Federal Trade Commission
Received Documents
July 30, 1996
P894219
B18354900341


                       United States Senate
                       WASHINGTON, DC 20510

                          June 28, 1996

The Honorable Robert Pitofsky
Chairman
Federal Trade Commission
Sixth and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20580

Dear Chairman Pitofsky:

  we are writing in response to the Commission's request for comments concerning the review of the standards
for making "Made in USA" claims (61 FR 18600, April 26, 1996).  We urge the Commission to retain the long-standing "all or virtually all" standard applicable to unqualified "Made in USA" claims for product labeling and
advertising.

  American consumers place a high value on the "Made in USA" label, and consider whether a product is U.S.-made to be an important factor when making purchasing decisions.  Americans rely on the "Made in USA" label
to mean that a product is all or virtually all U.S.-made, and a high quality product of American workers.  To
change the standard so that products with more than de minimis foreign content can qualify as U.S.-made would
be deceptive to consumers and unfair to American workers.

  The increasing globalization of the economy is not justification for weakening this important standard.  Many
products continue to be made in the United States with U.S. materials and labor.  Illinois is home to many such
manufacturers that have invested in U.S. plants and labor to manufacture high-quality products that are all or
virtually all of U.S. origin.  These companies and their employees rely on the current standard for "Made in USA"
claims and the resulting market advantage they have earned.  To change the standard would be unfair to
companies that have made significant investments to meet the current standard, and would reward companies that
rely on foreign labor and materials.

  It is clear that some U.S. manufacturers that utilize a certain percentage of foreign made parts or labor are
pushing to have the Commission's "all or virtually all" standard relaxed.  At first blush, these manufacturers seem
to have a reasonable argument.  However, after examining the options available to such manufacturers under
current law, and the long-term impact of a relaxed standard, it is clear that weakening the Commission's standard
will have a negative impact on American workers and serve to mislead or deceive American consumers.

 
  It is also important to remember that the use of the "Made in USA" labeling or advertising claim is purely
voluntary.  We support the continued use of accurate qualified claims by companies that are unable to meet the
"Made in USA" standard.  The historical test adopted by the Commission and Congress for unqualified "Made
in USA" claims is rigorous, but it is not unfair.  The unqualified "Made in USA" claim should continue to be
reserved for those products that can truthfully meet the "all or virtually all" standard.  For those products that,
as a result of globalization of production, include foreign components or labor, the Commission should continue
to make available the alternative of a qualified "Made in USA" claim.

  Weakening the current standard would cause the "Made in USA" label to lose its value to the manufacturers
of products with all or virtually all domestic origin, and to the consumers who prefer such products.  For
American manufacturers that utilize foreign parts or labor, a qualified "Made in USA" standard remains a
reasonable option.

  We strongly urge you not to weaken the "all or virtually all" standard for "Made in USA" claims, for the sake
of consumers and the many American companies who have made significant investments in the manufacture of
products which are truly American-made.


                            Cordially,

Paul Simon                                    Carol Moseley-Braun
United States Senator                       United States Senator