DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Washington, May 13, 1938.

Hon. CLARENCE F. LEA,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN: In response to your telephone request we are transmitting herewith a discussion of certain items in bill H. R. 9909, with the thought that this discussion will be introduced in the hearings on the bill.

The statements have been prepared by Mr. Warren E. Emley, the Chief of our Division of Organic and Fibrous Materials, who has attended the hearings which have just closed.

Respectfully,

LYMAN J. BRIGGS, Director.

A DISCUSSION OF CERTAIN ITEMS OF BILL H. R. 9909

It is suggested that certain changes in the wording of bill H. R. 9909 could be made to eliminate any possibility of misunderstanding.

On page 2, in the paragraph beginning with line 1, wool is defined as a fiber from the fleece of any one of a number of animals which are specified. The paragraph concludes with the words "and other similar animal fibers." These words make it incumbent upon someone to decide whether or not a particular fiber which may be offered is or is not similar to those enumerated. It would clarify the situation greatly if these five words were stricken out.

On page 2, in the paragraph beginning with line 9, the definition of reclaimed wool is so broad as to be unworkable from the laboratory standpoint, and it is believed also unworkable from a practical standpoint. It has been shown in previous testimony there are many grades of reclaimed wool. Perhaps the difficulty with the present situation can be brought out if we consider the poorest and the best grades of reclaimed wool, indicating some of the differences between them, and showing why it may be unfair to group them together in one classification.

A poor grade of reclaimed wool is made from old used rags which have been tightly woven from highly twisted yarns. Such reclaimed wool is characterized by the predominance of fibers which have had the crimp pulled out of them, have been split or broken, or have had the scales pulled off. In such reclaimed wool the wool itself is usually accompanied by a small percentage of cotton or rayon and it frequently shows indications of having previously been dyed. These characteristics make this grade of reclaimed wool easily detectable qualitatively, and it might be possible for a laboratory to make a quantitative estimate of the percentage present.

This kind of reclaimed wool is quite different in character from virgin wool and should perhaps be considered as a different kind of fiber. We must remember, however, that even this kind of reclaimed wool has a definite value. As an example of a better grade of reclaimed wool, let us consider the spinningroom waste from a woolen mill. This may consist of loosely twisted yarn which has not been woven or knitted. If for some reason the mill finds an excess of yarn of a certain size on its hands, and a need for yarn of a different size, it is quite possible to untwist the yarn which has already been spun, thereby obtaining a grade of reclaimed wool which is very similar in quality to the virgin wool. It may, perhaps, contain 10 percent of broken fibers as against 5 percent in the original yarn. This reclaimed wool would normally be used in the mill where it is made. It would not enter into commerce and would therefore not appear in statistics. It is impossible for any laboratory to tell how much of this kind of reclaimed wool has been used in a fabric. It is also obvious that this kind of reclaimed wool, if made from a good grade of virgin wool, will be better in quality than a poorer grade of virgin wool.

To penalize a fabric containing this kind of reclaimed wool by labeling it "reclaimed wool" would seem to be unfair to both manufacturer and consumer. The situation seems to call for the establishment of grades of reclaimed wool, the better grades being entitled to all of the rights and privileges of virgin wool, the poorer grades being a fiber of definitely different character.

On page 5, in the paragraph beginning on line 12, the permissible tolerance is given as 5 percent of the total fiber content, which would seem to be quite satisfactory, but the last five words of the paragraph say that this tolerance is given "for unavoidable variations in manufacture." Tolerances are made for other purposes, to cover, for example, variations in sampling, or variations in analysis. One might construe the paragraph to mean that a tolerance of 5 per

cent is allowed for variation in manufacture, and these other tolerances are in addition to this 5 percent. It is believed that the 5 percent should be sufficient to cover all tolerances, and it is, therefore, recommended that the last five words be stricken out.

On page 6 the paragraph beginning with line 11 prohibits the use of the word "wool" in the description of any product which, contains less than 51 percent of wool. This prohibition seems to be limited somewhat by the provision beginning on line 16, but it would seem that, even with this limitation, the prohibition may defeat the intent of Congress; for example, if a blanket contains 40 percent wool and 60 percent cotton, it would seem entirely correct to label it to indicate that fact, yet the prohibition given in this paragraph may be construed to mean that the word "wool" may not be used in any way in connection with a description of such a blanket.

Page 6, line 22: In this paragraph dealing with the labeling of a product containing 100 percent virgin wool all of the reasonable tolerances permitted for mixed goods have been omitted. The result is a statement which cannot be taken literally. The paragraph as written does not even permit the presence of any dyestuff. It is suggested that the words on line 2 of page 7 be stricken out and replaced by the following: "contains not less than 98 percent virgin wool, based on the fiber content."

INSTITUTE OF CARPET MANUFACTURERS OF AMERICA, INC..

COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE,

New York, May 20, 1938.

House Office Building, Washington, D. C. (Attention Mr. Elton J. Layton, Clerk.) GENTLEMEN: I refer to bill H. R. 9909, entitled "An act proposed for the labeling of wool and part wool products." This letter is in the form of a further memorandum to be filed with your committee in connection with the hearings held on the above matter, and for the filing of which, during the hearing, your chairman, Hon. Clarence F. Lea, granted permission.

As president of the Institute of Carpet Manufacturers of America, Inc., I might say that this organization represents about 80 percent of the production of wool carpets and rugs in the United States. This industry is not opposed, per se, to legislation for the purpose of revealing the contents of our fabrics. We submit, however, that a bill such as H. R. 9909, evidently dealing with wool fabrics having to do with the production of garments and articles of apparel, and perhaps even including blankets and such articles, cannot in any practical or fair way be applied to a manufactured article like a wool carpet or rug. If this bill is proposed to cover such manufactured articles, and its present provisions should remain as written, it would impose upon our industry unfair and impractical procedures and a situation would result which would create not only injustice, but confusion to the purchaser or the consumer.

