U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

66–511 PDF 2011

A REVIEW OF CPSIA AND CPSC RESOURCES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, 

AND TRADE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 17, 2011 

Serial No. 112–10 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

Vice Chair 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

Ranking Member 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

JANE HARMAN, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

(II)

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING AND TRADE

MARY BONO MACK, California 

Chairman 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chair 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVE B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan, ex officio 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

Ranking Member 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, ex officio 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Mary Bono Mack, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. G.K. Butterfield, a Representative in Congress from the State of North 

Carolina, opening statement ............................................................................... 4 

Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 7 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 119 

Hon. Edolphus Towns, a Representative in Congress from the State of New 

York, prepared statement .................................................................................... 119 

WITNESSES

Inez Tenenbaum, Chairman, Consumer Product Safety Commission ................ 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 167 

Anne Northup, Commissioner, Consumer Product Safety Commission .............. 18 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 20 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 205 

Jolie Fay, Founder, Skipping Hippos, and Secretary, Handmade Toy Alliance . 60 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 63 

Wayne Morris, Vice President, Division Services, Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers ............................................................................................. 71 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 73 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 248 

Rick Woldenberg, Chairman, Learning Resources, Inc. ....................................... 83 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 85 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 250 

Nancy A. Cowles, Executive Director, Kids in Danger ......................................... 95 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 97 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 254 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Letter of March 4, 2009, from Mr. Dingell to the United States Consumer 

Product Safety Commission ................................................................................. 121 

CPSC response .................................................................................................. 126 

Prepared statements of the American Motorcyclist Association, Motorcycle 

Industry Council, Goodwill Industries International, Retail Industry Leaders Association, and Representative Denny Rehberg of Montana, submitted 

by Mrs. Bono Mack .............................................................................................. 152 

(1) 

A REVIEW OF CPSIA AND CPSC RESOURCES 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING AND

TRADE, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:30 a.m., in room 

2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mary Bono Mack 

(chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Bono Mack, Blackburn, Harper, Lance, Cassidy, Guthrie, Olson, Pompeo, Kinzinger, Barton, 

Upton, Butterfield, Dingell, Towns, Schakowsky, and Waxman (ex 

officio). 

Staff present: Gary Andres, Staff Director; Jim Barnette, General 

Counsel; Mike Bloomquist, Deputy General Counsel; Paul 

Cancienne, Policy Coordinator, CMT; Andy Duberstein, Special Assistant to Chairman Upton; Robert Frisby, Detailee, CMT; Brian 

McCullough, Senior Professional Staff Member, CMT; Jeff Mortier, 

Professional Staff Member; Gib Mullan, Chief Counsel, CMT; Katie 

Novaria, Legislative Clerk; Michelle Ash, Chief Counsel; Felipe 

Mendoza, Counsel; and Will Wallace, Policy Analyst. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. The subcommittee will come to order. I would 

ask members to take their seats. 

As we begin to work this year, I would like to thank all of the 

members on the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and 

Trade for your participation, especially the new ranking member, 

Mr. Butterfield. I would also like to congratulate Mr. Upton on his 

chairmanship of the full committee and to thank him for entrusting 

me with the chairmanship of this very important subcommittee. 

As you know, the Energy and Commerce Committee is the oldest 

standing committee in the House of Representatives, dating back 

to 1795. Its original name was the Commerce and Manufactures 

Committee and our subcommittee continues to focus on the core of 

our original jurisdiction. The chair now recognizes herself for an 

opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARY BONO MACK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mrs. BONO MACK. This is the first hearing of our subcommittee 

for the 112th Congress. Over the months ahead I plan to look at 

a wide range of issues that deeply affect Americans in their daily 

lives. One of the most important as well as one of the most vexing 

2 

issues we face today is how do we get our economy back on track? 

How do we create new jobs? How do we bring jobs which have been 

lost to foreign countries back home and how do we make ‘‘Made in 

America’’ matter again? I believe it is part of our job to take a close 

look at what is working and what is not working and then see how 

we can work together to make a real difference in peoples lives. 

Today’s hearing is about the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, affectionately known as CPSIA. This legislation was 

truly a landmark in efforts to improve consumer product safety. It 

was the first reauthorization of the CPSC in 17 years and it modernized and strengthened the agency in many different and meaningful ways. While CPSIA has many virtues, there are some unintended consequences of the law as well. We have a responsibility 

to the American public to review those specific provisions of the 

law that have proven to be problematic and to fix them. Admittedly, it is a careful balancing act and we have to be certain as the 

old saying goes, ‘‘not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.’’ 

For thousands of businesses who strive to be responsible let us 

do what is best for consumers. CPSIA has consumed and inordinate 

amount of their time trying to understand how each new regulation 

and standard will affect them. Unfortunately, many have gone out 

of business, attributing their demise to some of the burdens of compliance with the many provisions of the new law. We need to strike 

a careful balance. As a Nation, we simply cannot afford to lose jobs 

or to stifle innovation because of unnecessary regulations. Frankly, 

many businesses never even heard about this law until well-after 

it was enacted. Most were shocked to learn of the onerous requirements it would impose on them if they manufactured or sold any 

children’s product even though they had never done anything 

wrong and never had a single product recall. 

It began with the best of intentions. In 2007, the widely publicized toy recalls for violations of existing lead paint standard gave 

way to new prohibition on lead content in children’s products. As 

interpreted by the Commission, this category goes far beyond just 

toys to cover sporting goods, library books, ATVs, educational products, CDs, clothing and many other items. The goal was a noble 

one, making products safer for our kids but within just months of 

passage both the Commission and the Congress realized that problems with the new law would need to be addressed. 

The Commission recently announced yet another stay of enforcement, at least five now by my count that it deems necessary to 

avert potentially disastrous results. What is more, during the last 

Congress numerous bills and legislative drafts were introduced including one by Mr. Barton to remedy some of the problems we already know about. I hope our new members can quickly get up to 

speed on these issues and working together we can come up with 

a commonsense solution that is a win-win for everyone. 

Today the Commission has jurisdiction over literally thousands 

of different types of products. It is critically important that they 

should be able to prioritize their resources to address the products 

that pose the greatest risks to consumers. As a mother, I have very 

strong, passionate feelings about protecting all children but as a 

former small business owner I know all too well how unnecessary 

regulations, even well-intentioned ones can destroy lives too. This 

3 

is a rare opportunity to put aside the differences that often divide 

this great body and put our heads together to make a good law 

even better. It is up to us now and as we begin this important debate, I am going to encourage everyone to remember what we all 

tell our kids growing up, keep your eye on the ball. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bono Mack follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARY BONO MACK

This is the first hearing of our Subcommittee for the 112th Congress. Over the 

months ahead, I plan to look at a wide range of issues that deeply affect Americans 

in their daily lives. One of the most important—as well as one of the most vexing 

issues we face today—is how to get our economy back on track. How do we create 

new jobs? How do we bring jobs which have been lost to foreign countries back 

home? How do we make ‘‘Made in America’’ matter again? I believe it’s part of ‘‘our 

job’’ to take a close look at what’s working and what’s not working, and then see 

how we can ‘‘work’’ together to make a real difference in peoples’ lives. 

Today’s hearing is about the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act or 

‘‘CPSIA.’’ This legislation was truly a landmark in efforts to improve consumer product safety. It was the first reauthorization of the CPSC in 17 years, and it modernized and strengthened the agency in many different and meaningful ways. 

While CPSIA has many virtues, there are some unintended consequences of the 

law, as well. We have a responsibility to the American public to review those specific provisions of the law that have proven to be problematic and to fix them. Admittedly, it’s a careful balancing act, and we have to be certain—as the old saying 

goes—not to throw the baby out with the bath water. 

For thousands of businesses, who strive to be responsible, ‘‘let’s do what’s best for 

consumers’’—CPSIA has consumed an inordinate amount of their time trying to understand how each new regulation and standard will affect them. Unfortunately, 

many have gone out of business, attributing their demise to some of the burdens 

of compliance with the many provisions of the new law. We need to strike a careful 

balance. As a nation, we simply cannot afford to lose jobs or stifle innovation because of unnecessary regulations. 

Frankly, many businesses never even heard about this law until well after it was 

enacted. Most were shocked to learn of the onerous requirements it would impose 

on them if they manufactured or sold any ‘‘children’s product’’—even though they 

had never done anything wrong and never had a single product recall. 

It began with the best of intentions. In 2007, the widely publicized toy recalls for 

violations of the existing lead paint standard gave way to a new prohibition on lead 

content in children’s products. As interpreted by the Commission, this category goes 

far beyond just toys to cover sporting goods, library books, all-terrain vehicles, educational products, CDs, clothing, and many other items. 

The goal was a noble one: making products safer for our kids. But within just 

months of passage, both the Commission and the Congress realized that problems 

with the new law would need to be addressed. The Commission recently announced 

yet another stay of enforcement—at least five now by my count—that it deems necessary to avert potentially disastrous results. What’s more, during the last Congress, numerous bills and legislative drafts were introduced—including one by Mr. 

Barton—to remedy some of the problems we already know about. I hope that our 

new members can quickly get up to speed on these issues, and—working together 

—we can come up with a common sense solution that’s a win-win for everyone. 

Today, the Commission has jurisdiction over literally thousands of different types 

of products. It’s critically important that they should be able to prioritize their resources to address the products that pose the greatest risk to consumers. 

As a mother, I have very strong, passionate feelings about protecting all children. 

But as a former small business owner, I know all too well how unnecessary regulations—even well intentioned ones—can destroy lives, too. This is a rare opportunity 

to put aside the differences that often divide this great body and put our heads together to make a good law even better. 

It’s up to us now. And, as we begin this important debate, I’m going to encourage 

everyone to remember what we all tell our own kids growing up: Keep your eye on 

the ball. 

Mr. Butterfield, you are now up to bat. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Mr. Butterfield, you are now up to bat and the 

gentleman from North Carolina, the ranking member, Mr. 

4 

Butterfield is now recognized for 5 minutes for his opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. G.K. BUTTERFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH 

CAROLINA 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Let me thank the chairman for convening this 

very important hearing today and I certainly thank the witnesses 

for their anticipated testimony. We received a copy of your advanced testimony and I read most of it last evening but though I 

did not read all of it and so I look forward to your testimony today. 

Today marks our first hearing and I want to thank the chairman 

of this subcommittee for calling this hearing and for her friendship 

and for her anticipated leadership on this very important committee. I reached out to the chairman and she has reached out to 

me and we have created a friendship and I look forward to working 

with her as we go forward. I can certainly say that the early signs 

are encouraging. 

As today’s hearing demonstrates, the issues before this subcommittee often have a real and direct impact on the daily lives of 

the American people. From the toaster they use at breakfast, to the 

dishwasher they load as they head out the door, to the dolls and 

the toy trucks their kids play with, people reasonably expect the 

consumer products they bring into their homes will be safe. Unlike 

many of the issues we deal with, consumer product safety is nonpartisan or at least it should be. In fact, a poll released just yesterday by the publisher of Consumer Reports found that 98 percent 

of American consumers agree that the Federal Government should 

play a prominent role in improving product safety. I am hopeful 

that we will be able to find common ground and move forward in 

a bipartisan manner on consumer product safety. It is clearly what 

the American people want and expect. 

This is an obvious choice as our first hearing. We all understand 

the challenges that the Consumer Product Safety Commission has 

faced in implementing the CPSIA, the law that we all know so 

much about. I also understand that we are likely to see some legislation on this issue in the coming weeks. While no complete agency 

overhaul is likely to be perfect, the CPSIA has provided some crucial changes to strengthen and modernize the consumer product 

safety system, particularly with respect to children’s products. The 

law established basic safety standards for limiting the amount of 

lead and phthalates in children’s products. It also introduced a 

product testing system designed to ensure that all children’s products and other products subject to mandatory safety rules are safe, 

and it gives the Commission new resources and authority, and reestablished a five-member commission, two of whom are sitting in 

front of us, allowing it to proceed in an unfettered way with its decision and rulemaking authority. 

Consumers had long believed that if a product made it to the 

store shelf that it must be safe. Unfortunately, that was not the 

case and is not the case and the millions of toys recalled in the 

summer of 2007, illustrated this frightening trend and these 

weren’t just recalls because of high lead levels. Many were due to 

5 

design-related safety defects that could have led to burns and choking and strangulation among other potentially fatal dangers. 

Parents were concerned and outraged, as were the members of 

this committee. As a result, we resolved that our children would no 

longer be the frontline for measuring the risk to their health and 

safety from toys and other products they use. These manufacturers 

would have to prove their products were safe before they made 

their way into the hands of our children. 

I understand that implementation has been a challenge for the 

Commission and for the small and large manufacturers working to 

comply with the new law. Today I hope to hear about how the law 

is working as well as the new challenges and as some say the unintended consequences that may have been created. I also hope to 

learn how the Commission allocates its resources between implementing this law and its many other important responsibilities. I 

also look forward to hearing why key provisions of the law still 

aren’t being enforced. That is very important and why some congressionally mandated rules still have yet to be finalized. 

I look forward to the hearing from all of the witnesses and as I 

said earlier, I thank you for coming today with your testimony. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I am going to yield my last minute that I have 

to any member who would like to consume. Ms. Schakowsky, you 

have my remaining time. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentleman very much. 

I want to congratulate Chairman Tenenbaum for restoring the 

Consumer Product Safety Commission to its proper role of protecting consumers. And consumers do believe when they go and 

pick items off the shelf, they already think that somebody somewhere is protecting them, and thank goodness the CPSC is doing 

that just now. Before this landmark bill passed, there were 170 

items of children’s jewelry containing lead at high and dangerous 

levels. This legislation did something about that and finally, when 

we did our annual toy safety bill there were fewer items that we 

said were dangerous on the shelf. 

