the United States duty-free. On the other
side, retailers and apparel companies want to be able to import apparel from the lowest-cost
producer, regardless of whether U.S. textiles are used; they urge that textiles and apparel be
treated like other products in any TPP agreement. Members of Congress have voiced their support
for both sides.
The TPP seems likely to have less impact on those segments of the U.S. textile industry that do
not supply apparel manufacturing. U.S. manufacturers of household and technical textiles appear
to be internationally competitive, and it is not evident that lower-wage countries would have
comparative advantage in these highly capital-intensive sectors.

Congressional Research Service

---

U.S. Textile Manufacturing and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations

Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
The U.S. Textile Industry and Its Markets....................................................................................... 2
The Textile Manufacturing Process ........................................................................................... 3
Domestic Textile Production............................................................................................................ 4
Global Textile Trade Shifts .............................................................................................................. 6
U.S. Trade in Textile Products................................................................................................... 8
Sourcing in the Western Hemisphere......................................................................................... 9
TPP and Sourcing from Vietnam ................................................................................................... 12
Textiles and the TPP Negotiations ................................................................................................. 15
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 17

Figures
Figure 1. Major Products of the Fiber, Textile, and Apparel Industries........................................... 3
Figure 2. Textile Manufacturing Employment................................................................................. 6
Figure 3. Top Global Textile Exporters............................................................................................ 7
Figure 4. U.S. Fabric and Yarn Exports to the Western Hemisphere............................................. 11
Figure 5. U.S. Apparel Imports, 2000-2011................................................................................... 13
Figure 6. Major Production Steps for the Textile and Apparel Sector ........................................... 15

Tables
Table 1. U.S. Exports of Textile Mill Products to the World ........................................................... 8
Table 2. U.S. Yarn and Fabric Exports, by Countries or Region ..................................................... 9

Appendixes
Appendix A. Selected U.S. Textile Manufacturers ........................................................................ 18
Appendix B. Textile Industry Overview ........................................................................................ 19
Appendix C. Top Ten Textile Employment States ......................................................................... 20
Appendix D. Selected Apparel and Textile Duties ........................................................................ 21

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 22
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 22

Congressional Research Service

---

U.S. Textile Manufacturing and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations

Introduction
The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) is a proposed regional free trade agreement
(FTA) currently under negotiation among 11 Pacific Rim countries. Initiated under President
George W. Bush, the TPP concept has wide bipartisan support.1 As the negotiations progress,
provisions concerning textile trade have become a major point of contention, attracting
considerable congressional attention and debate. This report examines the potential implications
of a prospective TPP agreement on the U.S. textile manufacturing industry.
In 2011, the United States exported nearly $14 billion in yarns and fabrics worldwide. Almost
two-thirds of this output was sold to Western Hemisphere nations that are members of the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)2 or the Central American-Dominican Republic Free
Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR).3 Both FTAs provide that certain exports from member countries
may enter the U.S. market duty-free only if they are made from textiles produced in the region.
This has encouraged manufacturers in Mexico and Central America to use U.S.-made yarns and
fabrics in apparel, home furnishings, and other products. Exports to the NAFTA and CAFTA-DR
countries contributed to a U.S. trade surplus of $2.5 billion in yarns and fabrics in 2011.4
The TPP marks the first FTA negotiation for the United States after the complete end of quotas on
textile and apparel trade.5 Duty-free access to the U.S. market under TPP could be of considerable
benefit to Asian manufacturers, which now face U.S. import duties on textiles and apparel of up
to 32%. Textile industry trade groups have warned that, if approved, the TPP could lead to
domestic job loss if it results in apparel producers in the Western Hemisphere, which often use
U.S.-made textiles, losing U.S. market share to producers in Vietnam and other TPP countries.6
Aligned against them are retailers and apparel companies that want to be able to import apparel
from the lowest-cost producer, regardless of whether U.S. textiles are used; they urge full
inclusion of textiles and apparel in any TPP agreement and favor preferential access for apparel
cut and sewn from fabric made in countries not included in the TPP, such as China.7

1 The negotiating partners are the United States, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and
Vietnam. Canada and Mexico will join the negotiations in the fall of 2012. See CRS Report R42694, The Trans-Pacific
Partnership Negotiations and Issues for Congress, coordinated by Ian F. Fergusson.
2 NAFTA (P.L. 103-182) has been in effect since 1994.
3 The CAFTA-DR free trade agreement (P.L. 109-53) was signed in 2004, first with five Central American countries
(Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua) and then with the Dominican Republic. The United
States is also a member. CAFTA-DR is discussed in CRS Report R42468, The Dominican Republic-Central America-
United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA DR): Developments in Trade and Investment, by J. F. Hornbeck.
4 U.S. Commerce Department, Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA), U.S. textiles and apparel trade balance
report. In 2011, U.S. yarn and fabric imports totaled $11.4 billion. The U.S. has posted a small trade surplus in yarns
and fabrics for 17 years.
5 The Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC) ended in 2005, but China remained subject to textile and apparel
quotas through the end of 2008. The other FTAs had been initially concluded and signed by the end of that year.
6 National Council of Textile Organizations, Trade and Jobs, http://www.ncto.org/tradejobs/index.asp.
7 Trans-Pacific Partnership Apparel Coalition, TPP Coalition Position Paper, https://www.usaita.com/pdf_files/
TPPApparelCoalitionPositionPaper.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

U.S. Textile Manufacturing and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations

The U.S. Textile Industry and Its Markets
With $53 billion in industry shipments in 2011, textile manufacturing, which produces yarns and
fabrics from raw materials, is a supplier industry to three industrial sectors.8 The apparel industry,
which transforms textiles into clothing, consumed only 16% of U.S.-made textiles in 2008. Some
44% of textile output went into home furnishings such as carpeting and towels, while 40% was
used in technical textiles such as conveyor belts and automotive floor coverings.9
Whereas textile manufacturing occurs largely in highly automated factories, apparel
manufacturing is characterized by decentralized, globally dispersed production networks that are
coordinated by lead firms that control design, branding, and other activities. Many of the world’s
largest apparel retailing and marketing firms are headquartered in the United States, but U.S.
factories produced only $15 billion of apparel and employed only about 151,000 workers in
2011.10 Most U.S.-headquartered apparel firms have limited or no U.S. manufacturing
capabilities.11 Some manufacture through a combination of facilities they own and third-party
arrangements, often with foreign factories. Others rely entirely on arrangements with third-party
suppliers, mostly in Asia. Large retailers frequently contract directly with apparel sourcing
companies, which in turn portion out the production work to independent manufacturers. The
United States was responsible for 1% of the $350 billion of global apparel exports in 2010.12
The U.S. home furnishings industry has fared far better against import competition than the
apparel industry, largely because manufacturing of carpets, curtains, and table cloths is highly
automated. For example, the development of larger, faster carpet-tufting machines contributed to
a decline in employment at U.S. carpet and rug mills, from 54,700 workers in 2000 to 33,600 in
2011.13 Shipments from U.S. carpet and rug mills totaled $23 billion in 2011.
The output of technical textile mills is used across various industrial sectors. For instance, auto
manufacturers use textiles in air bags, seat covers, and seat belts. By one estimate, U.S. sales of
technical textiles totaled about $31 billion in 2009.14 Approximately 160,000 workers are said to
produce fabrics specifically for the technical textile market.15

