As you can see, product coverage alone is a substantial probler But there are other problems just as bothersome.

For instance, a second problem is caused by the requirement the the label or tag containing care instructions be permanently attache to the textile product.

Many industry representatives objected strenuously to this r quirement. They argued that it would be more costly to attach labe permanently than it would be to provide separate information and, course, the extra cost would be passed on to consumers in the form higher retail prices. In addition, many statements pointed out tha some products do not lend themselves to permanently attached labe because of size, shape, fragility, esthetics, style, et cetera.

Why does the Commission's proposed rule require permanently a tached labels anyway? What difference does it make whether the in formation is attached to the product or furnished separately?

Care information is most important on two occasions; when th purchase is made and when care is attempted. Obviously, at th point of sale, it makes little difference whether the care informatio is permanently attached or separately furnished. The important poin is that the information is available to facilitate the evaluation competing products.

It is important, however, when the time comes to clean the produc If the information is permanently attached, there is no problem. Bu if it is separately furnished then, unless the consumer had saved th information and can find it and match it to the right product, th consumer is no better off then if there had been no informatio furnished.

There is no easy answer to the problem of how to supply the in formation. One answer might be to require that not all textile proc ucts have permanently attached labels, but that for certain produc care information separately furnished would be sufficient.

A third problem is the language "and will not impair the proc uct's utility or appearance." It was pointed out during the hearing that every cleaning or refurbishing process will affect the appea ance and utility of the product, and, hence, this language requir the impossible. Nothing, it was said, lasts forever.

In view of the complexity of the above problems and other lesse problems brought out in the hearings, it is recommended that th committee await the Commission's final action, and then evaluate th action to determine whether it is sufficient. In this respect, it ma be important to point out that section 3(a) of the bill, for all in tents and purposes, would require the Commission to do what it basically doing already.

In closing, let me say again that while I endorse the objectives H.R. 6143, I believe the committee should delay its decision on th legislation until after the Commission has acted."

Mr. Moss. Mr. Martin, when will the Commission complete i action?

Mr. MARTIN. Well, I cannot predict that, sir, with any degree accuracy. I can say that the staff report is almost before the Con mission. I would think that the Commission may have suggestion and somebody will have to analyze the record. I would say 2 or

months after that staff report reaches the Commission, it would be logical to suppose that the Commission would act.

Mr. Moss. Well, of course, there you have dealt in a lot of give. After it reaches the Commission, et cetera. When will it reach the Commission?

Mr. MARTIN. I should think it would reach the Commission within a month.

Mr. Moss. We are talking of 4 months then?

Mr. MARTIN. I would think so, sir. That would be reasonable.
Mr. Moss. September or October?

Mr. MARTIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. Moss. Then do you feel at that time that the Commission will have something before it which will permit it to deal with this subject and remove from the consumer the question of how to get something cleaned or how to wash or treat a product they buy?

Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Dixon, who has actually been working on the report, is probably in a better position to answer that question.

Mr. DIXON. I think yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, it will address itself to all of these problems because they are the very problems we have been dealing with.

Mr. Moss. I am aware of that, but the thing that disturbs me is the statement itself. I think you raised many issues, very interesting issues in the statement, and I assume that it is a statement put together after some knowledge of the staff report and with a certain understanding of the proposed rule, and it seems to me that the approach is unnecessarily complicated here in attempting to do, as you, yourself, have pointed out in the statement, in some instances the impossible.

Mr. MARTIN. Let me say that one of your assumptions is not quite valid because that is not the way the Commission works. This report was put together by our office and approved by the Commission. The Commission itself has never seen the staff report at this point.

Mr. Moss. They are aware of the 47 witnesses?

Mr. MARTIN. That is right. It knows that the staff has some solutions to this problem or suggested solutions. The Commission does not know what they are at this point, and that is the reason for both sides in this statement, sir.