The Commission has already shown its flexibility in dealing with 

some of the problems of implementation. But the bottom line issue 

of protecting consumers and particularly children, that is the proper role of government and that is our proper role that we will exert 

today. We are going to protect our consumers and our children. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Chairman Upton yielded his 5 minutes for his 

opening statement to me in accordance with committee rules. As 

his designee, I now recognize Mr. Barton, chairman emeritus of the 

committee and conferee on CPSIA for 1 minute. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and it is good to 

see you in the chair. I look forward to participating with you and 

the other members of this subcommittee as we have a very profitable next 2 years. 

It is good to see our two witnesses, the honorable chairwoman 

and of course Commissioner Northup who I actually remember as 

congresswoman. Anne Northup, it is good to see you. 

I was a conferee on the consumer product safety, whatever it 

was, information act 3 or 4 years ago. Mr. Dingell was the chairman of that conference. Ms. Schakowsky was on it and Mr. Waxman was on it, and I think Mr. Whitfield and Mr. Stearns on our 

6 

side. Senator Boxer I remember and Senator Inouye on the Senate 

side. We had a good conference. We reported a good bill. Unfortunately, we put some language in at the very end of the conference 

that has turned out to be very difficult because it doesn’t really 

give the CPSC the flexibility that they need to show some discretion for some of our smaller manufacturers and in some cases, individual producers of some of these products. We introduced a reform 

bill in the last Congress. We were never able to get consensus on 

it and I hope that under the leadership of Chairwoman Bono Mack 

that we can get that consensus in this Congress. 

And with that I would yield back and say I again look forward 

to working on this issue. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. I thank the gentleman. 

Now, I would like to yield a minute to Mr. Pompeo, one of our 

newest members, 1 minute. 

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thanks to the 

witnesses for coming out this morning. I look forward to the hearing. 

A little later today on the floor or perhaps it will be early tomorrow morning I will offer an amendment of having to do with the 

public accessible database information. CPSC is set to roll this 

database out in early March as called for in CPSIA in 2008, but 

unfortunately the database’s final role in my view has created and 

will create far more harm then good that it will do. The statute in 

my view has been interpreted to mandate the posting of materially 

inaccurate information and the agency has created a database that 

will both direct consumers away from safe products to relatively 

less safe ones and damage the reputation of very safety-conscious 

manufacturers. 

I hope this amendment will pass this afternoon and we will get 

the time to reflect and review and give this committee the chance 

to do oversight so that we can get a better role, a better database 

that will more effectively accomplish the important objectives of the 

statute. Thank you. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. And I have one more speaker but at this point 

she is not here. I would like to yield to Mr. Waxman for his opening statement for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much. I want to thank Chairman 

Bono Mack for holding this hearing and congratulate her on her 

new chairmanship of this important subcommittee. 

Until recently, our product safety system and especially our toy 

safety system was terribly broken. In 2007 and 2008, we saw 

record recalls and a total loss of consumer confidence in the safety 

of all products. Children were killed and horribly injured by defective and dangerous products. The Consumer Product Safety Commission had limited statutory authority. Only two of the three commissioner slots were filled and its staff numbers and resources had 

thoroughly atrophied. This situation alarmed families across the 

nation and Congress responded. In 2008, Congress enacted truly 

historic product safety legislation that vastly improved our chilVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:27 Aug 09, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 112\112-10 021711\112-10 CHRIS
7 

dren’s health and safety. Now that we are a few years away from 

the recalls and the most dramatic stories have left the front pages 

some suggest that we didn’t really need to enact such a strong law 

but I believe that is wishful thinking. The fact remains that the 

system we had in place was a failure. This law was necessary to 

protect kids and families across the country. 

Let me just mention a few of the law’s successes. Today toy recalls have dropped from 172 in 2008, to 44 in 2010. Today we have 

strong mandatory standards for cribs and CPSC has finished creating a publicly accessible consumer incident database which as far 

as I know is a very useful database and we ought to get a chance 

to review it. 

Today CPSC has increased its staff and resources. It increased 

surveillance at ports, five commissioners as well as a new IT system and laboratory. To retreat now from the proven consumer protections achieved under this law would be a huge mistake. 

This morning an important new study was published. It shows 

that between 1990 and 2008, nearly 200,000 infants and young 

children went to emergency rooms for injuries related to cribs and 

playpens. And a new poll for the Consumers’ Union documents 

Americans want a strong federal regulator to protect children from 

these dangers. 

As legislators we know that legislation is not flawless. Although 

the Commission has made great strides in carrying out this law, 

we have heard from a number of stakeholders that certain provisions of the law may need adjustment and we need to take these 

concerns seriously. Over the past 2 years we have met repeatedly 

with stakeholders affected by the new law to understand their concerns and to craft an appropriate legislative response. I see that 

some of these stakeholders are represented on the second panel of 

this hearing and I welcome them. As I have stated to them in the 

past and I will repeat today, I am committed to working with them, 

the Commission and members of this committee to strike a delicate 

balance between the need for targeted changes to the law and the 

need to preserve the most important public health accomplishments of the law. Product safety should not and has not been a 

partisan issue and it is my sincere hope that this committee will 

work quickly to resolve these issues once and for all. 

I look forward to hearing the testimony. I look forward to working with the new subcommittee and committee leadership as we 

continue our commitment to protect all consumers, especially children. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. I thank the gentleman. 

Today we have two panels before us. Each of the witnesses has 

prepared an opening statement that will be placed in the record. 

Each of you will have 5 minutes to summarize that statement in 

your remarks. 

On the first panel we have and we welcome the Honorable Inez 

Tenenbaum, Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Joining her on the first panel is Commissioner Anne Northup 

and our former colleague. Thank you both for being here today. 

Chairman Tenenbaum, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

8 

STATEMENTS OF INEZ TENENBAUM, CHAIRMAN, CONSUMER 

PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION; AND ANNE NORTHUP, COMMISSIONER, CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION 

STATEMENT OF INEZ TENENBAUM 

Ms. TENENBAUM. Thank you and good morning, Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Butterfield and members of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade. 

Since assuming the chairmanship of the Commission in July, 

2009, I have focused on three key objectives. First, I have worked 

diligently to implement the Consumer Product Safety Improvement 

Act and use that Act’s new authorities in a manner that is both 

highly protective of consumers and fair to industry stakeholders. I 

recognize that some of these rules have caused concern in the regulated community and I have worked to provide appropriate relief 

whenever possible. However, it is also important to point out that 

the vast majority of the CPSIA rules and requirements had been 

adopted unanimously by the Commission and widely accepted by 

the industry consumer groups and families across the country. 

I am pleased to report to the subcommittee, we are on time and 

on budget to launch the public database on the safety of consumers’ 

products mandated by Section 212 of the CPSIA and this launch 

is on March the 11th. This database will empower consumers with 

information allowing them to quickly determine whether products 

they already own or are considering purchasing are associated with 

safety hazards or recalls. I want to assure this subcommittee that 

CPSC staff has worked to ensure that the database is fair to all 

stakeholders while also fulfilling the intentions of Congress. Overall, I strongly believe that we have reached the right balance of addressing the manufacturers’ legitimate concerns while also ensuring that the public has access to critical consumer product safety 

information. This database will prevent injuries and it will save 

lives. Congress recognized this when it added Section 212 to the 

CPSIA and I look forward to seeing this important to fully implemented in just 3 weeks from now. 

Second, I have focused on changing the CPSC’s internal processes so that the agency is more assertive and more capable of addressing safety challenges presented by thousands of types of consumer products imported from all over the world. In the last year 

the Commission has released a strategic plan that establishes a 

plan to make the CPSC the global leader in consumer product safety. We have established a new office of education global outreach 

and small business ombudsman that has already begun to provide 

outreach to small businesses and crafters. We have embarked on 

a substantial upgrade of our information technology system which 

has formed the backbone of the database and our new CPSC.gov 

homepage. 

Third, I have focused on proactive prevention of consumer harms 

identifying emerging hazards and keeping those products out of the 

stream of commerce. We have taken a number of steps to increase 

the surveillance of potentially harmful consumer goods by signing 

several information sharing agreements with Customs and Border 

Protection and increasing our physical presence at the ports of 

entry. The Commission’s safe sleep team has also made great 

9 

strides to rid the marketplace of dangerous cribs, usher in a new 

generation of safer cribs and to educate parents about the importance of maintaining a safe sleep environment for infants and toddlers. A key component of this was the mandatory crib safety 

standard. These standards were designed through many hours and 

staff working collaboration by the Commission resulting in a unanimous vote in favor of the new standards on December the 15th, 

2010. And particularly, I am extremely proud of the Commission’s 

staff and the work they have done to implement the bulk of the 

CPSIA and create a safer consumer product marketplace for all 

Americans. 

The Commission has received increases in appropriations over 

the past 3 years. These resources are making a difference. They ensure that we can get the message out to families after a hurricane 

or an ice storm that the use of portable generators in homes can 

result in carbon monoxide poisoning and tragedy. They also allow 

us to do public outreach to new mothers so they will not place their 

newborns into an unsafe sleep environment that could result in a 

tragedy. Some will say that these resources are solely to promulgating rules under the CPSIA. This is untrue. 

In 1980, the Commission had almost 1,000 employees and an inflation-adjusted budget of $150 million. By 2007, the Commission 

had fallen to 385 employees and was barely able to carry out its 

core functions. We simply cannot return to those dark days. 

In the coming months I look forward to discussing possible target 

improvements to the CPSIA with this subcommittee. On January 

15, 2010, I reported a unanimous report of the Commission requesting some additional flexibility on some key requirements. I 

recognize that some want to go further than this and reopen the 

entire act. This would be a mistake. Calls for a return to a completely risk-based lead paint and contents standard are one example of a proposal that is seriously ill-advised. Lead is a contaminant 

and a powerful neurotoxin. It is a particular threat to the developing brain of a fetus, infant and a young child and with documented negative effects on behavior and permanent loss of IQ. 

During my tenure as chairman, my message to manufacturers 

has been simple. Get the lead out. If it absolutely has to be in your 

product, we have sought the authority to address it through a functional purpose exception. We have made substantial progress in 

this area since the passage of the CPSIA and parents should never 

have to wonder and worry about whether the model train or the 

toy they purchase for their child is leaded or unleaded. 

Thank you again for inviting me to provide testimony before the 

subcommittee today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Tenenbaum follows:] 

10 


66511.001
11 


66511.002
12 


66511.003
13 


66511.004
14 


66511.005
15 


66511.006
16 


66511.007
17 


66511.008
18 

Mrs. BONO MACK. I thank the chairman and recognize Commissioner Northup for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ANNE NORTHUP 

Ms. NORTHUP. Thank you, Madam Chair, and let me congratulate you. I know you are the first woman that is a subcommittee 

chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee and as a former 

member I know that those achievements are so important to all the 

women that come behind us. It is very exciting to the women on 

Capitol Hill to see you as the chair so I congratulate you, and also, 

Ranking Member Butterfield, thank you for having me here today. 

I appreciate the opportunity to come and talk a little bit about 

the CPSIA. I certainly want to acknowledge what the chair said 

and that is that most of our votes have been five to nothing. They 

are bipartisan. There is a wish across the Commission to make 

sure that our children are safer. I feel that if I had been still in 

Congress when the CPSIA had come before me that I would have 

voted for this bill. And understanding it as I read it as I was nominated by the President to this Commission and then went through 

the confirmation process, I had an opportunity to visit with most 

of the Senators who had been on the subcommittee and the committee, the Commerce Committee. And overwhelmingly I heard 

from them that there were unanticipated consequences of this bill 

and told me that they believed in the bill that there was a flexibility for us to both protect children and to avoid these unintended 

consequences and I promised them that I would do that. 

And like I said as I read the bill, everything seemed so straightforward and so reasonable. It was only then when I was sworn in 

that I found out that the Commission had come to certain conclusions about portions of this bill, especially the absorb ability exclusion that have rendered whole sections of the bill meaningless. In 

other words, our Commission has found on a partisan majority that 

that section of the law is totally meaningless, that it does not apply 

to one product. So I am here today, not to be the naysayer because 

I think it is important entirely. I think it is important to recognize 

that our chair has instituted some things that have modernized 

this Commission and have made it possible for us to intercept 

things at the border and to advance our technologies that will 

make an enormous difference and help us protect children. 

So I am here though to bring to your attention some of my concerns. It has been shocking to me the number of businesses that 

we have entirely caused to go out of business, the number of businesses that have left the children’s product arena completely because of this bill, the number of choices that parents no longer 

have. Everyday I hear from businesses who tell me we use to make 

this many versions of this product. Today we make one because 

any additional components will cause us this many more thousands 

of dollars of testing, this many more thousands of dollars of paperwork and tracking and concerns that we have, and we heard it just 

at the toy fair this weekend. Almost universally, people estimated 

their cost and increase the price to parents 20 to 30 percent and 

the fact that they have reduced the bells and whistles of their toys. 

They have, as one major manufacturer told me, we have taken the 

fun out of toys because we don’t want to put multiple colors. We 

19 

don’t want to put the sound in it. We don’t want to put the extra 

additions to it because we have to—it is just so complicated to 

abide by the law. 

Specifically, the law requires that yes, everyone meet the lead 

standard and that means whether the lead is absorbable to not, 

even though in the law it said that items where the lead was not 

absorbable where exempted from the law. So we have applied it so 

that everything is affected by that even when it is not absorbable. 

So people that make ball bearings and connectors and things like 

that have no way to make those products and still comply by the 

law. Or they are using, as somebody told us in testimony, substitutes that are even less safe, like antimony, a known carcinogenic. So we need to address that exclusion. 

I want to use the rest of my time to talk about the database. 

Right now you can go on Amazon.com, decide you are going to 

order a highchair for your child as I did for my grandchildren and 

the brand that I chose, I put in a brand, 147 different highchairs 

they make and some of them are $54 on the first page, one is $148. 