8 Shipments, a proxy for production, are from U.S. Census Bureau, Manufacturers’ Shipments, Inventories, and Orders
(M3) Survey, http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/m3/. Fabric and yarn manufacturing are classified under North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 313. Textile product mills (NAICS 314) include plants making
carpets, home linens, tire cord, and other “made-up” textile articles. The apparel sector is classified under NAICS 315.
9 U.S. Census Bureau, The 2011 Statistical Abstract, Manufactures: Nondurable Goods Industries, 2011, Table 1022,
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s1022.pdf.
10 U.S. Census Bureau, Manufacturers’ Shipments, Inventories, and Orders (M3) Survey and U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (Apparel Manufacturing, NAICS 315).
11 Karina Fernandez-Stark, Stacey Frederick, and Gary Gereffi, The Apparel Global Value Chain, Duke University,
Center on Globalization, Governance & Competitiveness, November 2011, pp. 7-16, http://www.cggc.duke.edu/pdfs/
2011-11-11_CGGC_Apparel-Global-Value-Chain.pdf.
12 World Trade Organization (WTO), International Trade Statistics, 2011, Clothing, Table 11.70. http://www.wto.org.
13 BLS, QCEW, Carpet and Rug Mills, (NAICS 3141), accessed July 24, 2012, http://www.bls.gov/cew/.
14 William C. Smith, Technical Textiles 2009, Industrial Textile Associates, State of the Industry, June 5, 2009, p. 12,
http://www.intexa.com/State_of_Industry2009.pdf.
15 Letter to the Honorable Dave Camp and Honorable Sander Levin from the United States Industrial Fabrics Institute
dated April 6, 2011, http://waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/US_Industrial_Fabrics_InstituteTR3.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
2

---

U.S. Textile Manufacturing and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations

The Textile Manufacturing Process
Textile manufacturing begins with fiber, which can be harvested from natural resources (e.g.,
cotton, wool, silk, or ramie), manufactured from cellulosic materials (e.g., rayon or acetate), or
made of man-made synthetic materials (e.g., polyester, nylon, or acrylic). After the raw fibers are
shipped from the farm or the chemical plant, they pass through four main stages of processing
(see Figure 1):
• yarn production, in which fiber is spun into filament or spun yarn;
• fabric production, which can take place at very small mills or large textile mill
operations, and involves primarily either weaving or knitting;
• finishing, which prepares the textiles for further use by processes such as
bleaching, printing, dyeing, and mechanical or wet finishing; and,
• fabrication, where the finished cloth is converted into apparel, household, or
industrial products.
Figure 1. Major Products of the Fiber, Textile, and Apparel Industries

Source: International Trade Commission, Textiles and Apparel: Assessment of the Competitiveness of Certain Foreign
Suppliers to the U.S. Market, Volume 1, Investigation No. 332-448, Publication 3671, Figure 1-1, January 2004.
Each industry segment has a unique business structure, management style, and history. Each is
supported by different kinds of technology, including highly specialized equipment, notably yarn
spinning machines, knitting machines, and looms.
Congressional Research Service
3

---

U.S. Textile Manufacturing and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations

Worldwide, in 2011, the textile industry produced 85.9 million metric tons of textiles. Man-made
fibers accounted for 61% of total production. According to industry analysts, the United States
ranked as the world’s third-largest man-made fiber producer, behind China and India.16 Most of
the global growth in man-made textile manufacturing has taken place in China, which was
responsible for 63% of total production in 2011, up from 26% in 2001. India and the United
States each accounted for 5% of global output of man-made textiles, with the U.S. share declining
from 11% in 2001. No other country produced more than 4% of the global total in 2011.17
Cotton is the most important natural fiber. In the 2011-2012 marketing year, China ranked as the
world’s largest producer of cotton at 7.3 million metric tons, followed by India and the United
States.18 Other large cotton producers include Pakistan, Brazil, Australia, and Uzbekistan. Many
of the leading cotton producers are also leading mill users of raw cotton. The top three consumers
of cotton are China, India, and Pakistan, which together account for two-thirds of world
consumption. Consumption of cotton by U.S. textile mills peaked in 1997. Since then, due to the
decrease in domestic textile production caused by competition from imported textile and apparel
products, U.S. mill use of cotton has dropped about 70%.19 In the 2011-2012 marketing year,
around 75% of U.S. cotton production was exported. As for other natural fibers, two TPP
negotiating partners, Australia and New Zealand, are among the world’s leading wool growing
nations.20 Vietnam is a top ten producer of silk, but accounts for only a small portion of global
production. China and India are the world’s two largest producers.21
Domestic Textile Production
U.S. textile output has been growing since 2009 after several years of decline. The value of
shipments was $53 billion in 2011, a 4% increase over 2010. This amounted to 1% of total U.S.
manufacturing shipments. Approximately 9,000 companies are engaged in the business, but 50 of
the largest companies accounted for about 60% of total industry revenue.22 Appendix A provides
an overview of selected U.S.-headquartered textile manufacturers.
According to the National Council of Textile Organizations (NCTO), 565 textile plants have been
shuttered since 2000. Most of these closures occurred in the early 2000s, including 124 in 2001
and 82 in 2003. A total of 12 plants closed in 2010 and 2011.23 Despite these trends, a few textile
manufacturers have thrived, and several have established new domestic manufacturing facilities.

16 Andreas Engelhardt, The Fiber Year 2012, World Survey on Textiles & Nonwovens, May 2012, p. 1,
http://www.thefiberyear.com/pdf/Tfy_Toc_2012.pdf.
17 Ibid, p. 131, Table 10.11, http://www.thefiberyear.com/pdf/Tfy_Toc_2012.pdf. The Fiber Year report shows global
production of man-made fibers in millions of tonnes.
18 U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Gains Market Share as Competitor’s Exports Fall, September 2012, p. 6,
http://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/current/cotton-market/cotton-market-09-12-2012.pdf.
19 United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, Cotton: World Markets and Trade, August
10, 2012, http://www.fas.usda.gov/cotton_arc.asp.
20 Fiber Year 2012 reports that six countries (Australia, China, New Zealand, Argentina, South Africa, and Uruguay)
account for about 55% of global wool output, p. 32.
21 Food and Agricultural Organization, Statistical Division, http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx.
22 Though referred to as textile mills—because fabric was originally created using water power—these companies are
indeed factories. First Research, Textile Manufacturing Industry Profile, September 3, 2012.
23 NTCO, Textile Source, Fourth Quarter 2011, 2011, p. 45.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

U.S. Textile Manufacturing and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations

NCTO reported in recent congressional testimony that “over the past 18 months, five new plants
have opened in the United States.”24 They include Zagis USA’s open-end spun cotton yarn plant
in Louisiana, and DuPont’s $500 million Kevlar fiber facility in South Carolina.25 Zagis cited
access to raw materials and proximity to ports and freight lanes as reasons for its U.S.
investment.26 Reportedly, DuPont’s facility will supply industrial high-strength fibers.27
Domestic textile manufacturers have invested heavily in technology to reduce operating costs.
For example, modern industrial looms incorporate air-jets to weave at speeds of 2,000 picks per
minute (compared with 200 picks in 1980, which at the time was considered fast).28 Some modern
textile mills have become almost completely automated, churning out thousands of square yards
every hour with as few as 10 or 20 employees. Investment by the U.S. textile industry in new
plants and equipment totaled $16.5 billion between 2001 and 2010, reports NCTO.29
Because yarn and fabric production are capital and scale intensive, they demand higher worker
skills than apparel production. As a consequence, the textile industry has been less prone to
relocation to lower-wage countries than apparel manufacturing. Significant production remains in
the United States, Japan, and South Korea, where skilled labor is available and manufacturers can
raise the capital to finance weaving mills costing an estimated $12 million to $25 million and
spinning mills costing $50 million to $70 million.30 The head of Unifi, one of the largest U.S.
textile manufacturers, predicted in 2010, “there’s going to continue to be a textile industry in the
United States. The more automated and technically sophisticated parts of the process will stay
here.”31
Among all U.S. industries, textiles rank near the top in productivity increases. This can be
attributed both to automation and to the closure of less efficient mills. While imports of textiles
and apparel undoubtedly have contributed to lower industry employment, over 200,000 textile
jobs have been lost due to automation over the past decade, according to private estimates.32
At the end of 2011, the domestic textile industry employed 238,000 workers, or 2% of the 11.7
million domestic factory jobs (see ). Average annual pay was $39,300 in 2011, far below the
average of $59,200 for all manufacturing. Employment has declined by two-thirds since 1990
(Figure 2).33 Over time, employment has fallen most rapidly during economic downturns, but has

