[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14386-14388]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   TRUTH IN FUR LABELING ACT OF 2009

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 2480) to improve the accuracy of fur product labeling, and 
for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 2480

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Truth in Fur Labeling Act of 
     2009''.

     SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF EXEMPTION TO FUR PRODUCT LABELING 
                   REQUIREMENTS FOR PRODUCTS CONTAINING RELATIVELY 
                   SMALL QUANTITIES OR VALUES OF FUR.

       (a) In General.--Section 2(d) of the Fur Products Labeling 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 69(d)) is amended by striking ``; except 
     that'' and all that follows through ``contained therein''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the date that is 90 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. EXEMPTION FOR DISCRETE SALES BY NON-RETAILERS.

       Section 3 of the Fur Products Labeling Act (15 U.S.C. 69a) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) No provision of this Act shall apply to a fur 
     product--
       ``(1) the fur of which was obtained from an animal through 
     trapping or hunting; and
       ``(2) when sold in a face to face transaction at a place 
     such as a residence, craft fair, or other location used on a 
     temporary or short term basis, by the person who trapped or 
     hunted the animal, where the revenue from the sale of apparel 
     or fur products is not the primary source of income of such 
     person.''.

     SEC. 4. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION REVIEW OF FUR PRODUCTS NAME 
                   GUIDE.

       Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Federal Trade Commission shall publish in the 
     Federal Register notice of, and an opportunity to comment on, 
     a review of the Fur Products Name Guide (16 CFR 301.0).

     SEC. 5. PAYGO COMPLIANCE.

       The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 
     complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall 
     be determined by reference to the latest statement titled 
     ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act, 
     submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the 
     Chairman of the House Budget Committee, provided that such 
     statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and to include extraneous material in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SARBANES. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2480, the Truth in Fur 
Labeling Act.
  I want to begin by thanking Representative Moran from Virginia for 
introducing this bill and Representatives Rush, Waxman, Whitfield, and 
Barton for moving this bill through the committee process.
  H.R. 2480 is a commonsense, bipartisan bill that, with one exception, 
requires all articles of apparel containing fur to be labeled 
regardless of the cost of the garment. This legislation will make clear 
to consumers and retailers exactly which products contain fur and which 
do not.
  During committee consideration, one exception was added to these 
requirements. An amendment by Mr. Latta was accepted by voice vote to 
exempt from the labeling requirements those

[[Page 14387]]

fur products that are sold by hunters and trappers out of their homes 
or at fairs or at other temporary spaces. This exemption is extremely 
limited. It applies only to fur sold by the individual who actually 
hunted or trapped the animal when the sale of such furs is not the 
primary source of income for that individual. The bill also directs the 
Federal Trade Commission to update the Fur Products Name Guide, which 
has been criticized as inaccurate and outdated.
  As indicated, this bill enjoys very broad support from Members on 
both sides of the aisle. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1310