Today our database, somebody puts in an incident and all they 

have to do is give that brand name. They do not have to say whether it was the $54 chair or the $148 chair. They can be 

misidentifying it as we find people misidentify things in incidents 

everyday. That kind of information is not helpful to consumers. If 

accurate information is helpful, inaccurate information can drive 

people away from the safest product and it is not helpful to us who 

have to enforce the law. I know we will have a chance to talk about 

this further in the questions and answers but I did want to bring 

that to your attention. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Northup follows:] 

20 


66511.009
21 


66511.010
22 


66511.011
23 


66511.012
24 


66511.013
25 


66511.014
26 


66511.015
27 


66511.016
28 


66511.017
29 


66511.018
30 


66511.019
31 


66511.020
32 


66511.021
33 


66511.022
34 


66511.023
35 


66511.024
36 


66511.025
37 


66511.026
38 


66511.027
39 


66511.028
40 


66511.029
41 

Mrs. BONO MACK. I thank the witnesses for their testimony and 

I am going to recognize myself for the first 5 minutes of questioning. 

And my first question is to Chairman Tenenbaum, while well-intentioned, CPSIA is clearly flawed in many, many respects. What 

needs to be done to make it more workable? 

Ms. TENENBAUM. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Last January 

all of the Commissioners submitted a report to this committee and 

to Congress and it was a unanimous report in which we asked for 

four things. First of all we asked for greater flexibility to granting 

exclusions from the Section 101(a) lead limits and that is now it 

is 300 in parts per million. In August it will be 100 parts per million. We asked for exclusions for ordinary children’s books. We 

asked for a perspective application when we go to 100 parts per 

million so that compliant inventory now in the stores or are being 

shipped to the stores would not have to be recalled. We only want 

100 parts per million applied prospectively. And we wanted some 

relief and some flexibility for small manufacturers and crafters and 

so that was what we asked the Committee for. Mr. Waxman proposed a bill and that was discussed on both sides of the aisle. Mr. 

Barton had a bill and a number of members submitted bills but 

Congress did not take any action last year. So we are hopeful that 

this year we can have. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Thank you for those suggestions. Let me move 

on to the next question because 5 minutes goes by so quickly. 

Ms. TENENBAUM. I am sorry. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. That is OK. If you could clarify something for 

me though, in terms of lead exemptions you favor the so-called 

functional purpose exemptions. What do you mean by that and 

doesn’t this threaten to bog down the Commission in making case 

by case determinations? 

Ms. TENENBAUM. Well, under the Federal Hazardous Substance 

Act which is the act which used to govern the way we dealt with 

lead before they passed CPSIA, there was a functional purpose exemption. For example, if you had a chemistry set, you had to label 

what the chemicals were but we did not recall chemistry sets because the chemicals were needed for the functional purpose of the 

chemistry set. It was our thoughts, several of us that we could say 

if you have an ATV and you need the ATV or the bicycle lead in 

it to make it stronger or have greater machine ability when you are 

making an ATV or bicycle, then that is your functional purpose, 

and if it doesn’t harm children then we could exempt you. We 

never envisioned this being a very complicated exemption process 

but as it was talked about in Congress it became very complicated 

and then it really sunk under its own weight. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Thank you. It seems to me that the Commission’s priorities get out of whack at times and you spend so much 

time focusing on trace amounts of lead but what about dangers 

that actually result in kids being hurt? According to one of my 

hometown newspapers, 20,000 children a year under the age of 5 

are injured in shopping cart accidents. Under CPSIA, things like 

doll clothes must be approved by third-party testers. Are the locking wheel devices on shopping carts tested? 

42 

Ms. TENENBAUM. Well, thank you so much for that question. My 

staff has made me aware of the problems with shopping carts and 

we have been engaged with the ASTM which is the voluntary 

standards making organization to look at shopping carts so that we 

can expedite the issues with those carts. I would have to note 

though because we have increased resources we are able to look at 

emerging hazards faster and that is why any cuts to our budget 

will knock us off course in terms of our ability to respond to emerging hazards like shopping carts and lithium battery buttons and so 

forth. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Thank you, I can see. 

Ms. NORTHUP. Madam Chair, first of all the functional purpose 

the way it was written would have been very difficult. It said that 

anybody applying for it would have to prove that there was no substitute and as we heard in testimony yesterday, there is always a 

substitute. The fact is you will end up with a $7,000 bicycle. So its 

not that there is not substitute. But if a ball bearing for example 

and it is made of brass is important in a bicycle, why is it not also 

important in a Tonka truck and the other items and so yes, bicycles might have the financial wherewithal to apply. They have to 

prove that there is no other practical substitute. They have to 

prove it doesn’t hurt a child. I think that the minority of the Commission believes that if we exempt a material for one manufacturer, we ought to exempt that same material for all because if it 

meets the bar that it is not going to harm a child then why is there 

any other reason for us to address it. And as far as yes, this has 

completely absorbed the Commission’s time. There are things that 

have gone unmet. Things like table saws. There is technology that 

addresses this. There are 10 fingers that are cut off a day in this 

country. Carbon monoxide poisoning, 500 people die a year from 

that because of generators. These are things that are way overdue 

in the rulemaking that we have not taken up because there simply 

is not the time to do that. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. I thank the witnesses and now I would like 

to yield 5 minutes to Mr. Butterfield for his questioning. 

Ms. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Let me address my questions to the chairman of the Commission 

and the chairman is right, 5 minutes goes very quickly so I am 

going to try to get through this. 

Ms. TENENBAUM. I am trying to be. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. It is clear that the manufacturers have become critical of the Commission in implementing the database and 

we have just talked about that. Even your colleague, Ms. Northup, 

has been somewhat respectfully critical of the database. Just last 

week in written testimony to the House Oversight and Government 

Reform Committee, the National Association of Manufacturers’ 

president, Mr. Timmons, stated that, ‘‘The final rule creates a default for immediate publication before any meritorious claims regarding trade secrets or material inaccuracies are resolved.’’ In 

your testimony today, you point our several safeguards in the final 

rule to protect manufacturers and I know this is an issue that the 

drafters of the act gave a lot of thought. If you have ever read or 

even glanced at this section of the law, you can see it is rather 

lengthy. In fact, the statute provides more procedural safeguards 

43 

then any other public database at a federal agency including 

NHTSA and FDA, and so I appreciate that the critique of the database provided by a witness on today’s second panel is a bit more 

careful then what came from the manufacturers last week. Nonetheless, it seems to me that there is some amount of misunderstanding and misinformation about the database. I would like you 

to help us clear up that with a few yes or no questions. Number 

one, is it correct that anyone who submits a report must provide 

to the Commission their name and contact information? 

Ms. TENENBAUM. Yes. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Is it correct that anyone who submits a report 

must complete a verification that the information is true and accurate? 

Ms. TENENBAUM. Yes. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Is it correct that within 5 business days of receiving a report the Commission will transmit the consumer report 

directly to the manufacturer? 

Ms. TENENBAUM. Yes. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Madam Chairman, is it correct that the Commission will not publish that report until the tenth business day 

after transmission to the manufacturer? 

Ms. TENENBAUM. Yes. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Is it correct that during the 10-day waiting period the manufacturer is given a chance to do three things? Number one, claim parts of the report are materially inaccurate. Number two, claim parts of the report contain confidential information 

and three, submit its own comments to be made public along with 

the consumers report. Is that true? 

Ms. TENENBAUM. Yes, that is true. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Is it correct that the Commission as practicable will attempt to expedite that is expedite review of material 

inaccuracies where the manufacturer has limited the length of its 

submission? 

Ms. TENENBAUM. That is true. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Is it correct that the Commission will review 

all inaccuracy claims and will correct or remove any inaccurate information published in the database? 

Ms. TENENBAUM. Yes. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Is it correct that the database will contain 

only reports of harm from a product and not general complaints or 

reviews about a product? 

Ms. TENENBAUM. Yes. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Is it correct that the Commission will seek 

criminal prosecution through the Department of Justice where it 

identifies repeated instances of false submissions? 

Ms. TENENBAUM. Yes. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Finally, and we are within the 5 minutes, let 

me quote from the final rule on this one: ‘‘The Commission will as 

a matter of policy, redact the allegedly confidential information 

from a report of harm before publication in the database until it 

makes a determination regarding confidential treatment.’’ Does 

that really mean what it says? Is it correct that no information 

claimed by a manufacturer to be confidential will be made public 

until this is resolved? 

44 

Ms. TENENBAUM. That is true. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. All right, thank you, I don’t know about you 

but those safeguards strike me as very adequate and I am very 

pleased with your responses. Thank you. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Would the gentleman yield for a second? 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Yes, I will yield to the gentlelady from Illinois. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. 

I wanted to raise just the issue that our chairwoman raised 

about—oh no, it was Ms. Northup raised about products not being 

clearly identified, that there may be what? 

Ms. NORTHUP. One hundred forty-seven, that was it, yes. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Yes so that is there something in the regulations that makes sure that we are clearly identifying the actual 

product line that the product itself precisely so there isn’t that kind 

of confusion so it is not just a brand name but that it is which exactly of the items? 

Ms. TENENBAUM. Well, you have to give the product name but 

you don’t have to give the model name. But you have to give the 

product name. You have to give the manufacturer, the date you 

purchased it, your name and verification and several other things 

but we are not required to do the model. But we are hopeful that 

people will give the model name to be more clear and we certainly 

will investigate. If we investigate we will find out what the model 

name is. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I think that is a reasonable thing to ask. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Ma’am, if we can move on before we get 

around to a second round of questioning hopefully. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. All right, OK, excuse me. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. But members the time is involved by the votes 

on the floor so I would like to recognize Mr. Harper from Mississippi for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I would like to ask, if I could, Commissioner Northup a couple 

of questions on some of this. What provisions of CPSIA do you 

think do not warrant the cost or regulation? 

Ms. NORTHUP. Well, first of all there have been no cost benefit 

analyses so there is we don’t even know what the cost of these regulations are. We estimated in 2009, billions of dollars. I have attached a list of companies that we know have gone out of business. 

Companies that we know have cut back. Companies that have left 

the market, the number of employees that have been cut off but 

there has been no broad study of that. But I would, the one that 

we have stayed right now, the testing and third-party certification, 

because we have advanced technology we are better at the border 

then we have ever been. Our ability to get logs of what is coming 

into this country we know who the people are that maybe have a 

bad record, who has a good record. We have the ability to scan an 

enormous amount of products instantaneously as they come in. Our 

level of penalties we if something comes in and it doesn’t comply 

the entire shipment is destroyed and so those threats have created 

an enormous pressure on the manufacturers overseas to verify and 

re-verify and check. The third-party testing and then the certification on top of that is creating a nightmare of paperwork because 

you have to track every nut, bolt, screw. Bicycles, 141 different 

45 

components so every time it changes in the manufacturing process 

you have to change the lot number, you have to change the 141 certification numbers, you have to retest and they just, you know, 

they what it is old technology this sort of third-party testing. And 

if I may say, the people that are going to break those rules do you 

think they are not going to put in a new shipment of snaps and 

not change their certification or keep using the same lot numbers? 

We have such incredibly advanced ways of scanning materials coming into this country now that the cost of just that alone is going 

to be billions of dollars and it is on every single product even 

though the vast, vast, vast majority of them because of the fact, 

their products will be destroyed as they come in at the ports are 

fine. Let me just say that the database, we have spent $29 million 

on it. Yes, Representative Schakowsky is exactly right. It has the 

manufacturer’s name. It may say a Graco high chair. It does not 

say which Graco high chair. It does not say the day it was purchased. You are supposed to say the approximate date of the accident but I will just use the example of Thanksgiving, three grandchildren. One is the new Graco high chair, one is the one I brought 

up from the basement that is 30 years old, one of them is the antique I have sitting by the fireplace. I could enter that as an accident if the leg fell off of one of those. The manufacturer has no 

idea. Is this a 1990s high chair or is this today’s high chair? Do 

I need to conduct a recall today or do I have a product that years 

ago was produced? And by the same token, the parents who might 

go online and say OK I am going to buy a high chair. What data 

is in the database? They are not going to know. Is this a product 

that is on the market today? And finally, it allow anybody, not first 

person knowledge but it can be third-party. We are even inviting 

any organization to download all their data into our database. So 

the manufacturer gets a report, a red Schwinn bicycle that the 

wheel fell off. Schwinn says I don’t make a red Schwinn bicycle but 

you have to give your name if you are the entrant and you can be 

a bystander. You can be a third-party organization. You can be the 

Consumers Union. So we have no way to go back to the consumer 

and say can you help us figure this out. They don’t make a red bicycle and then we find out it wasn’t. I had today a major company 

that sent me about eight examples of where there were two, one 

where a child died. It took 30 days for us and them to ascertain 

that it was a hoax. That is the kind of information. Those are 

things that come in everyday into our database. They are now 

going to be public within 15 days of when they are entered and nobody is going to be able to verify because they are not going to 

know who the consumer is. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. I thank the gentleman. I would like to yield 

5 minutes to the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. My certain, OK, sorry. 

I wanted to ask the chairwoman, is $29 million the cost of the 

database? 

Ms. TENENBAUM. No, that is not true and we have repeatedly 

said it is not true. We were charged when we were given new funds 

to upgrade our whole IT system. The database is around $3 million. The IT system was to get a data warehouse. We have five difVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:27 Aug 09, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 112\112-10 021711\112-10 CHRIS
46 

ferent silos of data that couldn’t talk to each other. Our database 

couldn’t talk to CBP so we had done extensive upgrading of our 

whole IT system and the database cost about $3 million of that. 

Now, we have had a soft launch of the database and of the 900 incidents we have had in February most of them had the serial number and the other thing we only out of that 900 we only had four 

material inaccurate claims and we had 723 businesses who signed 

up to have a business portal so they can get the information within 

5 days of us receiving it. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. So actually you did. How were 

those four discovered that were inaccurate, or whatever word you 

used? 