24 NCTO, Statement of the National Council of Textile Organizations before the House Ways and Means
Subcommittee on Trade on the Tarns-Pacific Partnership Negotiations, December 14, 2011, p. 6, http://www.ncto.org/
newsroom/Testimony2011-1214—NCTO_TPP_WaysandMeans.pdf.
25 “DuPont Starts Up $500 Million Kevlar Facility,” R&D Magazine, October 6, 2011, http://www.rdmag.com/News/
2011/10/Policy-And-Industry-Materials-DuPont-Starts-Up-Kevlar-Facility/.
26 Cotton Revolution, 2012, http://www.louisianaeconomicdevelopment.com/case-studies/zagis-usa.aspx.
27 Adam Burns, “Going Up?,” Site Selection, September 2011.
28 John Varrasi, Transforming the Textile Industry, ASME, April 2012, http://www.asme.org/kb/news—
articles/articles/manufacturing—processing/transforming-the-textile-industry/.
29 NCTO based on U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Capital Expenditures Survey, 2001-2010, http://www.census.gov/econ/
aces/.
30 Nathan Associates, Bringing Hope to Haiti’s Apparel Industry, World Bank, November 2009, p. 6.
31 Paul Wiseman, “When the Textile Mill Goes, So Does a Way of life,” USA Today, March 11, 2010.
32 Robert Reichard, “Textiles 2012: The Prognosis is Good,” Textile World, January 2012, pp.
http://www.textileworld.com/Articles/2012/January/Jan-Feb_issue/Textiles_2012_The_Prognosis_Is_Good.html.
33 BLS, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, accessed on July 26, 2012 at http://www.bls.gov/cew/.
Congressional Research Service
5

---

U.S. Textile Manufacturing and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations

failed to return to prerecession levels during the ensuing recoveries. The Bureau of Labor
Statistics forecasts further loss of 31,700 textile jobs by the end of this decade.34
Figure 2. Textile Manufacturing Employment
1990-2011
800,000
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages for NAICS 313 and 314.
Domestic textile production is primarily located in the southeastern states and in California,
although every state has some textile manufacturing. In 2011, more than one-third of all textile
jobs were located in Georgia and North Carolina. Appendix C compares textile employment in
the top ten states, which accounted for more than two-thirds of all textile jobs, in 2001 and 2011.
Global Textile Trade Shifts
For more than 40 years, developed countries, including the United States and the European
Union, sought to protect their textile and apparel sectors from developing countries’ exports
through two multilateral agreements, the Multi-Fiber Agreement (MFA) and the Agreement on
Textiles and Clothing (ATC). Quotas on imports from more than 70 countries limited the
quantities of textiles (such as cotton yarns and synthetic fabrics) and particular garments (such as
t-shirts and sweaters) that could enter the United States and the European Union each year. This
system made it necessary for buyers of textile and apparel products to source from countries for
which quotas for particular products were available. This spread manufacturing to an ever-
increasing number of countries, instead of concentrating it where production was cheapest.

34 Industry projections are based on the BLS employment projections program, http://www.bls.gov/emp/.
Congressional Research Service
6

---

U.S. Textile Manufacturing and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations

The expiry of the ATC on January 1, 2005 eliminated all textile and apparel quotas for members
of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Since then, buyers have been able to source from any
WTO member country, subject only to tariffs. However, U.S. tariffs on textile and apparel imports
vary considerably from country to country, governed by bilateral and regional arrangements
discussed in greater detail below. The average U.S. tariff rate in 2011 was 7.9% for textiles and
11.7% for clothing, but rates on particular products ranged as high as 32% (see Appendix D).35
According to the WTO, China was by far the world’s largest exporter of textiles in 2010, with
about a 30% global market share at $76.9 billion. China has been a major force in textiles for
decades, but its export growth accelerated following its 2001 accession to the WTO and the
expiration of the ATC. Now more than 50,000 textile mills operate in China.36 China’s textile
exports have more than quadrupled since 2000 (Figure 3). The European Union and India ranked
as the world’s second and third largest exporters of textiles in 2010. In terms of textile imports,
the European Union ranked first (based on extra-EU imports), followed by the United States,
China, Hong Kong, and Japan, but the top five importers jointly accounted for barely one-third of
global textile imports.37
Figure 3. Top Global Textile Exporters
Billions of U.S. dollars
$90
$80
$70
$60
$50
$40
$30
$20
$10
$0
China
EU-27
India
United States
Hong Kong
2000
2008
2009
2010

Source: WTO, International Trade Statistics, 2011, Merchandise Trade, Table II.65.
Notes: Figures for the EU-27 only include exports to the rest of the world. If internal
trade were included, EU countries’ total textile exports would have been $67.1 billion in
2010, rivaling China’s $76.9 billion.

35 WTO, 2011 World Tariff Profiles, p. 169, http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/tariff_profiles11_e.pdf.
36 Linda Greer, Susan Egan Keane, and Zixin Lin, NRDC’s Ten Best Practices for Textile Mills to Save Money and
Reduce Pollution, National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), February 2010, p. 5, http://www.nrdc.org/
international/cleanbydesign/files/rsifullguide.pdf.
37 WTO, International Trade Statistics, 2011, Merchandise Trade, Table II. 66. Textile Imports of Selected Economies.
Congressional Research Service
7

---

U.S. Textile Manufacturing and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations

Apparel trade is more diversified than textile trade, as many nations have been able to develop
export-oriented apparel industries on the basis of imported fabrics, without having large domestic
textile production. Examples include countries in Central America, the Caribbean, and Africa, as
well as countries throughout Asia, including Vietnam.
U.S. Trade in Textile Products
In 2011, approximately one-third of U.S. textile production was exported, with a value of $17.3
billion (see Table 1). The United States has posted a modest trade surplus in fabrics and yarns for
17 years, but when made-up textile articles (e.g., sheets and towels) are included, the U.S. ran a
textile trade deficit of $16.5 billion in 2011. Import penetration—the share of U.S. demand met
by textile imports—reached 36% in 2011, from 24% in 2005 (see ).
Table 1. U.S. Exports of Textile Mill Products to the World
1990-2011, in Billions of U.S. Dollars, by Selected Years
Fabric
Yarn
Made-Up Articlesa Textile Mill Products Total Fabric and Yarn Total
1990 $2,903 $2,141 $1,232
$6,276
$5,044
1995 $4,770 $2,818 $1,727
$9,315
$7,588
2000 $7,420 $3,130 $2,258
$12,808
$10,550
2005 $8,810 $3,271 $2,586
$14,667
$12,081
2006 $8,759 $3,701 $2,777
$15,237
$12,460
2007 $8,375 $3,932 $2,982
$15,289
$12,307
2008 $8,146 $4,259 $3,148
$15,553
$12,406
2009 $6,354 $3,455 $2,832
$12,642
$9,810
2010 $7,625 $4,433 $3,151
$15,209
$12,058
2011 $8,249 $5,612 $3,384
$17,256
$13,861
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce. Office of Textiles and Apparel Trade (OTEXA).
Note: Export Market Report, accessed in August 8, 2012.
a. Made-up articles include various items, namely home furnishings and other consumer goods such as towels,
tablecloths, and bedsheets.
As displayed in Table 2, most yarns and fabrics exported from the United States are sold to
NAFTA and CAFTA-DR countries. U.S. exports are often more expensive than those from other
countries. Despite this cost differential, apparel producers in the NAFTA and CAFTA-DR
countries use U.S.-made textiles in products that will be exported to the United States because the
goods are free of U.S. tariffs. Mexico is the U.S. textile industry’s largest foreign market, with
exports of $3.5 billion in 2011. However, textile exports to Mexico have trended down, as rising
labor costs have made it a less attractive place to manufacture apparel and production has shifted
to Central America. Less than $100 million of U.S.-made yarns and fabrics was exported to
prospective TPP member countries such as Malaysia and Vietnam in 2011.
Congressional Research Service
8