Mr. Moss. Well, I know the reluctance of many of the manufacturers to be faced with any requirements of labeling. On the other hand, I know that at some point we are going to have to solve this problem because far too many consumers buy products, and when it comes time to either wash them or to have them cleaned it is an impossible task to find out how and I know that many cleaners and launderers are losing money and damaging their reputation because of their inability to find out the fiber content of a product.

Now, we have a Fiber Labeling Act, and it seems to me that some of these problems stem from a lack of adequate enforcement of that act as to the fiber content of the products that are being sold. Well, this is back over in the law that we passed in the 85th Congress, Public Law 85-891, 15 U.S.C. 70, which you are very familiar with, I think. We are not by this law succeeding in doing what was really the objective of the law.

Mr. MARTIN. Well, I think the Commission feels that the compliance with this law is not enough and hence the trade regulation rules, sir.

Mr. Moss. Would it not be possible for the Commission to have a requirement that if an item is sold as washable, it must be so indicated, and the manufacturer is then responsible for the product if it does not take a washing? From this point, let me add that in your statement you talk about the impossible nature of the requirement if it alters the appearance or utility, and I think there that we would always be referring to other than normal wear and tear, because certainly normal wear and tear in any product which can deteriorate is considered, whether you have a house, if you rent it or lease it and your lease says normal wear and tear excepted, and I think normal wear or tear would certainly be excepted under the provisions of any law we would pass. And I would hope that any rule or regulation that the Commission might adopt would consider that also, but beyond normal wear and tear, the utility is sometimes impaired significantly.

The appearance sometimes is totally destroyed through the mere process of cleaning, and I suppose if we wanted to we could call at random a half a dozen cleaners from the Washington area into this hearing room and have everyone of them give us a whole series of instances where they tried in good faith to determine the makeup of the fibers in the garments they were going to clean or wash. Being unable to do so, they proceeded on the assumption that it would take normal cleaning procedures and it did not.

Now, if we could create categories and require at the time of offering for the market that they represent that it is washable or cleanable, and perhaps you could even have three or four coded types of washing or cleaning, and that kind of information, a coding or general category of product would reduce the size of any label required so that it can be permanently affixed rather than attempting all the detail which is available on some products.

I know, for example, and let me think a moment, I think it is London Fog, they have a woven, very detailed cleaning and washing instruction on their garment. But, I think you could cover the same amount of things if you had it coded so that you would have a standard code. The homeowner could get it out of an information booklet and the cleaner would have it automatically, and require the marketing of any product to conform to this coding and the labeling. Mr. DIXON. We had a good bit, sir, of testimony at our hearing advocating the use of what is generally called a symbol system, which is being widely used in England and, in fact, in Europe. In fact, one of the European representatives appeared at the hearing and made a detailed statement in which he recommended that we do just that.

They also could make the argument that then the American system would be keyed into the international system so that foreign manufacturers selling in this country would still be using the same system they were familiar with in Europe. There is much to recommend that, and I think the Commission will be considering it.

There are also some problems with it in that the present symbol systems that are being used are pretty much limited to colorfastness

and what you can do to a product that might affect that characteristic; whereas, the thrust of the proposed rule, is I think the thrust of this bill, is far beyond that one characteristic, so that to cover what you can do with the printed word would call for a far more complicated symbol system than now exists.

Mr. Moss. Well, it would not be beyond the capability of the Federal Trade Commission staff to devise such a system, would it?

Mr. DIXON. I think it is possible. It could be done. I think the question the Commission has to decide though is whether or not the printed word is not superior when you are talking about all of the variations of material.

Mr. Moss. How would you use the printed word on yardage?
Mr. DIXON. You would have the same problem with symbols.

Mr. Moss. You might even have it woven into the selvage and have some so many symbols say in each yardage of fabric so that this would be available on the goods itself.

Mr. DIXON. The mechanical problems of how you label yard goods took up quite a good bit of our hearing time too, and it is incidentally something of increasing importance because sales of yard goods are increasing at a rapid rate.