Ms. TENENBAUM. Well, the business portal when you sign up, the 

723 businesses sign up and we send them the report, they come 

back to say this information is materially inaccurate. Now, the law 

requires us to post the report of harm before we make the determination of whether or not it is true. We are going to try our very 

best to determine if it is materially inaccurate and the company is 

right and not put it on the database within 10 days. But if we 

haven’t received the information or haven’t had the time to research it and get to the bottom of it if it is a very complex laboratory issue and testing issue then we will have to post it and that 

is what the rub is. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. OK but I wanted to get to this issue of verified 

or firsthand. Here is my concern, one of the things that really inspired me to work on this law was the death of a child, Danny Kaiser, and his mom, Linda Ginzel who created Kids in Danger and 

became a great advocate over this tragedy. Well, she wasn’t there 

when her son died in the crib. Would she be then ineligible to report on her son’s death because she had not been at the daycare 

center or a parent who is not in the room when a child dies in a 

crib? How are you going to distinguish? 

Ms. NORTHUP. Actually I wrote an alternative database and absolutely the daycare center can put this information in, the parent 

can put this information in. Nobody wants people that don’t have 

firsthand information not to be able to put this information in. The 

issue is more a question of third parties that are sometimes fourthand fifth-hand information. Let me just say one of the things I 

have seen at the Commission is that organizations that have particular safety agendas, marketing agendas want to use information 

of accidents to come to you and say there are 10 examples of this. 

You ought to pass a law. I will give you an example. The fire marshals, they want sprinklers in all buildings. We are not involved in 

that issue but they often put into fires in homes the fact that it 

was a BIC lighter. Well, it may not be a BIC lighter. In fact, BIC 

lighter has come to us and say please make them identify these 

better because what they really are is the cheap foreign knockoff. 

The problem for the company is if it says a BIC lighter. They are 

subject to a class-action lawsuit. They are subject to running 

around trying to prove that it is not a BIC lighter. And we don’t 

even have the name of the person whose house burned down. All 

we have is the person that entered the incident, the Fire Marshals 

Association. 

47 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I get what you are saying but I think that the 

organizations that represent they become a portal for people who 

have been hurt. Also have this, you can trace back this information. 

Ms. NORTHUP. Many of them don’t. We often have information 

where we cannot get back to who it was that was harmed and I 

would just say, as a parent that I knew what the product was that 

was at hand and, the question is would a bystander have that information? This is really important information to have. If you as 

the chair said I have never seen our agency be able to resolve a 

question of material inaccuracy in 10 days, ever. There are ones 

that are still dangling out there that are 9 months old that we still 

haven’t ruled on. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I yield back. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Good, the gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The chair recognizes the gentlelady from Tennessee, Ms. 

Blackburn, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I want to 

welcome the two of you and thank you for being here and thank 

you for getting your prepared testimony to us. 

I think that we have in front of us CPSIA is something that most 

people are just not real happy with. And I found it very interesting 

and, Commissioner Northup, I want to ask you what you think 

about the results of that Consumer Union poll that Mr. Waxman 

sent around yesterday and a dear colleague and also would like for 

you, if you will, to continue to talk about some of the unintended 

consequences. You have hit on the absorb ability problems and the 

miscues that are there, businesses closing. Of course we hear a lot 

from our charitable organizations about their displeasure with 

what we are seeing in the implementation of this law. Price increases we have talked about the database problems and then of 

course you were just beginning to touch on what I think is very 

dangerous for many of our American manufacturers and that is the 

fraud and infringement on their copyrights and the fraudulent 

merchandise, the pirated merchandise that makes it way and they 

found out about it later. This Schwinn bicycle is a perfect example 

of that. And so if you will talk about those unintended consequences that are coming into you and then touch on that Consumer Union poll because I don’t think people are in favor of this. 

Ms. NORTHUP. Well, I was amazed at the poll. It did say—first 

of all if you had polled me and said do you think the Federal Government should be involved in consumer safety, wouldn’t every one 

of us in this room say yes? I was pretty shocked only eight or nine 

out of ten said yes. What I was even more surprised is that only 

half of those that said yes said they are very much supportive of 

that. The other half said just somewhat supportive of the Federal 

Government being involved. But mostly I would say that the poll 

was written in such a way all of us do polls politically and we know 

if we want really accurate information we have to make the poll 

so that it doesn’t slant the question. You could also have written 

it that says do you think the Federal Government should require 

businesses to test every component of their children’s product in an 

outside lab increasing the price 20 to 30 percent for materials that 

are not even dangerous to them. What sort of results do you think 

48 

you would have gotten? Here is another one. Do you think the Federal Government should have spent $29 million? Let me tell you, 

this whole database is we could have continued operating on the 

database we had. It was it only had to be changed because it was 

going up on a database where certain incidents that are not 

verifiable and can be entered trial lawyers, consumer advocates or 

competitors was false information could be posted about legitimate 

companies. You know, what sort of poll do you think you would 

have gotten? I don’t think either those questions or the questions 

in the poll give you the real truth that we need to if you really if 

what you are trying to do is poll the American people you need to 

actually give them this is better. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK, and let me move on to the unintended 

consequences. 

Ms. NORTHUP. Yes, the unintended consequences I would just tell 

you that it was a month after being at the Consumer Product Safety Commission. I was actually depressed because I thought that 

when I passed laws when I was in the General Assembly of Kentucky and in Congress and I sent them over to agencies and I 

thought they would make them rational and that they had more 

leeway. This law does not have a lot of leeway but we have heard 

from Members of Congress. Senator Klobuchar sent us a letter and 

said this law clearly was meant to exempt items that aren’t where 

the lead is absorbable. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK let me stop you right there. 

Madam Chairman, do you think the agency’s overreach in trying 

to implement this law the way they have overreached on some of 

these rules has attributed to some of the jobs loss that we have 

seen in the manufacturing sector in this country? 

Ms. TENENBAUM. I don’t think we have overreached. I think we 

have implemented it based on the plain language of the statute 

and the issue here is the statute gives three exemptions. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK, let me stop you right there because I want to move on to the question on the database, $29 million is what you 

have spent total on this database? 

Ms. TENENBAUM. No, we have spent $3 million on the database. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. 

Ms. TENENBAUM. We also received funds and that is the whole 

$29 million, $3 million of which were the database which we did 

IT modernization. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Did you carry that out in-house or did you contract it out? 

Ms. TENENBAUM. Well, we had some contractors and some insiders. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK and the timeframe that it has taken you 

to get the database? 

Ms. TENENBAUM. We had when I came to the Commission July 

29 we had not received the money from OMB because we had not 

qualified to bring the money down so we started in July of ’09 and 

that is when the money came in. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. But you still have problems with it both from 

the entry and the information side? 

Ms. TENENBAUM. No, we don’t. We just did a soft launch. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Yield back. 

49 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Yes, the lady’s time has expired. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Towns 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

And also let me say it is good to see you. 

Ms. NORTHUP. Thank you. It is great to see you. 

Mr. TOWNS. Happy to know there is life after Congress. 

Ms. NORTHUP. I have missed you. 

Mr. TOWNS. Let me just begin—first of all I want to clear up something. I keep hearing $3 million. I keep hearing $29 million 

on this database. I mean how much does this database really cost? 

Let me put it on the record here. 

Ms. TENENBAUM. Three million. 

Ms. NORTHUP. The IT modernization cost $29. This is the first 

time I have ever heard the figure $3 million ever but it was necessary in order to have this public database so that everything 

could talk to each other but let me just say going forward this year 

we do not have additional FTEs in the budget to handle the cases 

that come in but after this year we do. So the cost is going to grow 

because we are going to have to manage all the questions of 

verification when, you know, the verification that is part of the intake of an incident is only a self-verification where you say to the 

best of my knowledge this is true and we know as we take in cases 

right now that sometimes people have the wrong product. They 

have, you know, so the verification that the litigation that is involved all of that will take more FTEs. 

Ms. TENENBAUM. Mr. Towns, we had five separate databases or 

silos. They could not talk to each other so if someone sent us an 

e-mail on CPSC.gov and said my stove caught on fire, it was this 

manufacturer and this model number we would then manually 

have to put into our incident report on computers but we had all 

five. We didn’t have a data warehouse where one system could talk 

to the other system. We needed an upgrade in our hardware in our 

computers. We needed an upgrade in software. So we could not 

even share information with CBP because our systems wouldn’t 

talk together so all of this is a larger effort to get our technology 

up-to-date and that we have people who have said they have repeatedly told Mrs. Northup that it is $3 million. It is not $29 million and so it is $3 million. The database is $3 million. It is not 

$29 million. 

Mr. TOWNS. OK, thank you. In 2008, CPSIA passed with broad 

bipartisan support. In fact I voted for it and was signed into law 

by President George Bush. According to your testimony, Commissioner Northup, this legislation has had unintended consequences 

you were talking about earlier to small businesses because of new 

testing standards. Would implementation of a component part testing rule benefit small businesses? 

Ms. NORTHUP. We hope so. What we would hope is that there 

would be there were developed on the market suppliers that would 

provide pre-tested, pre-certified components. The snap, the zipper, 

the component so that somebody that say makes a child’s outfit 

could go to Michael’s or whoever, the hobby shop and pick up these 

components pre-tested and pre-certified and then depend on those 

in their final certificate as, they would have currency. We would acVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:27 Aug 09, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 112\112-10 021711\112-10 CHRIS
50 

cept those pre-certifications and certificates in the final product. It 

will help. It does not take away the fact that many small suppliers 

also had very small lots. They make things to order. They make 

things—for example at the toy fair I met a woman who makes 

things for the blind. She has to have buttons for the eyes because 

just painting them on doesn’t give you the tactile benefit. We have 

educational toys that are very small lives and so all these seeking 

out these certification numbers, these pre-certified products then 

doing a final certificate that picks up all of those. Every time you 

go back to the store and you pick up another lot you have to change 

your final certificate. You have to change what your tracking label 

is so that it reflects a new certificate. It is a lot of paperwork and 

the small businesses are telling us that is why we are going to 

make one thing or we are going to get out of the children’s product 

business. It is very, you know, Ashley Furniture was probably the 

best example. They spent $13 million testing. They have 14 layers 

of primer and final product. They have every screw, nut and bolt. 

Not one product, not one component violated the lead limit but it 

was $13 for them to get the tracking and the component testing 

done so far. 

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

I would like to recognize my new colleague from Kansas, Mr. 

Pompeo, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman Tenenbaum, you said that there has been no cost benefit analysis performed at all, is that correct? 

Ms. TENENBAUM. Under the CPSIA the Commission had mandatory deadlines and also the CPSIA did not require the Commission 

to do cost benefit analysis. Now, under the Federal Hazardous Substance Act and no under CPSA which is our general act we do cost 

benefit. 

Mr. POMPEO. But there has been none on the database? So when 

we are talking about $3 million or $29 million that has been spent, 

I mean the real cost of this thing isn’t what we are paying for the 

database. It is the hundreds of millions of dollars this is going to 

cost small business but we don’t truly have any idea, is that correct, no analysis? 

Ms. TENENBAUM. Well, the Commission has not done that because it is not our role to but we would certainly support any other 

agency that wanted to do one. We would provide them with the 

data. 

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you. I appreciate that. You said, ‘‘The rub 

is that we have to post it.’’ You have to post it. 

Ms. TENENBAUM. We have to post within 10 days. 

Mr. POMPEO. So would you support this committee recommending that we provide flexibility at your agency that you don’t 

have to put it on that you can make a decision about whether it 

is accurate and the right thing to do? Today you say we have forced 

your hand. Would you prefer that we gave your agency more flexibility? 

Ms. TENENBAUM. I think we need to stay to a limit where we can 

get information out as quickly as possible to consumers. I have 

heard of too many deaths, Danny Kaiser, other deaths of children 

51 

because parents did not have the information and we need a quick 

turnaround if a product is a problem. We will make the best faith 

effort once it is given to us that it is materially inaccurate to make 

a determination. 

Mr. POMPEO. I appreciate that. I think this, I am an engineer. 

I love data but I also and I run for office and I know what people 

put online exactly. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Will the gentleman yield for briefly? 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes, of course, yes, ma’am. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. First day jitters, opening night jitters up here. 

We forgot to start the clock so we would like to point out that your 

time will expire at 2 minutes. 

Mr. POMPEO. That is great. I assumed it was my first day jitters 

that you were referring to. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. That is right. It was your first day jitters. You 

had it right. 

Mr. POMPEO. That will happen as well. I just think this is a 

plaintiff’s bar dream and I think the cost of litigation will be enormous. 

Ms. Northup, do you think it would make sense to delay the implementation of the database to let this committee work out some 

of the challenges to make sure that we get good information to the 

public and we don’t end up causing all the problems that have been 

alluded to this morning? 

Ms. NORTHUP. Absolutely, as I walked around the toy fair in 

New York, one person after another raised this issue to me. Some 

already had issues that had come in on the soft launch and said 

there is nobody that knows what the facts are on this. They don’t 

have to give enough facts that you can possibly know what the 

product is. They don’t have to give enough specifics that you can 

possibly know what went wrong with it or even if it is they can’t 

even make the claim it is materially inaccurate because they have 

no way to correspond with us and have us be able to go back to 

the source who might have firsthand information. I think that 

when you consider the jobs in this country and you consider the 

fact that we are going to have manufacturers running around terrified about how they are going to answer a database question when 

maybe it is not even their product. Maybe it is a product that is 

not even on the market anymore. It is 20 years old. And consumers 

if I might say the benefit to consumers I think of the ladders ad 

where you have two people playing tennis on the tennis court and 

all these people come running down to the point where it is crowding out the legitimate game of tennis. If you have all these data 

dumps from these organizations in here, the legitimate firsthand 

benefit that you can get from this database is lost and I might see 

that company X had a problem. It might not be there product. It 

might be a product from 20 years ago. I might think, OK I don’t 

want to buy that product so I buy a different product and guess 

what? Really that was the safer product. So it is even misdirecting 

people to what is a hazard and what isn’t a hazard, just some of 

the questions to stay within the timeframe. 

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you, Commissioner Northup. 