---

U.S. Textile Manufacturing and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations

Table 2. U.S. Yarn and Fabric Exports, by Countries or Region
In Millions of U.S. Dollars, Selected Years

1990
1990 % Share
2000
2000 % Share
2011
2011 % Share
World
$5,044
$10,550
$13,861

Mexico
$478
9% $3,726 35% $3,514 25%
CAFTA-DR $235
5%
$760 7%
$3,292
24%
Canada
$1,029 20% $2,328 22% $1,805 13%
EU-15a
$1,345 27% $1,474 14% $1,332 10%
China
$163 3%
$210 2%
$1,189 9%
CBIb
$109 2% $74 1% $70 1%
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce. OTEXA. Accessed August 8, 2012.
Notes:
a. The EU-15 covers Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands,
Portugal, Spain and United Kingdom plus Sweden, Finland and Austria.
b. The Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI) includes Antigua, Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, British Virgin
Islands, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Montserrat, Netherlands Antilles, Panama, St. Kitts-
Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent/Grenadines, and Trinidad and Tobago.
Canada, China, and the EU-15, with a combined total of $5.9 billion, provided more than half of
the yarns and fabrics imported by the United States in 2011. Textile imports are sensitive to the
economy: between 2008 and 2009, imports of yarns and fabrics shrank by 24%, but they rose
26% in 2010 and another 14% in 2011 as the economy improved.
In the apparel sector, import penetration reached almost 90% of U.S. demand in 2011, up from
73% in 2005 (see ). The U.S. trade deficit in apparel products was $75 billion in 2011.38 Some
40% of imported apparel came from China. Vietnam, a fast-growing source of apparel for the
U.S. market, furnished 8% of imports, but the other TPP participants shipped only small
quantities of apparel to the United States. Central America, the Caribbean, and Mexico
collectively accounted for 16% of U.S. apparel imports, almost all of it made with textiles
produced in the United States.
Sourcing in the Western Hemisphere
Central America, Mexico, and the Caribbean have limited textile production, but ample cut,
make, and trim apparel assembly capacity, or CMT production as it is known in the industry.
CMT is a low-valued-added production system, whereby a manufacturer produces garments for a
customer by cutting fabric provided by the customer, sewing the cut fabric, trimming the thread,
and packaging the garments according to the customer’s specifications. Canada’s higher-valued
added textile sector differs substantially from the CMT operations in Latin America. U.S. textile
exports to Canada, mainly specialty and industrial fabrics, totaled $1.8 billion in 2011.
In Central America, virtually all fibers are imported. The Central America-Dominican Republic
Apparel and Textile Council reports that the CAFTA-DR region has more than 500 apparel

38 OTEXA Textile and Apparel Trade Balance Report, accessed August 1, 2012, http://otexa.ita.doc.gov/tbrbal.htm.
Congressional Research Service
9

---

U.S. Textile Manufacturing and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations

companies. About 50 textile mills produce knit and woven fabrics, man-made fibers, and
mixtures.39 Several U.S. textile manufacturers have expanded their manufacturing capabilities in
Central America, as have companies from South Korea, Taiwan, and China.
Mexico is home to approximately 30 mills producing yarns and knitted and woven fabrics.40 U.S.-
based firms produce significant amounts of denim there.41 Among the regional apparel suppliers
that have free-trade agreements with the United States, Mexico is the only significant producer of
fabric and the only significant source of yarn.
Mexico’s apparel industry relies almost entirely on the U.S. market for exports. Its cut and
assembly operations often use U.S.-made fabrics to produce basic garments such as denim jeans
and T-shirts, which are then exported to the United States. Competition from countries with lower
wages appears to be reducing the competitiveness of Mexican apparel in the U.S. market.
Although Mexico ranked as the largest yarn and fabric market for the United States in 2011, with
significant purchases of impregnated fabrics, felt and specialty yarns, and man-made fibers and
filaments, U.S. exports to Mexico fell to $3.5 billion in 2011, from $3.7 billion in 2005 (see
Figure 4).42 The decline in Mexican purchases of U.S. fabric is likely related to the decline in
U.S. imports of Mexican apparel, which fell to $4 billion in 2011 from $6.3 billion in 2005.43
For U.S. textile exporters, Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala represent the biggest yarn and
fabric markets in the CAFTA region.44 At $1.7 billion, Honduras was the largest of the three in
2011, absorbing 12% of total U.S. yarn and fabric exports. Cotton (yarn/woven fabric), man-
made fibers, and man-made filaments, which are used to make basic apparel such as T-shirts,
socks, and underwear, are among the top export categories from the United States to Honduras.45
El Salvador and Guatemala are also major assemblers of basic apparel for the U.S. market.
Nicaragua benefits from a unique feature of the CAFTA-DR agreement: the inclusion of a tariff
preference level (TPL) provision. 46 The TPL allows U.S. trade preferences for Nicaraguan
apparel that uses non-U.S. or non-CAFTA yarns and fabrics in limited amounts.47 Even with the

39 Central America—Dominican Republic Apparel and Textile Council based on data from International Development
Systems (IDS), http://www.apparelcentralamericadr.com/cecatec-dr/, retrieved August 2, 2012.
40 Gary Gereffi and Jennifer Bair, Strengthening Nicaragua’s Position in the Textile-Apparel Value Chain: Upgrading
in the Context of the CAFTA-DR Region, Center on Globalization, Governance & Competitiveness, December 20,
2010, Table 10, p. 43, http://www.cggc.duke.edu/pdfs/2010-12-20_Gereffi_Bair_Nicaragua-apparel-report.pdf.
41 For example, Cone Denim operates two denim mills in Mexico, http://www.conedenim.com/mills.html.
42 OTEXA, Going Global, Export Guide for Textiles and Apparel, September 2012, pp. 9-10, http://otexa.ita.doc.gov/
PDFs/GoingGlobal.pdf.
43 OTEXA, Textile and Apparel Trade Balance Report, http://otexa.ita.doc.gov/msrpoint.htm.
44 Honduras has been the largest yarn export market for the United States since 2007, with exports reaching a record
high of nearly $1.4 billion in 2011, or nearly a quarter of all U.S. yarn exports. U.S. exports of fabrics to Honduras
totaled $302 million last year. In recent years, Honduras has become stronger in knit fabrics due to investments by
manufacturers such as Parkdale, VF Corporation, and Premier Narrow Fabrics.
45 OTEXA, Going Global, Export Guide for Textiles and Apparel, September 2012, pp. 10-12, http://otexa.ita.doc.gov/
PDFs/GoingGlobal.pdf.
46 O'Rourke Group Partners, Benchmarking the Competitiveness of Nicaragua’s Apparel Industry, Carana Corporation,
April 2011, http://www.mayorganet.com/downloads/nicaraguanapparel.pdf. There are no TPLs for the larger apparel
CAFTA assembly markets of El Salvador, Guatemala, or Honduras.
47 Some view the Nicaraguan TPL as a CAFTA-DR loophole, through which foreign components, including from
Asian countries like China and Vietnam, can be sent to CAFTA countries for assembly and then exported duty-free to
the United States.
Congressional Research Service
10

