Federal Trade Commission
Received Documents
Jan 19 1996
B18354900067
Secretary

                              January 18, 1996

Mr. Robert Pitofsky
Chairman
Federal Trade Commission
Room 159
Sixth and Pennsylvania A-venue, N.W.
Washington,  DC 20580

Dear Chairman Pitofsky:

         We are writing to comment on the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) decision to hold
public hearings on "Made in the USA" advertising and labeling claims.  It is our understanding
that the FTC will use the forum to determine whether or not to maintain or alter legal standards
for "Made in the USA" claims.

         We commend the FTC's dedication to American manufacturers and consumers.  However,
we feel that the 100 percent rule and component precedent originally set forth by the Hyde
Athletic Industries, Inc. Consent Agreement (File No. 922-3236) is inconsistent with domestic
content standards incorporated in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), and labeling requirements put forth by the
Customs Service.  Moreover, given the increasingly, global nature of commerce, this restrictive
rule is outmoded and an unfair burden on American companies committed to maintaining
production facilities in the United States.

         As you know, the formula for determining a product's domestic content differs depending
on which method is used, the calculation established in NAFTA, GATT, or Customs Service
regulations.  The Commission has wisely decided to conduct a comprehensive review and solicit
the public's participation to determine consumer understanding, of "Made in the USA" product
labeling.  As the Commission proceeds with its rulemaking, we hope that it will craft a rule that
complies with prevailing tariff and Customs regulations, reflects the realities of global commerce,
and does not unfairly penalize American firms making a good faith effort to preserve U.S.
manufacturing jobs.

         As we continue to open our borders, many American businesses are relocating abroad in
search of lower wages and taxes.  Some companies, however, have made a clear commitment to
investing in American workers.  These firms manufacture predominantly ill the United States and
they rely on the marketing advantage of the "Made in the USA" label to offset the higher costs of
production they incur.  Although these companies use some foreign components and labor, they
consider their products to be made in America.

         Unable to fulfill the new requirements, American companies profiting from the "Made in
America" label may be forced to follow current trends and move their production abroad.  High-paying jobs will move overseas, and the American manufacturing base will continue to shrink.

         We hope that you will take the future of American manufacturing 'and the American
worker into account before applying this new standard.  The proportion of domestic content
necessary to make a product "American" must be flexible enough to reflect the increasingly
international nature of many industries.

         We appreciate your consideration of these views.


                                  Sincerely,



Joseph P. Kennedy II                   Edward J . Markey
MEMBER OF CONGRESS           MEMBER OF CONGRESS




Richard Neal
MEMBER OF CONGRESS