May we further point out that whereas fabrics like garments, apparel, blankets, etc., are of a nature where the wool content or other fiber become a conglomerate and indistinguishable part of the finished product, our fabrics have wool pile separate and distinct from other contents of the fabric, like jute and cotton which serve an entirely different purpose than the wool in the surface of our fabric. As the jute and cotton serve the principal purpose of binding the wool together, the relationship of wool content to the content of those two fibers, for instance, would have nothing to do with the qualities of the fabric. May we point out, therefore, that the paragraph entitled "B," under section 4 of the act, by the naming of a percentage of wool content intended to define the quality of the fabric, if applied to the situation described above as to our fabric, would not only be impractical but untrue and misleading to all concerned.

Therefore, what we are trying to indicate is that in order to reach any practical results for the benefit of the industry or the consumer as to the identification of fiber content, etc., in our fabrics, it would be necessary to draw up an entirely different set of provisions. Furthermore, and apart from the foregoing, as to the definitions concerning "virgin wool" and "reclaimed wool," the situations in our industry are far different from those in the garment and apparel industries, which latter deal in fine wools made domestically, while our fabrics are made entirely out of coarser wools which are imported by our manufacturers entirely from foreign countries. Apart from this distinction as to the wools, the manufacturing processes which must be undertaken, and the uses

of the various types of wool fibers produced which are used in our fabrics, are so different that the definitions proposed in this bill as to distinctions between “virgin wool” and “reclaimed wool" would be unintelligent, misleading, and unfair.

May we also add that we are led to believe that this bill has not really our fabrics in mind in that the definition of the term "wool product” in paragraph E of section 2, means those types of fabrics or articles which are produced to be converted into a wool product. When our fabric leaves the hands of our manufacturers it is ready for the consumer and is not converted into anything else by anybody else. The wording of this definition of "wool product,” therefore, further indicates to us that the proponents of this bill could not have had wool carpets and rugs in mind.

The reason we appeared before your committee and filed a brief with both your committee and that of the Senate on the same bill, is because the wording of just the preamble of the bill might, from the language, include our fabrics together with garments or articles of apparel, because of the clause “or other articles." Accordingly, we felt it important in our own protection, and in justice to ourselves and the consumer who buys our product, that we make sure by reference to the specific provisions of the bill, that our fabrics should not be included in a bill of this kind.

We therefore, earnestly and respectfully request that proper action be taken by your committee to either change the language of the preamble of this bill, confining it to the type of wool fabrics which are evidently intended, or express definitely somewhere that the manufacturers of wool carpets and rugs are exempt from the provisions of H. R. 9909. Respectfully submitted.

HERBERT GUTTERSON, President.

This statement is offered in support of H. R. 9909, now before the committee for consideration and in this connection I quote a resolution adopted by the association at its last annual meeting held. at Kansas City, Mo., February 17-18, 1938. The resolution reads as follows:

This association favors enactment of legislation designed to bring about truthful labeling and advertisement as to the wool content of goods and fabrics for the protection both of consumers and of wool producers.

The membership of our association, especially those engaged in the production of wool, are particularly anxious that the bill before the committee be acted on favorably at the earliest moment and that this legislation be enacted at this session of Congress. They believe this type of legislation will redound to the benefit of all phases of the industry as well as promote the interest of wool producers. In order not to burden the record I am authorized to adopt and take as our own the testimony offered in support of the proposed measure on behalf of the National Wool Growers Association. It is hoped the committee will act without delay.

Mr. CROSSER. Mr. Lockwood, Mr. L. B. Lockwood has addressed a letter to the chairman, which may be made a part of the record. (The letter referred to is as follows:)

Hon. CLARENCE F. LEA,

THE L. B. LOCKWOOD Co.,

Cleveland, Ohio, May 10, 1938.

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

House Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: Last week when I attended the subcommittee hearings covering bill H. R. 9909 as a representative of the National Association of Wool Fibre Manufacturers I asked at that time to be allowed the privilege of submitting to you at a later date samples of a variety of reprocessed wool fibers which would represent wool fibers as manufactured in this country by various companies, such as ourselves. At that time you stated as chairman of the committee that this would be agreeable to you. I would like if possible to make arrangements to submit a considerable amount of data to you and as many members of the committee as possible, sometime the early part of this coming week. I would appreciate very much a telegram stating as to when this would be convenient and I assure you I will be only too pleased to arrange my time to suit yours in this connection.

I surely feel as though we should have the opportunity of defending ourselves in regards to certain statements which were made by the proponents of this bill, principally by the wool growers and Mr. Forstman. There were many

statements made which were far from actual facts and it is rather hard for me to understand how people could really make some of the statements which were made there last week as they were either made through ignorance or else through some selfish motive.

Unfortunately I was not aware that this hearing was going to be held until the day previous to the beginning of the hearing and, therefore, did not have the time to prepare the proper data covering this hearing; although I realize it was no fault of yours that I was not aware of the hearing. At the same time in view of the importance of our industry in connection with bill H. R. 9909, I sincerely hope that you will not make any report on this bill until we have had the privilege of submitting the facts pertaining to our industry in reference to this bill to you.

Some of the misstatements which were submitted last week are as follows: 1. Mr. Forstman said there was 100,000,000 pounds of reprocessed wool manufactured. According to United States Department of Commerce census for the year 1935 covering waste and related products, which is the last report we have received, table 4, page 26, shows a report of 57,201,100 pounds of reprocessed wool fibers. Also his figures on virgin wool were quite incorrect. We are giving you below official figures for the year 1937 which we know are very accurate.