---

U.S. Textile Manufacturing and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations

TPL, which is scheduled to expire in 2015, U.S. exports of yarns and fabrics to Nicaragua remain
relatively tiny. Costa Rica also has a TPL provision applicable to wool and certain women’s
swimwear.48
Figure 4. U.S. Fabric and Yarn Exports to the Western Hemisphere
In Thousands of U.S. Dol ars, 2000-2011
4,000,000
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
CBI
CAFTA-DR
Canada
Mexico

Source: OTEXA, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notes: These figures cover only yarn and fabric exports. They exclude made-up textiles.
Apparel manufacturers in the Caribbean region also have preferential access to the U.S. market
under the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI), now called the Caribbean Basin Trade Preference Act
(CBTPA) program. Because yarn and fabric production in the Caribbean are extremely limited,
the region’s cut and assembly factories mostly rely on U.S.-made fabrics and yarns, with U.S.
exports totaling $70 million in 2011. Most textile production in the Caribbean is located in the
Dominican Republic (also a CAFTA member).49 Other Caribbean countries such as Haiti have no
domestic textile industries, but use U.S.-made textiles to produce apparel for the U.S. market.
U.S. retailers buy most of their garments from Asia and tend to use Western Hemisphere
producers for quick replenishment; for example, a retailer might order 100,000 pair of trousers
from Asia and then, if early sales are strong, order an additional 5,000 or 20,000 pair from
Mexico or Central America.50 The major products are basic, low-value knitwear garments, such as

48 Costa Rica, the last to implement DR-CAFTA, has increasingly ceded apparel manufacturing to other Central
American countries shifting to higher value-added goods, including electronics, and other industries such as tourism.
49 Fair Labor Association, The Apparel Industry in the Dominican Republic after the MFA, Report and
Recommendations of an FLA Mission, p. 12, June 2007.
50 Marion Traub-Werner, Apparel Production in the Americas after Quotas, Maquila Solidarity Network Fact Sheet,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
11

---

U.S. Textile Manufacturing and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations

shirts, pants, underwear, and nightwear, with a focus on men’s and boys’ wear. U.S. imports of
industrial fabrics from the CAFTA-DR region are relatively minimal at $1.2 million in 2011.51
Apparel producers in the Western Hemisphere have two main comparative advantages in serving
the U.S. market. One is geographic proximity, which confers lower transportation costs and faster
delivery; transit times from the CAFTA-DR region to a U.S. port range from 2 to 7 days,
compared to about two weeks from China and six weeks from Indonesia.52 The other advantage is
duty-free access for apparel manufactured from U.S. textiles. For example, manufacturers of
cotton T-shirts or cotton twill trousers can avoid a 16.5% import duty if U.S. inputs are used.53
On the other side of the ledger, Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean Basin have much
higher wage rates than some Asian apparel suppliers, such as Vietnam, Cambodia, and
Bangladesh. A 2010 study, for example, found the apparel industry’s average hourly cost of labor
to be $2.06 in Mexico, but only $0.51 in Vietnam.54
All things considered, tariff preferences appear to be important in keeping apparel producers in
the Western Hemisphere competitive in the U.S. market, and thereby preserving export markets
for U.S.-made textiles. A TPP agreement, if one is reached, has the potential to upset this
situation. If apparel produced in Asian TPP countries gains duty-free access to the U.S. market, it
could displace apparel manufactured with U.S. fabric in the Western Hemisphere, adversely
affecting U.S. textile exports. Also, should Vietnam develop a larger textile industry, U.S. textile
exports could be hurt if the TPP were to allow Western Hemisphere apparel producers to use
textiles made in any TPP member country and still enjoy duty-free access to the U.S. market.
TPP and Sourcing from Vietnam
Vietnam is the second largest exporter of garments to the United States, behind China.55 As
shown in Figure 5, apparel imports to the United States from China, which is not involved in the
TPP negotiations, reached $31 billion in 2011. U.S. apparel imports from Vietnam, although far
smaller, have grown even faster, rising 14,000% from 2000 to 2011 to $6.7 billion. U.S. imports
of technical fabrics from Vietnam have also expanded in recent years, reaching $202 million in
2011, but are still far smaller than apparel imports.56Among the Asian and Pacific countries in the
TPP, Vietnam is the only one with significant textile and apparel industries.

(...continued)
Lessons from the Dominican Republic, March 2007, pp. 3-4, http://en.maquilasolidarity.org/sites/maquilasolidarity.org/
files/MSN-AfterQuotas-2007-03-ENG.pdf.
51 Various types of technical fabrics are found in OTEXA Category 229 (special purpose fabrics).
52 Transit times obtained from Maersk Line, http://www.maerskline.com, September 2012.
53 The 2012 Normal Trade Relations (NTR) duty rate for cotton T-shirts (HTS 6109.10.00) is 16.5% and men’s woven
cotton pants (HTS 6203.42.40) is 16.6% at an ad valorem (percent of value) rate. Tariff savings for other products can
be found on the USITC website at http://dataweb.usitc.gov/scripts/tariff_current.asp.
54 O'Rourke Group Partners, Benchmarking the Competitiveness of Nicaragua’s Apparel Industry, Carana Corporation,
April 2011, pp. 19-21, http://www.mayorganet.com/downloads/nicaraguanapparel.pdf.
55 Vietnam became a WTO member in 2007, which means it benefits from international trade rules, including
NTR/MFN tariffs for textiles and apparel. In 2011, Vietnam’s applied NTR/MFN duties were 9.7% for textiles and
19.7% for apparel.
56 Vietnam was the second-largest supplier of specialty fabrics to the United States in 2011, accounting for 17% of the
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
12

---

U.S. Textile Manufacturing and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations

Figure 5. U.S. Apparel Imports, 2000-2011
In Thousands of U.S. Dol ars, by Selected Countries
$35,000,000
$30,000,000
$25,000,000
$20,000,000
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
$0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
CAFTA-DR
Vietnam
China

Source: OTEXA.
Generally, the main competitors to Vietnam in the U.S. clothing market are not Mexico and the
CAFTA-DR nations, but China and other Asian nations. Vietnam tends to sell fewer basic apparel
products (e.g., T-shirts and trousers) and more shirts, suits, and overcoats in the United States than
do Western Hemisphere trading partners. Vietnam provides more than 10% of total U.S. imports
of women’s and girls’ blouses, shirts, and overcoats, both knitted and woven.57
Vietnam’s apparel sector is young, having developed only in the past decade.58 According to
VITAS (Vietnam Textile and Apparel Association), about 3,200 garment and textile
manufacturers operated in Vietnam in 2009, of which more than three-quarters were apparel
firms.59
Vietnam’s apparel sector buys the majority of its yarns and fabrics regionally, from China and
other Asian suppliers, and purchases only a limited amount from the United States.60 The country

(...continued)
$1.2 billion in imports. China was the largest, accounting for $339 million or one-third of imports of industrial fabrics.
57 Analysis based on Global Trade Atlas data.
58 Vietnam’s textile industry developed in the 1980s in the framework of bilateral economic cooperation agreements
with other Communist countries, but many of these plants were abandoned in the 1990s. In more recent years, Vietnam
has begun to focus on rebuilding its textile sector, supported by investment from Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan.
59 Gladys Lopez-Acevedo and Raymond Robertson, Sewing Success? (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2012), p. 478.
60 The Trans-Pacific Partnership Apparel Coalition claims that about 60% of yarn used in Vietnam comes from Taiwan
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
13