  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I also would like to thank Congressman Moran for being a real leader 
on this legislation, and I certainly want to thank Chairman Rush and 
Chairman Waxman and others on the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  This legislation, as Mr. Sarbanes adequately described, is relatively 
simple. It simply amends the Fur Products Labeling Act of 1951. That 
act required accuracy in the labeling of fur products and apparel, but 
it did not apply to any apparel sold for less than $150.
  A series of recent investigations revealed that a significant number 
of clothes designers and retailers were selling some fur-trimmed 
garments described as faux or raccoon or coyote or mink or whatever, 
when actually it turned out to be dog fur or something else. As a 
matter of fact, of 38 jackets subjected to very specific tests, every 
single garment of those 38 was either unlabeled or it contained a label 
that misidentified the animal's fur that was used in that garment. And 
so this legislation is about transparency, providing consumers with 
accurate information on what they're buying.
  Eighty-seven percent of garments sold in the U.S. today with fur 
already are required to abide by this. This will simply require the 
other 13 percent, those valued below $150, to abide by the same law. 
And consumer protection organizations, retail, and even the fashion 
industry all support this legislation. And I would urge our colleagues 
to support it as well.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I want to, again, salute my colleagues for 
making this a bipartisan effort. I think there's a consensus of opinion 
that the more information that's available to the consumer, to the 
retailer, the better off we all are. I mean, in many respects that's 
the essence of a consumer protection initiative is to make sure that 
people who are purchasing these products actually have good 
information, truth in labeling at their fingertips.
  I did want to salute the efforts of the Humane Society of the United 
States because they have been very responsible and persistent advocates 
on these issues over many, many, many years. As a result of those 
efforts, Americans have been learning more and more about some of the 
unsavory practices--it was just referred to by my colleague--when it 
comes to the sale of these fur products and how they're manufactured 
and what the source of the fur is. And, as a result, consumers want to 
know more, rightly. They justifiably want to understand more about 
where those products come from and be in a position to support the many 
businesses who are actually doing the right thing and are engaged in 
good, positive, best practices when it comes to marketing these 
products that contain fur.
  And so I think that this bill that's been brought forward by my 
colleague, Mr. Moran, the Truth in Fur Labeling Act, is going to help 
to advance that goal. And again, I'm very pleased that it has the 
bipartisan support that was indicated.
  I did want to cite some of the information that was gleaned through a 
few investigations that were initiated by The Humane Society. They 
discovered that there were dozens of designers and retailers--Mr. 
Whitfield has referred to this--that were selling some of these fur-
trimmed jackets as faux or raccoon or coyote, or they weren't labeled 
at all. And you could find these in many of the retailers whose names 
you know. And they looked at 38 jackets. They subjected them to the 
spectrometry test which allows you to look and see exactly what the 
source of it is.
  Many of them, as I say, that were identified as faux, of the 38 
jackets that were looked at, every single garment was either unlabeled, 
contained a label that misidentified the animal, or was falsely 
advertised with this faux label. Three of the jackets advertised as 
fake fur, two of which had no label, were found to contain fur from 
domestic dogs. Now, this goes in contravention of legislation that's 
already on the books. But if you don't have that labeling imperative at 
work, then this kind of thing can slide through.
  Designers, retailers, and consumers, as a result of this, get put in 
a position where they can't have confidence that what they're getting--
whether it's faux fur or real, and if real, from what animal--is 
something that they can count on, especially, I might add, when it is a 
source from China, based on some of the investigations that have been 
done. So that's why this legislation is so critical.
  As a result of the very broad support it has, and based on its merits 
and the substance of it, I would urge my colleagues to support its 
passage today.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as she may consume to 
Representative Sutton from Ohio, who is a member of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee and sits on the subcommittee that had jurisdiction 
with respect to this particular piece of legislation.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2480, the 
Truth in Fur Labeling Act.
  Mr. Speaker, consumers should be able to make informed decisions on 
what they're purchasing. When fur is not labeled because the value is 
below a certain level, a consumer may believe that no fur is used, even 
when it is. This bill will fix that problem by requiring that all fur 
apparel have labels, regardless of the value.
  It's alarming when investigations reveal that dog fur and other 
animal furs are being sold to consumers who thought that they had 
merely purchased fake fur. Labels on all fur products will allow 
consumers to know what they are buying for themselves and their 
families, and it will help us disclose the truth about the type of fur 
that is being used on garments.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
Truth in Fur Labeling Act, legislation I introduced along with 
Representative Mary Bono Mack.
  The Fur Products Labeling Act of 1951 requires that animal fur 
garments be labeled with the name of the species used, manufacturer, 
country of origin, and other information.
  That law protects consumers by providing product information and 
letting them know whether the product is made from real animal fur, and 
if so, what type of fur.
  A provision in that labeling law, however, exempts products with a 
``relatively small quantity or value'' of fur.
  Since 1998, the Federal Trade Commission has set that amount at $150.
  Many garments--such as jackets, sweaters, vests, and accessories--
that are only trimmed with animal fur fall below this $150 threshold.
  And because that threshold includes only the cost of the fur, not the 
total cost of the garment, even products containing several pelts could 
fall below the limit.
  Products without labels, which are estimated to account for 13 
percent of the fur garment market, pose a significant problem for 
consumers.
  Some consumers may be allergic to certain fur products. Absent a 
label, they may buy a product that they assume is faux fur, but turns 
out to contain real fur that can impact their health.
  Also, many consumers have strong moral objections to purchasing real 
fur products or have concerns about the use of certain species.
  Without labels, how are customers supposed to know what they are 
buying?
  At its core, this is a consumers' rights bill.
  And consumers have a right to be skeptical about the accuracy of the 
information they receive when buying products at retail outlets.
  A series of recent investigations by The Humane Society of the United 
States revealed that dozens of designers and retailers were

[[Page 14388]]

