Federal Trade Commission
Documents Received
March 20, 1996
P894219
B18354900140

BARNEY FRANK                                  558 PLEASANT STREET
4TH DISTRICT, MASSACHUSETTS                              ROOM 309
                                            NEW BEDFORD, MA 02740
2404 RAYBURN BUILDING                              (508) 999-6462
WASHINGTON, DC    Congress of the United States
(202) 225-5931                                 222 MILLIKEN PLACE
                                                      THIRD FLOOR
9 CRAFTS STREET      House of RepresentativesFALL RIVER, MA 02721
NEWTON, MA 02158                                   (508) 674-3551
(617) 332-3920            Washington, DC                         
                                                   89 MAIN STREET
                 "Made in the USA Policy Comment"BRIDGEWATER, MA, 02324
                       FTC File No. P894219        (508) 697-9403
                        February 29, 1996



Office of the Secretary
Federal Trade Commission
Room 159
6th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20580

Dear Secretary:
There are two very important reasons why the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) should adopt rules that
properly recognize work actually done in the United States by manufacturers.  First, these rules will
encourage producers to provide jobs within the U. S. Second, they will meet the legitimate concern of many
consumers who wish to take domestic manufacturing content into account when making purchases. 
Obviously the two are interrelated, since if it were not for the second factor, the regulation would not provide
a great deal of incentive for manufacturers, but they are logically separate, albeit complimentary, points.

I am glad that the FTC has abandoned an effort to impose a somewhat absolutist standard here.  Obviously
many of us would be pleased if I 00% of athletic shoes could be manufactured within the U.S., but adopting
an all or nothing standard or one that comes close to it would be self-defeating.  People who do a substantial
amount of manufacturing in the U.S. should be given appropriate recognition for their effort over people who
do none or virtually none.

I believe there is a compelling logical argument as well as good precedent for allowing manufacturers to use a
"Made in the U. S.A." label when they have achieved a certain minimum amount of domestic content.  Indeed,
as a Member of the House, I voted several times for domestic content legislation regarding the automobile
industry.  While this legislation never became law because it was not passed by the Senate, the fact that the
House passed such legislation in my judgment helped encourage foreign automobile manufacturers to
establish plants in the U.S. -- to our obvious economic benefit.  And my recollection is that in that legislation,
while a certain percentage of domestic content had to be reached, once that level was reached the automobiles
in questions were allowed in without restriction.

Because there is a limitation on the amount of information that can be put on any particular consumer product
when busy people are shopping, some condensation is desirable.  Thus I believe that allowing manufacturers
who have made the maximum effort to provide domestic content to use a "Made in the U.S.A." label is
justified.Finally, I also believe it is very much in the interest of both consumers to whom domestic manufacturing is
important and workers who have an obvious interest in work being available in the U.S. for the FTC to
promulgate a regulation that would allow manufacturers of domestic athletic footwear to use a "Made in the
U. S.A. " label when they have achieved an appropriate level of domestic content which takes into account the
increasing global trend in many industries.

I appreciate your consideration of my views.


                           BARNEY FRANK
BF/mbt