I yield back my time. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. I would thank the gentleman. 

52 

I would and it is an honor to recognize the chairman emeritus 

and author of the original Consumer Product Safety Act as well as 

the conferee on CPSIA and the chair would recognize Congressman 

Dingell for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chairman, I thank you and I appreciate 

your courtesy in recognizing me and I commend you for this hearing. 

As my colleagues some of them will remember and the members 

will remember we passed with the support of the unanimous support of this committee a unanimous bill on this matter. It was an 

excellent piece of legislation. It got to the United States Senate and 

it got screwed up. And then we went to conference and the screwup was worsened and it wasn’t very long before I was being called 

by industry inquiring why a bill which had passed the House 

unanimously, come out of this committee unanimously had been 

turned into such a sad caricature. 

So I have some questions for the Commissioner and I want to 

welcome the Commissioner and I want to welcome you particularly, 

Commissioner Northup. 

Ms. NORTHUP. Thank you. 

Mr. DINGELL. And I want you to understand this hearing is not 

critical of you but it is of the United States Senate and those people that screwed this up and we are going to try and figure out 

what it is we can make the matters right and help you to do your 

job. And I speak with particular outrage because years ago John 

Moss and I wrote the original legislation which created this your 

Commission in this room right here. It was a great success until 

the Senate got its hands on it and some members of the conference 

assisted actively in that screw-up. 

Yes or no to both Commissioners, Section 101 of the CPSIA permits the Commission to exempt certain materials and products 

from the ax lead limit? I believe that is so narrowly written as to 

be useless. Do you believe that Section 101(b) needs to be amended 

in order to permit the Commission a more reasonable degree of discretion in granting exemptions, yes or no? 

Ms. TENENBAUM. Yes. 

Ms. NORTHUP. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. To both Commissioners, similarly given widespread 

concern about the feasibility of retroactively applying CPSIA’s requirements to existing inventory, do you believe the applicability of 

such requirements should instead be limited to products manufactured after the act’s effective date or the effective date of regulations promulgated by the Commission pursuant to the act except 

in instances where the Commission decides that exposure to a 

product causes a health and safety risk to children, yes or no? 

Ms. TENENBAUM. Yes, for a hundred parts per million. 

Ms. NORTHUP. Yes, for all parts. If they are not dangerous we 

should allow them to still be sold. 

Mr. DINGELL. And you ought to have waiver authority, isn’t that 

right? 

Ms. TENENBAUM. Yes. 

Ms. NORTHUP. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. That makes for intelligent regulation. 

53 

Now again to both Commissioners, likewise I am concerned that 

the age limit for children’s products defined in CPSIA unnecessarily subjects certain products such as bicycles to more rigorous 

standards then otherwise necessary. Do you believe the age limit 

used in the definition of children’s products should be lowered, yes 

or no? 

Ms. TENENBAUM. No. 

Ms. NORTHUP. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. We have got a division. Do you believe that the 

Commission should have authority to deal with the question of 

waivers on that matter where it makes good sense, yes or no? 

Ms. TENENBAUM. Yes. 

Ms. NORTHUP. Yes, except I worry about the big companies having the resources to ask for a waiver and for the exact same products small ones won’t. 

Mr. DINGELL. The little guys don’t. 

Do both Commissioners, I am also concerned that the blanket applicability of certification and tracking label requirements could be 

when required unduly cumbersome especially for small businesses. 

Would an exemption for small businesses like the one contained in 

the Food Safety Modernization Act be feasible in the case of consumer products, yes or no? 

Ms. TENENBAUM. I would like to study that more. I don’t know. 

I didn’t read the food act. 

Mr. DINGELL. That is a fair answer. 

Ms. NORTHUP. I would support that but I would support doing 

away with third-party testing and certification and just let the advanced technology we have today. All the new tools that you gave 

us are plenty adequate to make sure that companies comply with 

our laws. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, to both commissioners I will expect that you 

will if you see fit make additional remarks for the purposes of the 

record and I sorry that I am so constraining you. Again to both 

commissioners, do you believe that the Commission’s problems in 

implementing CPSIA can be remedied solely by administrative action by CPSC, yes or no? 

Ms. TENENBAUM. No. 

Mr. DINGELL. Commissioner? 

Ms. NORTHUP. We could make some significant changes if we 

made the absorb ability exclusion mean something and I think 

there is we could have the majority of the commissioners didn’t so 

it will take your action to change that. 

Mr. DINGELL. I thoroughly agree. We have made a fine mess out 

of this. It has to be rectified legislatively. 

Again to both Commissioners, if not do you support amending 

CPSIA to address these problems? 

Ms. TENENBAUM. Yes. 

Ms. NORTHUP. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Would you assist the committee in our effort to do 

so? 

Ms. TENENBAUM. Yes. 

Ms. NORTHUP. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. I will be submitting additional questions to the 

record to allow the Commission to expand on these matters and I 

54 

will ask Madam Chairman unanimous consent that my letter of 

March 4, 2009, to Commissioners Nord and Moore as well as their 

respective replies be entered into the record. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Without objection. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. DINGELL. And members of the Commission, I just want to 

ask this one additional question. Do you believe that implementation of CPSIA has overburdened the existing CPSC staff and resources? 

Ms. TENENBAUM. No. 

Ms. NORTHUP. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Does CPSC have adequate resources with which to 

implement CPSIA as well as to carry out its other duties? 

Ms. TENENBAUM. Yes, if we are not cut. 

Mr. DINGELL. Commissioner? 

Ms. NORTHUP. No, I don’t think we do but we could change the 

law and it would be sufficient and I am delighted to see you again, 

Representative Dingell. 

Mr. DINGELL. Well, you are welcome back here, Commissioner. I 

am happy to see you and I am sorry we are seeing you under these 

circumstances and just maybe we can fix this mess. Thank you. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair would recognize the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. 

Guthrie for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be here and I have to follow up Chairman Emeritus 

Dingell. To the other committee and back so I might have missed 

this but I know the ranking member asked questions about the 

database and Congresswoman Northup, my fellow Kentuckian, or 

Commissioner Northup, you were going to answer. You may have 

since I was gone. They went through a series of questions on the 

database and did you agree with the security that it is a secure 

database and they did clear up all the problems or if you have 

mentioned that then we will move forward. 

Ms. NORTHUP. Let me just state again I think it is so important 

because this database is going to be turned on that first of all the 

database rule that was written there was great division within the 

Commission. It is one of the few things that has divided us so seriously. I just I want to reiterate that there are a lot of things that 

we agree with and that the chair has really done a magnificent job 

in coordinating with Customs and implementing so much of this 

law. It is a shame that we are sort of here on the biggest debate 

issue but it is going to be turned on in 3 weeks. It is going to allow 

anyone to input, anyone, any organization, third-hand knowledge, 

hearsay information and the type of things that we see everyday. 

We see a Facebook where somebody talks about Pampers and 

about that they are causing a huge problem. Suddenly we got in 

500 or we get in all these cases as I have to be careful I don’t talk 

about what is confidential but I think we have made public statements that to date we have not been able to find that there is any 

problem with Pampers. But we haven’t even finished providing a 

final statement on that. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. OK, I want to get to another question. Go on for 

just a minute. 

55 

Ms. NORTHUP. For the companies that then would be running 

around because somebody collected some information on Facebook 

and at this point the person that owns the Facebook account could 

transfer every one of those incidents into our database. They do not 

have to know who it happened to. They put it in as their entry. 

That is legal. That is what they are supposed to do. It is the name 

and contact information of the person entering it, not the consumer. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Right, I just wanted to ask another question real 

quick. 

Ms. NORTHUP. Yes. 

And, Chairman Tenenbaum, and actually we met a long time ago 

when I was a State legislator and you hosted us for the Southern 

Regional Education Board in Charleston and you did a great job. 

Thanks but I am a manufacturer, my background, and like the Administration we are looking to create jobs and the ability to export, 

not just importing, increase our imports and my understanding is 

that CPSIA is that American manufacturers won’t be allowed to 

sell their goods abroad unless they meet the lead standard that we 

just heard the Chairman Emeritus say we have got to fix. So and 

also they won’t be able to sell abroad unless their goods have not 

been sold in the United States and never will be sold in the United 

States. So if they have never been sold in the United States or 

won’t be they won’t be able to sell abroad unless they compete with 

this law that we just heard other comment we think is unworkable. 

Do you think this puts American manufacturers at a disadvantage 

to or we couldn’t make something here and send it somewhere else 

to go into a product and then come back here? 

Ms. TENENBAUM. No, American manufacturers have to meet the 

standard which is 300 parts per million right now and 90 parts per 

million for lead. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Well our point is that it is difficult to do that and 

as the chairman emeritus has said the whole law we need to fix 

that. 

Ms. TENENBAUM. No, yesterday we heard testimony. Excuse me, 

I just interrupted you. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. No, go ahead. Go ahead. No that is fine. We are 

trying to get all of this in before we are out of time. 

Ms. TENENBAUM. I am sorry but this came to mind but we heard 

testimony about one of the largest testing laboratories in the world 

and they said they tested over 90,000 data points and they found 

that 97 percent already comply with the hundred parts per million 

lead and so people are already going to that standard. And the 

other thing is that domestic manufacturers and importers have to 

comply with the 300 parts per million lead content and 90 parts 

per million. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Part of it is the labeling too. 

Ms. TENENBAUM. Right and Canada has already dropped their 

standard for lead content to 90. The EU has 90 but it is the solubility standard but it is roughly comparable and but it is so worldwide people are dropping their lead standards. Because I have an 

article from May 1936, which talks about the harm lead can do to 

children and just this article says even infinitesimal amounts can 

bring down the IQ. It is a potent neurotoxin. It can cause brain 

56 

damage and there is no de minimis standard known. There is no 

safe level of lead known. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. I am going to let you go. 

Ms. NORTHUP. Let me just say that we have health agencies that 

tell us about what is an unsafe level of lead. The CDC, the NIH, 

the EPA all tell us a child’s lead level needs to be under 10 parts 

per deciliter of blood. Right now only one percent of all children 

reach that and in every case even the consumers, I mean the 

American Association of Pediatrics tells us that if a child doesn’t, 

they don’t say it is their bicycle handlebars to take away those 

toys. They tell you it is because of lead in paint, lead in gasoline 

and what to do to offset those. No one has ever suggested in the 

health community that your bicycle handlebars and things like that 

have anything to do. In fact, we allow more then that amount of 

lead, the FDA in a child’s piece of candy can have more lead. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. As a manufacturer I can tell you if you agree with 

everything and it all works like it is supposed to, the traceability 

side of that because I have an automotive supplier and he said if 

he had to trace everything came in and went on, that is a real cumbersome thing for our American manufacturers, I think. 

Ms. NORTHUP. Thank you. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Olson, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you, Chairwoman, and thank you to our witnesses for coming in. I greatly appreciate your time and your expertise. 

I want to follow up on a comment you made, Commissioner 

Northup, and I will quote here, ‘‘We are better at the border then 

we have ever been.’’ 

Ms. NORTHUP. I was talking about products coming in. 

Mr. OLSON. Yes, products coming in. Exactly. No, no, yes, yes, 

not yes but we don’t want to open that. No, ma’am. 

I represent the Port of Houston which is the largest port in foreign products here in America and you all know that the Panama 

Canal is being widened and deepened and it is expected to be 

opened in 2015. When it is these very, very large cargo ships that 

right now are coming to the western coast of Mexico, the western 

United States are going to punch through the canal and come to 

the Gulf Coast. Any my question is are you working right now with 

DHS with the Customs people to make sure that we have the resources that when these ships get through if not were going to 

have some of these toys and all the things we are concerned about 

that you can verify and test these things and get ahead of this 

curve so they don’t come to the pier, get off the pier and go into 

our economy? 

Ms. NORTHUP. Really the person who has done so much on this 

is our chair and I feel like I ought to let you answer first because 

you have a lot you can say. 

Ms. TENENBAUM. Well, first of all thank you. First of all, last 

year we were the first agency to sign a memorandum of agreement 

with Customs and Border Protection whereby we get to see the 

manifest data. We have two people located at CBP and the CTAC 

office and we look at data on ships as it comes to the United States 

57 

before it is even import before it is unloaded and we have also just 

finished a study on a risk management study so that we can target 

shipments and we are very, very accurate. Last year we, I had the 

numbers but we were able to have at least the targeted shipments 

that we stopped we found at least 50 percent had already violated. 

So we are working so that companies that don’t have history of 

non-compliance can have a safe lane and those that we need to target and monitor closely we will have information well ahead of 

time before they get into the port. Because I visited the Port of Savannah and also the Port of Charleston and I understand that we 

need to get the shipments unloaded. 

Mr. OLSON. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. Northup, any comments? 

Ms. NORTHUP. Yes, only that it is so sophisticated it is so impressive. I think when you consider how advanced it is and the fact is 

one of the reasons we have so many fewer recalls is because we are 

intercepting things at the port and it does add to my claim what 

I believe is a reason why third-party testing and all the certification and tracking of every single component is going to be obsolete in compared to the new ways we have to survey what is coming into our ports. 

Mr. OLSON. Yes, ma’am. Thank you very much for those answers. 

I would encourage you to keep working with the Customs and Border Patrol because this is will be big all along the Gulf Coast. 

Ms. TENENBAUM. They are our strongest partners. 

Mr. OLSON. I mean it is not just the Port of Houston. It is all 

the ports along the Gulf Coast are going to be impacted by this and 

obviously we need to stop these products from getting in as quickly 

as we possibly can. 

The other question I have is about the impact of CPSIA on sort 

of the charities. Under the lead content test requirements right 

now is it a violation to donate clothes, toys or other items to children 12 and under if the items have not been tested and certified 

in compliance with law? 

Ms. TENENBAUM. No, it is not a violation for you to give clothes 

to Goodwill or Salvation Army or any other charity. We have 

worked with all the charitable organizations and worked with 

States. We had a handbook. We have done an extensive education. 