---

U.S. Textile Manufacturing and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations

does have a growing textile industry, comprising 145 spinning mills, 401 weaving mills, 105
knitting mills, 94 dyeing and finishing mills, and seven non-woven mills.61 However, Vietnam has
yet to develop a broad textile supply base and imports are estimated to account for 80% of the
fibers, fabrics, and yarns required by its apparel industry.
The Vietnam National Textile and Garment Group, or Vinatex, is Vietnam’s largest textile and
apparel corporation, accounting for 40% of apparel production and 60% of textile production.62 In
2010, it shipped 18.75% of Vietnam’s total textile and garment exports.63 Vinatex, partially state
owned,64 is one of several groups that are investing to increase fiber and fabric production in
Vietnam. Nationally, Vietnam’s Ministry of Trade and Industry has set a development strategy for
the textile and garment sector, aiming to increase fabric production to 2 million metric tons by
2020.65 Fiber production is targeted to increase to 500,000 metric tons in 2015 and 650,000
metric tons by 2020. PetroVietnam Petrochemical & Textile Fiber Joint Stock Company is
expected to open a polyester fiber plant at Dinh Vu in 2012, 66 and Vinatex also plans to open a
fiber plant.67 Investments in chemical plants to generate the basic feedstock required for the
production of synthetic fabrics may follow. According to Vietnam Investment Review, “a new
wave of foreign investments in the spinning, weaving, and dyeing sectors has been kicked off,
since investors can see the profits they can gain from the TPP.”68
Arguably, preferential access to the Vietnamese market under a TPP agreement could result in
new business opportunities for U.S. fiber, yarn, and fabric producers. To date, however, Vietnam
is not a significant market for U.S. yarn and fabric exporters, importing $40 million of such
products in 2011. The United States’ main textile-related export to Vietnam is raw cotton: U.S.
exports supply about 60% of the cotton used in Vietnamese textile mills.

(...continued)
and China. See Common Myths about the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Yarn Forward Rule of Origin, October 2011,
p.4, http://www.usaita.com/pdf_files/1011TPPMythFactSheet.pdf.
61 Gladys Lopez-Acevedo and Raymond Robertson, Sewing Success? (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2012), p. 478.
62 European Commission, Economic Integration and Vietnam’s Development, Final Report, December 2009, p. 48,
http://www.mutrap.org.vn/en/library/ThamKhao/
Economic%20Integration%20and%20Vietnam%27s%20Development.pdf.
63 Sarah C. Thomasson, “Vietnam: A Textile Powerhouse,” Textile World Asia, July/August/September 2011,
http://textileworldasia.com/Articles/2011/August/Country_Profile_Vietnam.html.
64 An overview of Vinatex is available at http://www.vinatex.com. NCTO has identified 11 different subsidy programs
by the Vietnamese government to support its domestic textile and apparel sector, including low cost loans, energy, and
research and promotion. See NCTO Fact Sheet, TPP Negotiations, p. 3, April 2012. http://www.ncto.org/
IndustryIssues/TPP-Fact-Sheet—Apr2012.pdf.
65 European Union Economic and Commercial Counsellors, Report on Vietnam 2011, May 2011, pp. 16. In 2008,
Vietnam Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung signed Decree 36/2008/QD-TTg to promulgate this strategy.
66 Petrovietnam Petrochemical & Textile Joint Stock Corporation, p. 2, http://www.jetro.go.jp/world/asia/vn/
petrovietnam/pdf/201109_V-11.pdf.
67 “Nam Dinh Eyes $120 Million Fibre Plant,” Vietnam Today, May 12, 2012, http://www.dztimes.net/post/industries/
nam-dinh-eyes-120m-fibre-plant.aspx.
68 Vietnam Investment Review, TPP May Attract more Foreign Investment Projects in Textiles and Dyeing, June 19,
2012. http://www.vir.com.vn/news/business/tpp-may-attract-more-foreign-investment-projects-in-textiles-and-
dyeing.html.
Congressional Research Service
14

---

U.S. Textile Manufacturing and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations

Textiles and the TPP Negotiations
Textile and apparel trade is governed by very specific rules. Most of the bilateral and regional
FTAs and trade preference programs negotiated by the United States over the past two decades
include extensive provisions governing textiles and apparel. The key issue is typically rules of
origin (ROOs), which specify how much of the content of textile and apparel products must come
from the region in order for the products to qualify for duty-free access.69 ROO requirements for
textile and apparel products are usually based on the production process as shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6. Major Production Steps for the Textile and Apparel Sector

Source: International Trade Commission, Textiles and Apparel: Assessment of the Competitiveness of Certain Foreign
Suppliers to the U.S. Market, Volume 1, Investigation No. 332-448, Publication 3671, Figure 1-3, January 2004.
Possible rules of origin generally stipulate how much processing must occur within the region if a
product is to obtain trade benefits. The major distinctions are:
• Fiber Forward: Fiber must be formed in the FTA member territory. Natural
fibers such as wool or cotton must be grown in the territory. Man-made fibers
must be extruded in the trading area.
• Yarn Forward: Fibers may be produced in any country, but the yarn used to
make the textiles or apparel must be formed within the free trade area. This rule
is sometimes called “triple transformation,” as it requires that spinning of the
yarn or thread, weaving or knitting of the fabric, and assembly of the final
product all occur within the region.
• Fabric Forward: Producers may use fibers and yarns from any country, but
fabric must be knitted or woven in FTA member countries.
• Cut and Sew: Only the cutting and sewing of the finished article must occur in
FTA member countries.70
The United States, most often, has applied the “yarn forward” standard for textiles and apparel,
with the notable exceptions of agreements with Jordan and Israel.71 Most U.S. FTAs also include
exceptions allowing limited quantities of fibers, yarns, and fabrics to be sourced from outside the
FTA partner countries under certain conditions.

69 CRS Report RL34524, International Trade: Rules of Origin, by Vivian C. Jones and Michael F. Martin.
70 U.S. Customs and Border Protection, What Every Member of the Trade Community Should Know About: Textile and
Apparel Rules of Origin.
71 ROOs in the FTAs with Jordan and Israel provide that cutting and sewing, or knitting to shape, fabric finishing, and
similar treatment are sufficient to confer origin as long as the value-added requirement of 35% is met.
Congressional Research Service
15

---

U.S. Textile Manufacturing and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations

Appendix D lists textile and apparel tariff rates of various countries. In general, U.S. tariffs
increase with each stage of manufacturing, such that duty rates are usually higher on apparel than
on its yarn or fabric inputs. The United States’ TPP negotiating partners also tend to maintain
steep tariffs. For instance, Vietnam’s apparel tariffs range from 5% to 20%.
Reportedly, U.S. negotiators have proposed that the TPP agreement incorporate a unified yarn-
forward ROO to assure that duty-free preferences do not go to countries that are not part of the
agreement.72 Press reports indicate that several TPP negotiating countries, including Vietnam,
oppose U.S. demands for a “yarn forward rule.”73 Vietnam has reportedly tabled a “cut and sew”
rule that would allow it, and other TPP participants, to enjoy preferential access for apparel that
has been cut and sewn from fabric made in China or other countries not included in the TPP.74
U.S. domestic interests disagree over what ROOs should be included in any TPP agreement. On
one side are fiber, yarn, and fabric manufacturers who want rules that would require more U.S. or
TPP content. Organized as the Textile and Apparel Alliance for TPP (TAAT), they have endorsed
a basic yarn forward rule applicable to all TPP countries.75 They warn that the absence of a yarn-
forward rule would allow Vietnamese apparel manufacturers to use Chinese textiles, thereby
giving Chinese textile manufacturers duty-free access to the U.S. market and undermining U.S.
textile production.76 Dozens of members of Congress have endorsed TAAT’s position, sending a
letter in support to the U.S. Trade Representative recommending a yarn-forward rule.77
On the other side are U.S. retailers and importers of apparel, many with no domestic
manufacturing, including Walmart and the National Retail Federation (NRF), along with the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce. These interests formed the Trans-Pacific Partnership Apparel Coalition,
which opposes the yarn-forward ROO and calls for a “simple and flexible ROO standard.”78 Their
preferred rule requiring only that the sewing of a garment be done in a TPP country to get duty-
free status would permit use of yarns and fabrics from China and other Asian countries in
garments assembled in the region. The TPP Apparel Coalition recommends that apparel qualify
for preferential treatment if 35% of its value is added within the region, making it easier to switch
sources of supply as fashions and relative costs change.79 Some members of Congress support this

72 “Marantis Promotes U.S. Yarn-Forward Rule of Origin In TPP Negotiations,” Inside U.S. Trade, December 19,
2011.
73 “U.S., Vietnam Signal Flexibilities in TPP Apparel Rule of Origin Fight,” Inside U.S. Trade, May 24, 2012.
74 “Trade Deals Need to Benefit Both Sides,” Vietnam News, June 30, 2011, http://www.usaita.com/pdf_files/
VITAS%20Article.pdf.
75 TAAT includes organizations such as the American Fiber Manufacturers Association, AMTAC, National Cotton
Council, NCTO, National Textile Association, and the United States Industrial Fabrics Institute, and overseas groups
including the Central American—Dominican Republic Apparel and Textile Council and the Africa Coalition for Trade.
76 TAAT’s position on yarn forward, strong customs enforcement, and other TPP negotiating priorities is listed on its
website at http://www.taa-tpp.com/Our_Position.html.
77 NCTO, “76 Members of Congress Urge Strong Textile Rules in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement,” press
release, May 12, 2012, http://www.ncto.org/Newsroom/pr2012—0502TAATPressRelease—TPPltrUSTR.pdf.
78 The TPP Apparel Coalition is made up of American retailers, apparel brands, apparel manufacturers, and importers,
including organizations such as the American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA), National Retail Federation
(NRF), Outdoor Industry Association (OIA), the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA), and the United States
Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel (USA-ITA).
79 TPP Apparel Coalition, Common Myths about the TPP and the Yarn Forward Rule of Origin, October 2011, p. 2,
http://www.tppapparelcoalition.org/uploads/1011TPPMythFactSheet.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
16

---

U.S. Textile Manufacturing and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations

position, asking President Obama in May 2012 to pursue “a flexible general rule of origin for
apparel that maximizes the incentive to grow U.S. exports, value, and jobs in the TPP.”80
Conclusion
Concerns about the health of domestic textile manufacturing have influenced many past trade
negotiations, and now figure prominently in the regional TPP negotiations. For textile
manufacturers, the inclusion of a significant apparel producer such as Vietnam in a free trade
agreement holds the potential to dramatically shift global trading patterns.
Depending upon its provisions, it is imaginable that a TPP agreement could result in apparel made
in Vietnam displacing apparel from the Western Hemisphere in the U.S. market, weakening the
export markets now served by U.S. textile producers in Mexico and Central America. An
alternative scenario might allow apparel manufacturers in Mexico, a TPP participant, to use
textiles made in any TPP country and still enjoy duty-free access to the U.S. market; while no
Asian TPP participant currently has the textile production capacity to supply Western Hemisphere
producers in this way, it is conceivable that such capacity will be installed in the future.
U.S. textile manufacturing interests have urged U.S. negotiators to insist on a “yarn forward” rule
in the TPP. This would require that for apparel, home furnishings, or technical textiles, to benefit
from duty-free access, they would have to be assembled in a TPP country from fabric
manufactured in a TPP country out of yarn produced in a TPP country. Such a rule would severely
limit the ability of countries such as Vietnam to use Chinese or Indian yarns and fabrics in
apparel, home furnishings, or technical textile products for the U.S. market, although it would not
constrain imports if Vietnam were to develop a more fully integrated textile industry at some
future time. However, a “yarn forward” rule would also affect U.S. apparel consumers and the
household textiles and specialty textiles markets by making it difficult for importers to obtain
these items at the lowest possible cost, as these products made in TPP countries from yarns and
fabrics produced elsewhere would not qualify for duty-free treatment.
Domestic manufacturers of household and technical textiles seem less likely to be immediately
affected by any TPP agreement. U.S. manufacturers appear to be internationally competitive in
these sectors, and Vietnam’s low labor costs will provide little comparative advantage in areas
where production is highly automated. In the case of technical textiles, U.S. manufacturers also
benefit from proximity to their industrial customers. Domestic technical textile manufacturers
point out that Vietnam has been expanding its reach into industrial fabrics and higher-end textiles
in recent years, including tire cord and coated fabrics,81 but Vietnam will probably not be a
significant global competitor in the near future.

80 Letter to President Obama from 15 U.S. Senators, May 1, 2012, http://www.gbdinc.org/PDFs/
TPP%20Senate%20Letter%20TPP%20and%20Apparel%20May%201%202012.pdf.
81 Letter from Ruth A. Stephens, Executive Director, U.S. Industrial Fabrics Institute, to Ambassador Ron Kirk, United
States Trade Representative, March 26, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
17

---

U.S. Textile Manufacturing and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations

Appendix A. Selected U.S. Textile Manufacturers
Total
Revenue
Employees,
($ millions),
Company
2011
2011
Textile Manufacturing Facilities
American & Efirda
2,900
N/A
23 manufacturing facilities worldwide.
International Textile
7,800
$694
United States, Mexico, China, Nicaragua, and
Groupb
Vietnam.
R. B. Pamplin
6,205
$399
United States, Latin America, the Caribbean, and
Corporationc
Asia.
Millikend
~7,000
N/A
United States, United Kingdom, Belgium, France, and
China.
Albany International
4,300
$815
24 plants global y, five of which manufacture forming
Groupe
fabrics.
Polymer Groupf
3,100
$883
15 manufacturing and converting facilities in the
United States, Europe, Latin America, Canada, Asia.
Parkdale Millsg
3,000
$214
United States, Colombia, and Mexico.
Unifih
2,700
$713
United States, Brazil, El Salvador, China, and
Colombia.
Lear Corporationi
2,600
$202
United States, Asia, and Europe.
Mohawk Industriesj
26,900
$5
United States. Mexico, and Europe.
Source: CRS with information compiled from Hoovers, Plunkett Research, company reports, and websites.
a. American & Efird manufactures sewing threads and industrial yarns.
b. The International Textile Group (ITG) operates five primary business segments, including Cone Denim,
Burlington Worldwide, and the Automotive Safety Group.
c. R.B. Pamplin owns Mount Vernon Mills, a manufacturer of textile, chemical, and related products for the
apparel, industrial, institutional, and commercial markets.
d. Milliken & Company, a privately-held South Carolina-based company, manufactures protective fabrics,
specialty fabrics, and industrial textiles, specialty chemicals, performance products, and floor coverings.
e. Albany International produces man-made fibers, mainly for the pulp and paper industry, as wel as specialty
materials and composites and outdoor clothing, gloves, footwear, sleeping bags, and home furnishings.
f.
Polymer is a manufacturer of engineered materials for the hygiene, health care, and textile industries.
g. Parkdale Mills, a privately held North Carolina-based company, manufactures cotton and cotton-polyester
blend yarns used in goods such as sheets, towels, underwear, and jeans.
h. Unifi, based in North Carolina, produces multi-filament polyester and nylon textured yarns for apparel,
hosiery, furnishings, automotive, industrial, and other uses.
i.
In May 2012, Lear Corporation, a supplier of automotive seating and electrical power management systems,
purchased Guilford Mills, a maker of automotive and specialty fabrics.
j.
Mohawk produces floor coverings for residential and commercial applications.
Congressional Research Service
18