selling fur-trimmed jackets advertised as ``faux,'' ``raccoon,'' 
``coyote,'' or not labeled at all, which turned out to be raccoon dog, 
domestic dog, or wolf.
  The problem is complicated by the increasing use of dyeing and 
shearing on fur products.
  If customers see pink, orange, blue, or sheared trim, they often 
assume it is synthetic because it is not labeled and does not resemble 
an animal's fur.
  Quite simply, the current labeling law has not kept up with changes 
in the marketplace.
  The only way to ensure consumers have all the information they 
deserve is by removing the $150 loophole and requiring labels on all 
fur products.
  This bill has the support of designers and retailers such as Gucci, 
Burberry, Saks Fifth Avenue, Bloomingdale's, Macy's, and Tommy 
Hilfiger.
  These companies recognize the need for clear and consistent standards 
as a way to ensure consumer confidence in the products they sell.
  It is also supported by National Association of Consumer Agency 
Administrators (NACAA), an organization representing more than 160 
government agencies and 50 corporate consumer offices.
  This bill has been vetted thoroughly and modified at both the 
Subcommittee and Committee level to address valid concerns raised by 
the Members of the Minority, including the addition of language 
excluding from the labeling requirements small amounts of homemade 
products made by hunters and trappers.
  Finally, it is important to note that this bill would in no way 
restrict any trade in fur or any methods of producing fur.
  Again, this is about giving all consumers, whether they have a closet 
full of fur garments or wouldn't be caught dead in one, the complete 
information they need to make enlightened purchasing decisions.
  This is a commonsense bill that deserves broad support, and I ask my 
colleagues to vote for its passage.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support H.R. 2480, the 
Truth in Fur Labeling Act. This legislation is an important step for 
consumers and animals. It is also basic common sense. It removes a 
loophole that has kept consumers from knowing what they're buying and 
enforces a law that Congress passed ten years ago.
  We all deserve to know what we're buying. However, the current fur 
labeling exemption is unclear and out of date, leaving consumers in the 
dark. Consumers often end up buying real fur that they are told is fake 
or domestic dog fur mislabeled as raccoon fur. If a product has less 
than $150 worth of fur on it, it doesn't even need to be labeled at 
all. That means that a $500 coat with $150 worth of fur on the collar 
and cuffs does not require a label. Based on approximate pelt prices 
after tanning and dressing, that coat could be made using the fur from 
30 rabbits, three Arctic foxes, one otter or one timber wolf, without 
requiring any sort of label. That does not provide consumers with 
adequate protection and doesn't allow them to make informed decisions. 
The Truth in Fur Labeling Act will remedy the situation and give 
consumers the ability to make choices for themselves, rather than being 
kept in the dark or even deceived.
  I am proud to support this legislation today, and am pleased to see 
the widespread support it has received from outside organizations, 
including such diverse groups as the Humane Society of the United 
States, Macy's and Saks Fifth Avenue. I hope that my colleagues will 
join me in protecting consumer rights and animal welfare.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my 
support for H.R. 2480, the Truth in Fur Labeling Act, which improves 
the accuracy of labels on fur products sold in the United States. The 
bill would also require the Federal Trade Commission to review its Fur 
Products Name Guide, ensuring that document contains accurate and 
consistent species names. I support the Truth in Fur Labeling Act 
because American consumers deserve to know what, exactly, they are 
purchasing when they shop for fur garments, regardless of the price of 
those garments.
  This legislation guarantees transparency so that shoppers can make 
informed decisions about the products they buy. This transparency is 
currently compromised by the ``fur loophole'' in the Fur Products 
Labeling Act of 1951, which allows manufacturers of fur and faux-fur 
garments under $150.00 to sell these products without a label or with a 
label that fails to list all of the types of fur included in the 
product. In the market today, exporters use this loophole to 
deceptively sell products made from cat and dog fur as though they were 
made from faux fur or the fur of other animals, although it is illegal 
to import, export, sell or advertise domestic dog or cat fur in the 
U.S.
  China exports about half of all the imported fur garments sold on the 
U.S. market. In Chinese factories, many domestic dogs and cats are 
brutally killed and sometimes even skinned alive for their fur. A 
Humane Society investigation found in the 1990s that the death toll of 
domestic dogs and cats in China reached 2 million animals every year; 
the same investigation revealed that some of the resulting dog fur was 
being sold in the U.S. After this scandal broke, Congress passed the 
Dog and Cat Protection Act of 2000, which banned the trade in dog and 
cat fur. Unfortunately, the ``fur loophole'' has created a way for 
dishonest exporters to continue profiting from sales of dog and cat fur 
to American consumers. Manufacturers also use the loophole to market 
real fur as faux fur, tricking Americans with humane shopping policies 
into supporting an industry they oppose.
  Part of my objection to the current, deficient, language of the Fur 
Products Labeling Act lies in the fact that its loophole only applies 
to products of ``relatively small quantity or value.'' A garment of 
$150, the upper limit of that category, can contain multiple animal 
pelts. Clearly, new legislation is necessary to allow customers to be 
confident in the type of fur they are buying, regardless of how much 
money they spend.
  I urge my colleagues to also support this important resolution.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2480, 
the Truth in Fur Labeling Act of 2009. This bill will amend the Fur 
Products Labeling Act of 1951 to close the loophole that allows the 
sale of products containing a relatively small quantity of fur or fur 
that is valued at $150 or less.
  The current loophole denies consumers the right to know what their 
garment is really made of. It may say ``faux'' but this may not be 
accurate. Consumers who may have allergies to fur or ethical objections 
to fur cannot make informed purchases. Our constituents have the right 
to know what they are purchasing and wearing.
  This bill was introduced in response to a series of investigations of 
fur products sold at major retailers across the country. This 
investigation found that a significant number of clothes designers and 
retailers were selling some fur-trimmed garments that were described as 
faux when actually they turned out to be real fur. This legislation is 
about transparency and providing consumers with accurate information on 
what they're buying.
  This legislation simply requires that fur-trimmed garments meet the 
same labeling standard already in place for fur garments of a higher 
dollar value. It does not affect the trade in any animal fur or the 
methods used to produce animal fur. The legislation also asks the 
Federal Trade Commission to review the Fur Products Name Guide and 
ensure accuracy and consistency of species names.
  I supported this legislation in the 110th Congress, and strongly 
support it today.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to strongly add my support to H.R. 2480, the 
Truth in Fur Labeling Act of 2009.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, again, I urge the support of this bill 
from my colleagues, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 2480, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________