We know that there are certain items that pose the largest risk. 

Children’s jewelry could have cadmium or lead. Painted toys, items 

made out of vinyl because vinyl degrades quicker and lead can be 

exposed and there have been high amounts of lead in vinyl clothes, 

in vinyl clothing. So we have worked with them on things they 

need to check and not resell. Also it is illegal to sell a recalled product under CPSIA so if a crib has been recalled or playpen you 

shouldn’t sell it. But we work really hard with the States and the 

organizations to try to educate them on what are the high-risk 

products. 

Ms. NORTHUP. It is almost impossible to resell any children’s 

product. As Goodwill told me in Kentucky they have lost a million 

dollars in sales in the first 4 months that this went into effect because the fact is they actually paid $35,000 to buy an XRF gun. 

They hired somebody and trained them. By the time they found a 

button that passed they had spent more money then they would get 

58 

on a blouse for example, a child’s blouse and they found that so all 

of those things went out. All the new standards we have made for 

durable goods make every other durable good that is in the marketplace whether it is a car seat or a bath seat or you cannot sell them 

secondhand. So while it is not against the law for you to donate 

them, it is against the law for them to sell anything that doesn’t 

comply. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you, ma’am. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair recognizes Congressman Lance for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and good afternoon to you both. I am new to the full committee, therefore new 

to the subcommittee and it is my honor to meet both of you and 

I look forward to working with both of you. 

As I understand that you have stayed portions of the law for several years in a row. I also understand that some manufacturers 

might still be worried that state attorneys general might enforce 

the requirements even though those requirements have been 

stayed and I would request your comments as to perhaps whether 

or not your stay should be effective with the States as well. 

Ms. TENENBAUM. Well, the stay will automatically lift December 

31 of this year. Now what we have not and that is just for testing 

and certification for lead content, not lead paint. We didn’t stay it 

but lead content. 

Mr. LANCE. Yes. 

Ms. TENENBAUM. And so but you still have to comply. So we 

didn’t stay enforcement. Any manufacturer has to comply with lead 

paint limits, total lead content, limits on certain phthalates, small 

parts, magnets, and F963. Now, that means that attorneys general 

may enforce the law just as we might enforce the law and the large 

manufacturers as well as the large retail, if you go into any retail 

establishment you will find that their products have been tested 

because they require before the Wal-Marts, the Toys R Us, Target, 

if they require you to show a third-party test and that is why many 

people are already testing. So the attorneys general are not stayed 

from enforcement and neither are we. 

Mr. LANCE. And has that occurred in any situation with which 

you are familiar? 

Ms. TENENBAUM. Sure we have several attorneys general who 

are very active in consumer product safety and you can as well as 

some States who have lower lead limits then we do. Illinois has a 

40 parts per million lead limit. Proposition, I mean California has 

had Proposition. 

Mr. LANCE. But do you know what? I do not. Do you know what 

it is in New Jersey? I do not know. 

Ms. TENENBAUM. No, but I can look it up. 

Mr. LANCE. Commissioner Northup, your comments? 

Ms. NORTHUP. Yes, well first of all the attorneys general one of 

the things that the law did say is that attorneys general can enforce the law even though it is a federal law can enforce it at the 

State level and it has caused a lot of angst among manufacturers 

and, you know, even though Illinois has a 40 parts per million, it 

doesn’t say that you can’t sell it. It just says you have to label it 

saying it might cause lead poisoning in your child. 

59 

Mr. LANCE. I see. Thank you, I did not realize that. 

A philosophical question, sometimes perhaps in all cases laws we 

pass here and that are passed at State capitols with which I am 

familiar have unintended consequences and then it is our responsibility to try to address them. Do you believe and I would address 

this to both of our distinguished witnesses. Do you believe that unintended consequences might on occasion result in overreaching? 

Ms. TENENBAUM. Well here is the law that was passed—allows 

to exempt products. If we cannot exempt a product if normal use 

and abuse of the product results in any lead being absorbed into 

the human body, any lead. So that is why when you had bicycles 

and ATVs and books the any lead standard kicked in and that is 

where we say we need flexibility. 

Mr. LANCE. That would require modification of the statute in 

your opinion? 

Ms. TENENBAUM. It would require us to have some flexibility and 

that if there is no harm to the child or to the person using it then 

we could have a waiver or an exemption. We can grant an exemption. 

Mr. LANCE. Ms. Northup. 

Ms. NORTHUP. I think by far the simpler thing and the thing to 

give certainty to the providers, the businesses is to have an exemption that makes the absorb ability exclusion mean something. 

There were three exclusions. There were electronics. There was the 

inaccessible. We have made both of those two exclusions mean 

something considerable but we have decided that not one thing 

qualifies for the absorb ability. If you changed it to say no amount 

of lead could be absorbable that would cause any material change 

in a child’s lead level we would totally rationalize this bill. 

Mr. LANCE. Would you suggest that this be done at your level or 

through by statute? 

Ms. NORTHUP. Well, I do make the argument I have a legal brief 

that I think that it did give us that because I believe that Congress 

when they passed it meant for that section of the law to mean 

something and there is a lot of statutory past interpretation that 

shows that you can’t just write off a whole section of the law. But 

the majority of the Commissioners decided that we couldn’t and so 

it will take a change by you. 

Ms. TENENBAUM. First of all that was. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. The gentleman’s time has expired and we need 

to move along but I would like to thank both witnesses for appearing today. 

I also urge both of you moving forward to reexamine how the 

Commission prioritizes risk. Let us focus more on real dangers facing our children which may be going unaddressed at the present 

time and not perceived ones. Again thank you both very much. I 

look forward to working with you on fixing as Chairman Emeritus 

Dingell said all that is screwed up. 

Ms. TENENBAUM. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you all. 

Ms. NORTHUP. Thank you. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. We will just give a few moments for the second panel to get in place. 

The subcommittee will come back to order. 

60 

On our second panel we have four witnesses. I would like to welcome them all. 

Our first witness is Jolie Fay. Ms. Fay is the founder of children’s product company called Skipping Hippos based out of Portland, Oregon. She is also secretary of the Handmade Toy Alliance 

which she also represents today. 

Our second witness is Wayne Morris. Mr. Morris is the vice 

president of Division Services for the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers representing manufacturers of all sizes and 

various consumer products. 

Also today, we have Rick Woldenberg of Chicago, Illinois. Mr. 

Woldenberg is the chairman of Learning Resources, Incorporated, 

a children’s product manufacturer and direct mail retailer that specializes in educational toys. The company is a small business but 

employs over 150 people. 

And finally, we will hear from Nancy Cowles, Executive Director 

of Kids in Danger also based in Chicago. Ms. Cowles is testifying 

on behalf of Kids in Danger, Consumer Federation of America, and 

Consumers Union. 

Again, welcome to all of you. You will each be given the 5 minutes and to help you keep track of time, I am going to make him 

remember to keep track of time and when the light turns yellow 

before you in the little box please try to sum up your remarks so 

that when the light turns red you are ready to stop. And with that 

we will welcome Ms. Fay for her first 5 minutes and just ask that 

you turn on the microphone and bring it close to your mouth and 

you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENTS OF JOLIE FAY, FOUNDER, SKIPPING HIPPOS 

AND SECRETARY, HANDMADE TOY ALLIANCE; WAYNE MORRIS, VICE PRESIDENT, DIVISION SERVICES, ASSOCIATION OF 

HOME APPLIANCE MANUFACTURERS; RICK WOLDENBERG, 

CHAIRMAN, LEARNING RESOURCES, INC.; AND NANCY A. 

COWLES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, KIDS IN DANGER 

STATEMENT OF JOLIE FAY 

Ms. FAY. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank 

you for inviting us here. 

I make children’s ponchos in my home in Portland and I am testifying today on behalf of the Handmade Toy Alliance members. We 

are the people knitting hats on the train and we are the mothers 

in line with you at the store. We are the people from your hometowns who have grown up in families that craft and we are your 

neighbors and your families and we are constituents, and we need 

your help to bring commonsense changes to the CPSIA. Our businesses were born from the desire for safe children’s products. We 

make them with care and attention and most often from materials 

purchased from our local craft stores. Our dreams are to build heritage products that will be cherished and remembered and saved 

for generations. 

Our broad membership experience is the unintended consequences of the CPSIA in different ways. Micro-sized businesses 

that craft and retail toys and children’s products make up half of 

our membership. Often these are one-person businesses who 

61 

produce and sell in very small batches. The CPSIA makes no provisions for these businesses to be able to operate. People crafting in 

their homes are expected to third-party test the same way as a 

mass-market manufacturer. The cost of third-party testing for lead 

and ASTM standards are prohibitive in very small batches. Tracking and labeling requirements are too burdensome and people find 

the law and its requirements too complex to understand and apply. 

At the Hollywood Senior Center in Portland, Oregon there is a 

small retail shop that sells items made by the seniors. They live 

on an incredibly small fixed income and would never be able to afford a single ASTM third-party test. The workmanship that has developed over a lifetime helps contribute a small but very substantial supplement to their monthly income. These are artisans and 

this law makes them criminals. 

Another segment of small-batch businesses producing multiple 

items and selling in boutiques and online are also not able to absorb the testing costs for their products and are treated equivalent 

to mass-market manufacturers. Companies who create only 20 or 

so products producing in batches in 10 and 20 units simply cannot 

afford these testing costs and expect to be able to charge the same 

price or even a reasonable price. 

A third group hurt is in the specialty toy retailers. These are the 

mom and pop toy shops in towns across America. The CPSIA removes the ability for them to sell most safe and local products and 

many international products. Loss of specialty toys from Europe 

particularly tilts the children’s marketplace in favor of mass produced items and removes the opportunity for special retailers to 

differentiate themselves. Without the ability to offer unique items 

to sell in their store, there is nothing that can set them apart from 

their competitors. 

Finally, toy importers represent two percent of our membership. 

It is a small percentage but a big component of the culture of specialty toys in America. Within this melting pot culture that we live 

in they provide access to many safe products from our ancestors 

and countries of origin enriching the value of play and helping the 

culture survive. The CPSIA treats these small-scale importers as if 

they were mass-market manufacturers and they suffer alongside 

the U.S. small-batch manufacturers. 

I grew up in Wyoming, where my great-grandparents were homesteaders. For generations my family has made toys and clothes and 

saddles for children. I cherish these items because they are from 

my family and they were made with care, just like what I make. 

Our members are people just like me from all across the country 

making safe products that we cannot afford to third-party test. I 

am here today because I want my children to continue this tradition and to understand and learn from our entrepreneurial spirits. 

Crafting gives them joy and selling it gives them reward. 

While the HTA has worked closely with the CPSC, we feel 

strongly that the current legislation does not grant the CPSC the 

flexibility to address our members’ needs. Our membership is in 

need of a legislative fix that only you in Congress can give. Solving 

the problems of the CPSIA is not only for our members’ immediate 

financial relief but will save generations of future handmade products. For thousands of years cultures have been studied through 

62 

their handcrafted toys. In museums around the world there are artifacts of handmade toys connecting the cultures of the past to societies of today. What will the legacy be if the CPSIA destroys our 

generation’s ability to share this piece of history? 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Fay follows:] 

63 


66511.030
64 


66511.031
65 


66511.032
66 


66511.033
67 


66511.034
68 


66511.035
69 


66511.036
70 


66511.037
71 

Mrs. BONO MACK. I thank the gentlelady. 

And now we will hear from Mr. Morris for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF WAYNE MORRIS 

Mr. MORRIS. Thank you, Chair Bono Mack and members of the 

subcommittee. Thank you for inviting the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers to testify on this important matter. 

AHAM supports the creation of a public database to assist consumers with easy access to relevant and accurate safety information, and it is important that that situation be properly funded. Of 

course there are many private Internet sites that play the same 

role and so it makes little sense for the Commission to expend 

major resources to create a competing website unless it adds value. 

A critical part of that value proposition is that the information 

should be of high quality, accuracy and utility. 

Unfortunately, the Commission’s current database design 

hinders the publication of accurate information. It places unreasonable burden on manufacturers and it does not require timely resolution of good faith material inaccuracy claims. We need the database to be news we can use. With a few changes the accuracy of 

the information can be improved. Nothing we are proposing inhibits in any way the Commission from pursuing reports it receives 

from consumers or anyone else to see if a corrective action is necessary or a violation of the standards has occurred. 

Our testimony here is limited to what is placed on a public, incident, Internet-based database. We have three points. 

One, the Commission should resolve claims of material inaccuracy. According to the CPSC material inaccurate information is a 

report of harm in a report which contains ‘‘information that is false 

and misleading and which is so substantial and important as to affect a reasonable consumer’s decision making about the product.’’ 

This includes misidentification of the product, manufacturer or private labeler, or the harm or risk of harm. 

The manufacturer has the burden of proof and must provide specific evidence and describe how the report is wrong and how it 

should be corrected. It is in every legitimate party’s interest that 

the Commission post only accurate information to the database. 

Under the current regulations, all harm reports except for the 

ones of outstanding confidentiality claims have to be posted to the 

database within 10 days of transmitting the report to the company 

no matter what. Accordingly, even if a company meets the Commission’s burden of proof and responds within the short 10-day period, 

by submitting substantial evidence of material inaccuracy the Commission will post the complaint to the database before resolving the 

material inaccuracy claim. The Commission actually has no obligation to resolve the material inaccuracy claimed by any particular 

time. As we all know, once information has been published on the 

Internet even if it is revised or retracted later, it stays in cyberspace forever and may already have done damage. 

We believe it is wrong for the Federal Government to allow companies and their brands to be unfairly characterized, even slandered without evaluating the company’s claim. Because of the extremely limited timeframe to receive the information, analyze it 

and develop a response, we believe that it is unlikely that many 

72 

companies will comment on a high percentage of reports of harm 

and the chairman spoke earlier of the soft launch proving what we 

say. If a company does respond, basic fairness requires that the 

government decide before the data is publicly released. 