---

U.S. Textile Manufacturing and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations

Appendix B. Textile Industry Overview
2005-
2005
2010
2011
2011
Total U.S. manufacturing employment
14,190,394 11,487,496 11,701,497
-18%
(all industries)
Textile mills (NAICS 313)
216,646
119,385
119,970
-45%
Textile product mills (NAICS 314)
169,339 119,145 117,759
-30%
Total textile employment
385,985
238,530
237,729
-38%
Apparel (NAICS 315)
257,616
157,587
151,135
-41%
Al textiles and apparel (T&A)
643,601
396,117
388,864
-40%
T&A employment as % of total mfg. employment
5%
3%
3%

Total value of shipments, in millions of U.S. $




Total U.S. manufacturing
$4,743,207
$4,921,807
$5,500,137
16%
Textile mills (NAICS 313)
$42,393
$29,156
$30,240
-29%
Textile product mills (NAICS 314)
$35,048
$21,845
$22,558
-36%
Total textile shipments
$77,441
$51,001
$52,798
-32%
Apparel mfg (NAICS 315)
$31,423
$13,632
$14,618
-53%
Al textiles and Apparel (T&A)
$108,864
$64,633
$67,416
-38%
T&A shipments as % of total mfg. shipments
2%
1%
1%

U.S. imports for consumption




Textile mills (NAICS 313)
$7,453
$6,524
$6,524
-12%
Textile products (NAICS 314)
$13,508
$15,824
$16,943
25%
Total textile imports
$20,962
$22,347
$23,467
12%
Apparel imports (NAICS 315)
$74,473
$75,412
$82,118
10%
Al textiles and apparel
$95,434
$97,760
$105,585
11%
U.S. Exports




Textile mills (NAICS 313)
$8,471
$7,822
$9,063
7%
Textile products (NAICS 314)
$2,343
$2,583
$2,740
17%
Total textile exports
$10,814
$10,405
$11,804
9%
Apparel exports (NAICS 315)
$4,069
$3,066
$3,203
-21%
Al textiles and apparel
$14,883
$13,471
$15,006
1%





Apparel imports share of U.S. market
73.1% 87.7% 87.8%

Textile imports share of U.S. market 23.9%
35.5%
36.4%

Source: CRS, with data from U.S. Department of Labor, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages; Census
Bureau, Manufacturers’ Shipments, Inventories, and Orders, and USITC Dataweb. Al data accessed August 2012.
Congressional Research Service
19

---

U.S. Textile Manufacturing and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations

Appendix C. Top Ten Textile Employment States
#
2001 Textile
2011 Textile
%
Numeric

Employment
Employment
Change
Change
United States
533,413
237,729
-55%
-295,684
Georgia 89,251
46,911
-47%
-42,340
North Carolina
109,676
35,531
-68%
-74,145
South Carolina
64,560
19,095
-70%
-45,465
California 33,869
17,472
-48%
-16,397
Alabama 30,082
10,764
-64%
-19,318
Texas 12,642
8,606
-32%
-4,036
Virginia 21,614
7,857
-64%
-13,757
New York
17,595
7,695
-56%
-9,900
Pennsylvania 19,827
7,676
-61%
-12,151
Tennessee 13,578
6,091
-55%
-7,487
Top 10 States Employment Total
412,694
167,698
-59% -244,966
Other 50 states plus DC
120,041
70,031
-44%
-50,010
Top 10 States
77% 71%

% of Total Employment
Source: CRS with data compiled from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census on Employment and
Wages.
Notes: Textile employment data cover two NAICS codes 313 and 314. The 50 states and Washington, DC, do
not sum to the national total because the national total includes suppressed data and Puerto Rico.
Congressional Research Service
20

---

U.S. Textile Manufacturing and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations

Appendix D. Selected Apparel and Textile Duties
Ad Valorema Tariff Range
Country
Yarn
Woven Fabric Knit Fabric Non-Woven Fabric Industrial Fabric Apparel
FTA Member Countries
Australia 0-5%
0-5% 5-10%
5%
0-5% 0-10%
Chile 6%
6%
6% 6%
6%
6%
Colombia 5-15%
5-10% 5-10% 5-10%
5-10% 15%
Israel 0-8%
0-12%
0-12%
0-12% 0-14%
0-12%
Jordan 0-20%
0% 0%
0%
0-20%
0-20%
Morocco 2.5%
2.5-25%
10-25% 2.5%
2.5%-30%
2.5-30%
Panama 0-15%
0-15% 0%
0%
0-15%
0-15%
Peru 0-11%
0-11%
0-11%
0-6% 0-11%
6-11%
South Korea
0-8%
2-13%
10%
8%
8-10%
8-13%
CAFTA-DR
Costa Rica
0-5%
0-9%
0-9%
l0%
0-9%
0-14%
Dominican
0% 0-14% 0-8%
0%
0-20% 3-20%
Republic
El Salvador
0-5%
0-10%
0-10%
0%
0-10%
0-15%
Guatemala 0%
0-10% 0-10%
0%
0-10% 0-15%
Honduras 0-5%
0-10% 0-10%
0%
0-10% 0-15%
Nicaragua 0-5%
0-10% 5-10%
0%
0-10% 0-10%
NAFTAb
Mexico 0-15%
15% 0-15% 15%
0-15%
30%
Canada 0-8%
0-8%
0-8% 0%
0-18%
0-18%
Other TPP Negotiating Partners
Brunei 0%
0%
0% 0% 0-10%
0%
Malaysia 0-30%
0-10% 15%
20%
0-20%
0-20%
New Zealand
0-5%
0-5%
0-5%
5%
0-5%
0-10%
Vietnam 0-5%
12% 12% 12%
0-12%
5-20%
United States
0-
0-25% 0-18.5%
0-12%
0-14.1% 0-32%
13.2%
Other Countries
China 2
-10%
10-14%
10-12% 10%
8-14%
14-25%
European Unionc 0-5%
3-8%
6.5-8%
4%
4-8%
6.3-12%
Japan 0-7.9%
2.5-10%
0-9.85
0-4.3% 3.3-6.65
5-12.8%
Philippines 1-10%
1-10% 1-10%
15%
0-15% 1-15%
Thailand 1-5%
5-17.5% 5%
5%
1-30%
10-30%
Source: CRS with information from U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA).
Congressional Research Service
21

---

U.S. Textile Manufacturing and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations

a. Ad valorem tariff rates are based on the value of the goods.
b. Textile and apparel goods manufactured in the United States enter Canada and Mexico duty-free under
NAFTA if they qualify under the rules of the agreement.
c. Members of the European Union apply the EU common external tariff to goods from non-EU countries.

Author Contact Information

Michaela D. Platzer

Specialist in Industrial Organization and Business
mplatzer@crs.loc.gov, 7-5037

Acknowledgments
Cathi Jones and Michael Martin helped to shape this report by providing significant input on rules of origin
and textile trade with Vietnam, respectively.

Congressional Research Service
22

---