Mr. Moss. Yes. You have it under the present Fabric Labeling Act as to the content and the makeup of the fibers, you have the requirement by law. I do not know what you are doing about it, but I know that you have the requirement.

Mr. DIXON. Yes, and it is very much included under our present rules.

Mr. Moss. Well, is it not true that manufacturers of yardage under present conditions include quite a bit of information along the selvage edge of the yardage, the color runs, some of the finishing material; is that not true?

Mr. DIXON. Some do and some do not.

Mr. Moss. Many do.

Mr. DIXON. Many do.

Mr. Moss. The technology is available to do it.

Mr. DIXON. I think so.

Mr. Moss. And if it was required of them, it would be done would it not?

Mr. DIXON. I do not think it is an insurmountable problem.

Mr. Moss. I think the thrust of this bill, and I think the thrust of my concern, and I assume other members will speak for themselves, is that the consuming public does have a right, not only a right, but a need to know what they are buying and how it can be cleaned or washed. I think there is an awful lot of victimizing of that consumer going on at the present time, and I do not think in many instances, I do not think it is a planned policy. It is one of overlooking the real need of the consumer. But, I think we here have a responsibility to look at that need and to try to formulate policy for protecting. Mr. Broyhill.

Mr. BROYHILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to be clear on this one point, Mr. Martin. I understand that the Federal Trade Commission has sufficient authority to do everything that is included in H.R. 6143?

62-270 0-71—3

Mr. MARTIN. There are two cases, one in Maine and one in Houston, Tex., sir, on trade regulation rules where our authority to make rules is bitterly contested. As you know, in bills that are presently before the Congress there are provisions to specifically give us this rulemaking power. It is my personal opinion that the Commission has the power to make this rule, but until these cases are decided by the Supreme Court I would not be able to assure you of that.

Mr. BROYHILL. Would you provide for the committee record a brief on the legislative authority that the Federal Trade Commission has to promulgate rules on the subject matter?

Mr. MARTIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. Moss. Would you like the record held to receive that at this point?

Mr. BROYHILL. Right.

Mr. Moss. Without objection, the record will be held to receive that information.

(See letter dated May 26, 1971, p. 19, this hearing.) Mr. BROYHILL. Thank you very much.

Mr. Moss. Mr. Eckhardt.

Mr. ECKHARDT. Mr. Martin, it seems to me that aside from whether or not you make extensive rules, and I am inclined to think that maybe you should, concerning labeling of a product so that the consumer knows how to clean it, it seems to me it would just be a very simple, fundamental proposition that a person who buys a piece of goods ought to know whether it is cotton, or paper, or wool. Do you not agree with that?

Mr. MARTIN. I certainly do agree, sir.

Mr. ECKHARDT. It certainly does not take a great deal of study to determine that that is necessary or unnecessary, does it?

Mr. MARTIN. No, sir.

Mr. ECKHARDT. Second, it seems to me to be a very fundamental proposition that there ought to be a source somewhere that could inform the public concerning the rather exotic products whether or not they will melt when they are put in water at say 90 degrees, and it does not seem to me to take a lot of study to determine that there ought to be somewhere in the files of the U.S. Government information concerning a product of that type.

Mr. MARTIN. I believe, sir, that this was the Commission's general feeling when it proposed the rule. I think that when you get to the point of implementing this rule-given the tremendous complexity of manufacturing, and then making various products, that you try to make something that works. I think that our problem to date, is to make sure that what we do will be effective for the consumer, and at the same time will allow the textile industry to operate.

Mr. ECKHARDT. But it is not going to be effective at all for the consumer if, in fact, you may not have power to make the rule; is that not correct?

Mr. MARTIN. Well, we would certainly have the power, I believe, under any circumstances to make a guide. When you talk about the power to make the rule you are talking about really the legal effect of the rule.