Two, the eligible reporters to the database should be limited to 

those with direct information. The CPSIA lists those who may submit reports of harm to the inclusion of public incident database. 

The Congressional specificity of these groups was purposeful to encourage their involvement and to make clear that those who are 

the consumers, their representatives, first responders or care providers to consumers should not participate in the database for their 

own ends. This applies to trial lawyers, consumer groups and even 

trade association like mine. Remarkably, the Commission is now in 

the final database rule shoehorn certain non-governmental organizations into a definition of public safety entity. Congress should reinstate the original intent of the legislation. 

The database ought to be limited to those people who purchase 

the product, use the product or cared for someone who has suffered 

an injury. Otherwise the database is simply a blog and there is no 

reason for the Federal Government to displace or compete with private blogs. 

Three, the Commission should require a registration a model or 

other descriptive information. There are thousands of categories of 

consumer products, manufacturers and brands where there are numerous models of a product. Although the Commission encourages 

submitters to provide more detailed information which will allow 

the public and manufacturers to identify which particular product 

was subject to alleged incident, it does not require that information. This is a mistake which Congress should remedy. 

The suggestions that we have made do not prevent a useful, accessible public database. Rather, we believe our proposals enhance 

the utility of this new mechanism. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be glad to answer questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Morris follows:] 

73 


66511.038
74 


66511.039
75 


66511.040
76 


66511.041
77 


66511.042
78 


66511.043
79 


66511.044
80 


66511.045
81 


66511.046
82 


66511.047
83 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Thank you, Mr. Morris. 

And, Mr. Woldenberg, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD WOLDENBERG 

Mr. WOLDENBERG. Chairman, Ranking Member Butterfield and 

distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning. 

My name is Richard Woldenberg. I am chairman of Learning Resources, an Illinois-based 150-person manufacturer of educational 

materials and educational toys. I am accompanied today by my son, 

Ben, and my daughter, Alana. This is my second appearance before 

the subcommittee to testify about the CPSIA. 

Three years after its passage, the high cost of the CPSIA, its 

overreaching and intrusive nature, its non-existent impact on injury rates and its depressing effect on the markets is beyond dispute. What remains a mystery is why we did this to ourselves in 

the first place. 

The crisis, such as it is, seems like a media-fed hysteria. CPSC 

recall statistics reflect only three unverified injuries and one death 

attributed to lead from March, ’99 to April, 2010, out of literally 

trillions of product interactions by tens of millions of children. Notably, there was only one recall of phthalates in U.S. history, 40 

little inflatable baseball bats in 2009. 

The possibility of injury is real but what is the probability of injury. Supporters of the CPSIA have never proven a causal link between the reported hazard in children’s products and actual cases 

of injury. This is a very serious indictment of this law. 

Children can take lead into their bodies in many ways including 

through the air, water and food everyday. The CPSIA places all of 

the blame on children’s products without any substantive proof of 

cause. Lead or phthalates poisoning may seem so frightening that 

no price is too high to pay. In our panic, the absence of proof that 

children’s products are causing injury hardly seems to matter. But 

in the wake of Toyota, is jumping to conclusions about causation 

still acceptable? Is it responsible government to simply argue that 

the CPSIA doesn’t harm children and that businesses will just absorb the costs? 

The harm inflicted by the CPSIA has been brought to the subcommittee’s attention time and again over the last 3 years. First, 

absurdly high compliance costs. We have experienced a 10 times increase in costs from 2006 until 2011, all without any change in the 

safety of our products because they were safe to begin with. This 

cost jobs and curtailed business expansion opportunities. 

Second, rules mania. Doubt over the interpretation of CPSC rules 

is widespread. No wonder the rules and law applicable to our business now balloon over 3,000 pages and counting. Several customers 

respond to this uncertainty by instituting their own safety rules. 

One even insisted that we test for lead in paint even if the item 

had no paint on it. 

Third, absurd complexity. The explosion of safety rules makes it 

difficult or impossible to know how to comply. In the context of a 

real product line there is just too much to figure out. What is a 

children’s product? What isn’t? What is a toy? Which materials 

need to be tested or retested? In practical terms, it is a nightmare. 

84 

Other rules make us look stupid to customers. Consider for instance this warning on one of our rock sets. ‘‘Caution, federal law 

requires us to advise that the rocks in this educational product 

may contain lead and might be harmful if swallowed.’’ This is a 

form of humiliation. 

Fourth, liability risk deters cooperation. Under the CPSIA the 

CPSC has become a coercive enforcer of rules with little mercy or 

sense of proportion and no exercise of judgment. This environment 

certainly contributed to a lack of cooperation by component manufacturers who won’t test for CPSIA compliance and subject themselves to CPSC persecution. Trust has been destroyed in so many 

ways. 

Congress must restore to the CPSC the responsibility to assess 

risk. My top five recommendations are that first, the CPSC should 

be mandated to base its safety decisions, resource allocations and 

rules on risk assessment. Second, the definition of children’s products should be limited to children six-years-old or younger and the 

definition of toy for phthalates purposes should be limited to children three-years-old or younger. Third, lead in substrate and 

phthalate-testing should be based on the reasonable business judgment of the manufacturer, not mandated outside testing. Resellers 

should be entitled by rule to rely on the representation of manufacturers. Fourth, mandatory tracking labels should be explicitly limited to long-life heirloom products with a known history of injuring 

the most vulnerable children. And fifth, the public injury incident 

database should be restricted to recalls or properly investigated incidents only. Manufacturers must be given full access to all posted 

incident data including contact information. 

In conclusion, I urge your committee to address the fundamental 

flaws in the CPSIA to restore order to the children’s product marketplace and to protect small businesses from further damage. I appreciate the opportunity to share my views here today and I am 

happy to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Woldenberg follows:] 

85 


66511.048
86 


66511.049
87 


66511.050
88 


66511.051
89 


66511.052
90 


66511.053
91 


66511.054
92 


66511.055
93 


66511.056
94 


66511.057
95 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Thank you. 

Ms. Cowles, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF NANCY A. COWLES 

Ms. COWLES. Thank you. Thank you chairman, ranking member, 

and other subcommittee members for allowing us to testify here 

today. 

I am Nancy Cowles. I am the executive director of Kids in Danger. KID was founded in 1998, by the parents of Danny Kaiser who 

you have already heard about today, who died in a very poorly designed and inadequately tested portable crib. A portion of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act is in fact named after 

Danny. His parents and our organization are moved that lasting 

improvements to the safety of juvenile products will always be associated with his name. 

Contrary to how it has been portrayed, CPSIA was not a 

slapdash attempt to address new reports of lead-painted products 

from China and bad press in the Chicago Tribune. Many sections 

of the law were previously introduced bills including mandatory 

standards and testing for juvenile products, a ban on using unsafe 

cribs in childcare, product registration, Internet labeling and lead 

limits. 

KID has been reporting on the problems of lead in children’s 

products and looking for a limit for those elemental lead since 

2004. Even with delays and incomplete implementation, CPSIA has 

already shown success in making children safer. My written testimony does go into much greater detail but here are just a few 

areas. 

Over the past 4 years we have seen 10 million cribs recalled in 

this country. That is a lot of cribs and we know from past history 

on recalls, many babies are still sleeping in those cribs that are 

dangerous. A report released just today by the American Academy 

of Pediatrics shows that 26 children are rushed everyday to hospital emergency rooms because of injuries caused or taking place 

in a crib. 

CPSIA finally gave CPSC the authority to end a decade of inaction in the voluntary standard setting process on cribs and address 

real world hazards that have killed dozens of children. The CPSIA 

also requires that infant-toddler durable products such as cribs, 

strollers and highchairs include a product registration card to give 

manufacturers the ability to contact consumers in the event of a recall or product safety issue. Danny’s mother has testified before 

this former body that she firmly believes her son, Danny, would be 

alive today if the product that killed him had come with one of 

those simple cards. 

One of the most significant improvements in safety will be the 

database which goes live in March. It will both help individual consumer’s research purchasing decisions as well as report when they 

have a safety problem with a product. In addition, it will help spot 

injury patterns and emerging hazards. The CPSC has put in place, 

as we have heard, many safeguards to keep the information accurate and useable. 

We have also heard that before the CPSIA was passed, CPSC’s 

ability to protect the public had been dramatically weakened. In 

96 

1972, when it was first started the agency was appropriated would 

be $176 million in today’s dollars and had 786 full-time employees. 

Over the next 2 decades it dropped by almost 60 percent. 

CPSIA infused CPSC with resources exactly where they had been 

lacking in the preceding years. Through the CPSIA and the appropriations process, CPSC has taken a number of important steps to 

protect consumers. They have a strong team in place to address 

safe sleep for infants. They have updated their internal data management in preparation for the new database and they have reinvigorated industry setting standard bodies. CPSC is a stronger 

more effective agency today because of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. Consumers including children are safer. Implementation will have real safety results across all of CPSC’s work 

and CPSC has in addition continued to address emerging hazards 

such as Chinese drywall, cadmium batteries, and more. 

There have been delays and problems with implementation especially in the areas of testing for lead and other hazards. We fully 

support the Handmade Toy Alliances call for clear rules for reasonable testing for micro-manufacturers of children’s products including the component testing procedures that are underway. But no 

matter where they make their purchases, parents deserve to know 

the products they buy for their children are safe, whether it was 

made in someone’s garage, a small workshop, or a huge factory in 

China. 

How do you know that the wheels on the baby’s toy truck won’t 

come off if you aren’t testing it? How can we be sure products don’t 

contain lead if they or their components aren’t tested? Parents certainly can’t ascertain the presence of lead. It is a known neurotoxin 

whose effects are permanent and irreversible. The damage is cumulative so every exposure simply adds to what the child has already 

been exposed to. And it has been suggested that we move to an accessible limit or use the risk analysis on every product but as we 

are talking here today about CPSC’s resources, I do not believe 

that this product-by-product analysis of accessibility and risk would 

be useful and in fact would tie up most of CSPC’s time and resources. We know lead is dangerous and we know it shouldn’t be 

in children’s products. 

Thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Cowles follows:] 

97 


66511.058
98 


66511.059
99 


66511.060
100 


66511.061
101 


66511.062
102 


66511.063
103 


66511.064
104 


66511.065
105 

Mrs. BONO MACK. I thank the witnesses for your courtesy in honoring the red light and would like to recognize myself 5 minutes 

for the first round of questions. 

First, Ms. Fay, welcome again to the Committee. I appreciate it 

very much. I think as a member of Congress every time I get the 

opportunity to see how our laws matter at home in our districts it 

is very important and sometimes very eye opening for what we do 

here. Just a very quick question, you are a crafter and your inspiration for your crafts is your own children, correct? 

Ms. FAY. Correct. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. So the items you make, your children are the 

first to try them out to test them out? 

Ms. FAY. Always. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Well, thank you and, Mr. Morris, you mentioned briefly the comparing the database to your fear of it becoming a blog and I think we all have concerns and we recognize the 

changing nature of the Internet and that everyday we find new information there or new ways to learn about information. I too have 

some concerns about the database but how can you even begin to 

investigate a complaint if your folks don’t know who it came from 

how to contact the complainant? 

Mr. MORRIS. Well, you are right, Chairman. The issue with the 

database is one that has been troublesome to our manufacturers 

since the very beginnings of it. I believe that when this particular 

body, this committee considered the database originally, in the 

House it was a study bill and it became a situation with the requirements when it was added in the Senate. The issue of having 

invalidated information is very concerning to manufacturers whose 

real primary I guess you could say their real value is their brand 

name. That tends to be in many cases these days the primary activity that they operate. So any time that we have the ability to 

investigate further to take a little bit of additional time and certainly to contact the consumer would be a help to everyone in gaining accuracy to this database. It is really not much of use to anyone 

if it contains just allegations that have not been proven. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Thank you. 

Ms. Cowles, in terms of safety who would you regard as the best 

couple of children’s product manufacturers? 

Ms. COWLES. Well, you know, what we tell parents who call us 

with that same question of what crib should they buy, what stroller, is that any manufacturer, you know, needs to meet the standards that are out there and that you can’t necessarily go by brand 

name. So I think that what we are looking at here is that there 

are parents need to know that go to the store that any of the products on the store shelves whether it be a big name store or your 

small local retailer or someone selling at a craft fair that the product is not going to hurt their child and so I mean we don’t. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. So you don’t actually help them with the answer when they call you for a specific help on their question? 

Ms. COWLES. No, we certainly don’t recommend one brand over 

another. No, we don’t. We don’t do any marketing for the brands. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Is there any company that has no safety problems at all? 

Ms. COWLES. No. 

106 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Would you favor a CPSIA amendment that allows the Commission to decide if the crib standard is revised again 

whether childcare centers have to buy new cribs or not? 

Ms. COWLES. For the next revision you mean not this current 

one? Yes, we do favor. We do not believe that it needs to continue 

to be retroactive. We think at this point with the number of dangerous cribs out there it is good to get rid of them now at this point 

and they do have the 2 years but I think any further changes because this was such a dramatic overhaul, any future changes could 

be perspective from the date of manufacturer so we do support 

that. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Mr. Woldenberg, how do you keep track of all 

of the federal and State requirements that apply to your business? 

Mr. WOLDENBERG. We work pretty hard. It is a lot. We have a 

staff of five-and-a-half people including myself, plus an outside lawyer on retainer and we have been working at it for 3 years. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. And then, Ms. Fay, how big is your staff to 

try to comply with the same requirements? 

Ms. FAY. It is just me. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. And, Mr. Morris, in the case of and I have got 

to be brief, in the case of youth ATVs, CPSC has made the judgment that the risk of lead exposure to children is outweighed by 

the risk that children face if youth ATVs are not available and they 

ride adult-size ATVs instead. Can you briefly say does inaccurate 

information in the database pose the same problem? If the database sounds a false alarm about one product couldn’t consumers be 

scared into buying a more dangerous product instead? 

Mr. WOLDENBERG. Chair Bono Mack, I won’t try to explain on all 

terrain vehicles because that is really not our product category but 

you address the issue of the materially inaccurate information in 

the database and I believe that is one of the things that we believe 

very strongly that there is time that needs to be added to this sequence within the CPSC to resolve these types of issues and to 

make sure that the information that has been put onto the comment by the consumer is in fact accurate. That the model number 

is there, it treats that particular model number. It gives that information to the consumer or to others so that they can deal with it 

directly. It is also a problem that if these reports are made the 

Commission itself is going to seek to try and do an investigation. 

If they don’t know, they will be running around trying every type 

of product. I think that we need to try and narrow that down. 

Thank you. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Thank you. I just appreciate—I am new with 

a gavel but I hold it and you guys stop and that is a pretty powerful feeling without having to pound it. 

But I would like to recognize Mr. Butterfield for his 5 minutes 

of questioning. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. Cowles, let me start with you. Your group as well as other 

groups that you are representing today seems to be acquainted 

with the dangers of lead. 

Ms. COWLES. That is correct. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I think you have spent a lot of time reading 

about and studying and getting familiar with. As you note in your 

107 

testimony, you tried to raise the profile of the problem with lead 

in children’s products some years ago, a few years before the massive recalls in ’07 and ’08. I am told that you even asked the Commission to act using its authority to establish lead content limits 

for children’s products and I assume that the Commission didn’t respond favorably. Can you speak to that please? 

Ms. COWLES. Yes, in fact I have the study here that we released 

in 2004 looking at lead in children’s products. We call it Playing 

with Poison and we were surprised and I think that actually the 

CPSIA has reaffirmed our surprise at just how pervasive lead is 

and so we are very concerned not only with lead in paint but the 

lead content. It is an irreversible damage that it does to a child. 

Well under the hundred parts per million limit that we are looking 

at is enough for a child to be exposed to and lower their IQ one 

point. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Do you have advocate for a total lead content 

limit? 

Ms. COWLES. We do and we support the total lead that is in the 

CPSIA. We think it is the most straightforward, the simplest way 

to test as well as we believe less expensive then the soluble test. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. All right. 

Mr. Woldenberg, let me just briefly address something to you as 

well. You pointed to a label a few moments ago on the toy that said 

something. Would you repeat that again because we didn’t see that 

in your written testimony? 

Mr. WOLDENBERG. OK, I apologize, it says, ‘‘Caution, federal law 

requires us to advise that the rocks in this educational product 

may contain lead which may be harmful if swallowed.’’ It goes on 

to say, ‘‘We stand behind the safety of all of our products’’ and 

gives our phone number. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Did you manufacture that product? 

Mr. WOLDENBERG. Yes, it is a box of rocks for schools. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Unless we are sadly mistaken we are not 

aware of any federal law that requires that label to posted on the 

toy. 

Mr. WOLDENBERG. We are unable to determine whether those 

levels of rocks, this is an educational product. There is an exemption in CPSC rules that allows us to label products as possibly containing lead if they are for educational use in school and that is 

why we did this. We did this. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. But you take the position that it is required 

by federal law? 

Mr. WOLDENBERG. It is required by the CPSC. We didn’t want 

to do it. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. All right. 

Let me go back to you, Ms. Cowles, if I can and talk about the 

database. There has been a lot of conversation about that. Some 

people say data and some say data. I am a southerner, I guess I 

say data. 

Ms. COWLES. Well, I am from South Carolina so I go with you. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Yes, yes, Ms. Cowles, Mr. Morris in his testimony takes issue with the Commission including certain NGOs in 

the definition of public safety entities. I assume he means the inclusion of consumer advocacy groups in that definition. Do you beVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:27 Aug 09, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 112\112-10 021711\112-10 CHRIS
108 

lieve that groups like your group should be able to submit reports 

of harm for the database and if so please explain why? 

Ms. COWLES. I do believe that there are instances in which a 

group like mine would have information about a case about an injury and in order to make sure that it was included in the database, might want to enter that into the database. And I can give 

you—I have been working on this issue for 10 years now and while 

we talk about the database as a new thing, as we have said the 

CPSC has always had this way to provide information to them. 

They have always had an online forum. They have always had 

their own database. The difference is that now the consumers now 

will have access to that public information. I have only once reported an incident to CPSC and that was because it was from a 

family who had already lost one child to an unsafe product and did 

not want to deal with CPSC again. That was the only incident in 

which I did it so I do believe there are instances where it will be 

done. I do not believe there is going to be this flood from groups 

like ours. I can assure you the parents that I deal with who call 

me about a problem, they have already reported it to the manufacturer but they are calling me or the CPSC so that the manufacturers who say they don’t have the information, I have never found 

that to be the case. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I believe Mr. Morris calls it salting the database. Have you ever salted a Federal Government database? Do 

you know any group that has? 

Ms. COWLES. Do you mean put false information in it? 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Yes, recklessly done so. 

Ms. COWLES. No, I certainly do not. I think we look forward to 

access to information. Now when a parent calls me about a child 

who has been injured or killed it takes me months to get that information from CPSC to see if there were other incidents or if there 

is a standalone incident. I am looking forward to having access to 

information that can keep children safe so I do not think and I will 

not be spending my time putting false information about anybody’s 

products in it. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Do you understand you could go to jail for 

doing that or anyone could? 

Ms. COWLES. Well, I wouldn’t do it either way. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Anyone could. 

Ms. COWLES. Yes. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. All right, thank you very much. 

My time has expired. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. I thank the gentleman. 

The chair recognizes the vice-chair of the subcommittee for 5 

minutes, Marsha Blackburn. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. Cowles, do you know how exposure to lead occurs in a child? 

Ms. COWLES. I know there are many different ways that exposure occurs. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Well, according to the CDC it is direct ingestion such as swallowing paint chips, house dust or soil contaminated by leaded paint or through hand-to-mouth activities such as 

placing fingers or other objects in their mouth putting them in conVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:27 Aug 09, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 112\112-10 021711\112-10 CHRIS
109 

tact with lead paint or lead dust. Do you know what today’s major 

source of lead exposure is today according to scientists? 

Ms. COWLES. Yes, I do. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. And what is that 

Ms. COWLES. That is old housing stock and the environmental 

lead. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. According to the CDC the major sources of lead 

exposure among U.S. children are lead contaminated dust, deteriorated lead-based paint and lead contaminated soil. Do you know 

what scientists attribute this 91 percent drop—well let me go up 

here first? Do you know what the average blood lead level of a 

child under 5 was in 1970? 

Ms. COWLES. No, but I am sure it was much higher than it is 

today. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The average and this is according to the EPA, 

the average BLL of a child under 5 was 15 micrograms per liter. 

Do you know what the current level of concern is according to the 

CDC? 

Ms. COWLES. You better tell me. I have a guess but, right. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. In micrograms do you know the average blood 

lead level, the BLL of a child under 5, do you know what that is 

today? 

Ms. COWLES. No. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK, it according to the EPA in ’07 and ’08, the 

average of a child under 5 was 1.4 micrograms per deciliter. So 

that I think gives you a pretty good idea of how we are doing with 

the lead. What do you think has attributed to this 91 percent drop 

in the blood lead level? 

Ms. COWLES. The banning of lead in paint, the banning of lead 

in certain products, the very extensive abatement efforts on the 

part of cities, States. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Well, the CDC says it is the result of the removal of lead from gasoline as well as from other sources such as 

household paint, food and drink cans, and plumbing systems, so 

just some items there for the record. 

Mr. Woldenberg, can you tell us what your annual testing costs 

are under CPSIA? 

Mr. WOLDENBERG. We are projecting for, I am sorry. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK and also I want you to tell me how this 

has affected your business plan following the adoption of the rules. 

Let me see where it is now and what kind of changes you had to 

make. 

Mr. WOLDENBERG. Group-wide we are projecting costs far in excess of $1 million up to $2 million for this fiscal year and we expect 

that to increase if the 15-month rule is implemented as currently 

drafted by the agency. The impact on our business is that a tremendous amount of money has been removed from our business at 

an extremely inconvenient time. Our head count is down about approximately 30 percent from peak. It is, of course, not entirely due 

to this law. There was the recession but it greatly depleted our resources. We have deferred on opportunities to expand our business 

range into younger child ages educational products simply because 

we don’t want to be exposed to the risk. 

110 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. How many jobs do you think that would have 

created had you been able to move ahead with that expansion? 

Mr. WOLDENBERG. Well, $2 million goes a long way especially 

when it is moved from your profits so I am hoping a couple dozen 

and we have about five people in quality control to compensate for 

that. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK so you are lacking a couple of dozen jobs. 

Mr. WOLDENBERG. I would say so. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Ms. Fay, welcome. I am glad you are here. 

Talk about the unintended consequences of CPSIA affecting small 

business owners like yours and I want you to talk in terms of jobs, 

prices and consumer choice in the marketplace. 

Ms. FAY. We can’t afford the third-party testing. We can’t. It is 

not just the lead. It is the ASTM testing and the phthalate testing. 

I don’t know anyone especially now this has been going on for so 

long and we have been fighting this for so long that none of us can. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. So it will shut you down? It will shut your 

fleece fabrics and things, it will shut you down. So instead of creating the environment in which government creates the environment for jobs growth to take place, you see this as something that 

is completely restricting your ability to do business? 

Ms. FAY. Yes, I am still the only inventory I have. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Direct and indirect jobs, how many jobs would 

that be costing? 

Ms. FAY. It is mine, and it is every other crafter out there. If we 

can’t continue selling our stuff, we are dead in the water. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Well and I think that is everyone wants to 

make certain that we are handling the problems that are in front 

of us but I think we are all concerned when we look at the unintended consequences. 

I yield back. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. I thank the gentle lady. 

The gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Woldenberg, you have written that there 

are no injuries as a result of products with high lead levels and my 

colleague was just talking about lead. I am really confused here. 

Is there some argument here that protecting our children from lead 

in toys is an unreasonable direction to go in, Mr. Woldenberg, that 

this is not a problem? Do you have scientific data that would back 

up that there are no injuries as a result of products with high lead 

levels? 

Mr. WOLDENBERG. Well, the source of my information is the 

CPSC and I went through every recall they did from ’99 to 2010, 

line by line and what I have said consistently is that there are 

three unverified injuries in their reports and one death attributed 

to lead in recalls of children’s products since ’99. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And so you are concluding that lead in toys, 

that that is OK? That it is not a problem. 

Mr. WOLDENBERG. Oh no, I would never say that. It is not in 

doubt that lead is dangerous but the real question isn’t whether 

lead is dangerous but the real question is whether our products are 

dangerous and the consequence of. 

111 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I am really not following that. If lead is in 

toys and sometimes at very high levels and in trinkets and things 

like that how then and you believe that it is dangerous then how 

can the product not be dangerous? 

Mr. WOLDENBERG. Well, I believe that Representative Blackburn 

cited that it is soluble lead that the CDC and NIH and EPA cite 

as the cause of blood lead levels rising and what is at issue I think 

largely today is the regulation of insoluble lead that is lead bound 

into substrate and I believe that is, you know, not nearly the cause 

for concern because we can’t identify people who have been injured 

by it. We are a conscientious. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. All right, thank you. 

Ms. Cowles, let us talk about the different tests and your comments are what Mr. Woldenberg has said. 

Ms. COWLES. Well, I think that that the statistics from CDC do 

not differentiate between soluble and insoluble. It is lead dust. It 

is lead. That lead could be the total lead in the product. A child 

can transfer it from its hand to their mouth, you know, if you 

watch a child at play. If you were to put purple ink on a child’s 

hand and have them be unaware and come back an hour later and 

see all the purple ink around their mouth. Even children you think 

are too old to mouthing you would see that they are ingesting 

whatever gets on their hand a child is going to ingest even older 

children then the up to three that we have talked about in terms 

of mouthing. In terms of the product itself and the testing, the total 

lead test that CPSIA requires the under 300 parts per million 

going to 100 parts per million, is a very straightforward test that 

can be done. You can screen for it using an XRF gun so that you 

can see if it has some lead in it then you are going to need to do 

the test and so we believe that that is much more straightforward. 

You get more reliable results from that then a soluble test where 

you have to sort of figure out using different methods how much 

how your much of the lead will actually come out using different 

amounts of acids for different periods of time. Those tests often are 

very different. You get different results at different times and they 

aren’t as straightforward I don’t think as the total lead. I think the 

total lead actually simplifies it and makes it easier for people to 

comply. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. The other thing I have a real problem with is 

that somehow this notion of a cost benefit analysis in a tradition 

way. I mean what is the value then of a child’s life or a child’s IQ 

point. Ms. Cowles, if you would comment on the use of this the notion that we should have some sort of a cost benefit analysis. 

Ms. COWLES. And I think if we are going to look at cost benefits 

let us look very closely at the benefit side. It is true as Mr. 

Woldenberg said there are not body bags of children who have been 

injured and killed by lead but there is testing that shows that a 

small exposure to lead is going to lead to a reduction in a child’s 

IQ point. You are not going to be able to measure that. The parent 

isn’t even necessarily going to know but we can show that that has 

an impact on future earnings. We have seen reports that, Representative Blackburn, you mentioned the changes in the ’70s. 

There are reports that indicate that the drop in crime that we have 

seen could be because of the reduction in lead at that time. So to 

112 

say that simply because a child doesn’t have an acute case of lead 

poisoning does not mean that there is not chronic lead poisoning 

that could be affecting both their future earning and our economy. 

So if we are going to look at cost benefit, we need to look closely 

at the benefits of children and how they are protected and what 

impact that has. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And thank you. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Harper, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. Fay, I would like to ask you just a couple of things. Of 

course, you know, we all want to make sure that the products that 

the kids use are safe. How do you ensure that your product is a 

safe product without testing? 

Ms. FAY. Before the February 10, 2009, I rented an XRF scanner 

and I tested for 15 hours in my basement with this x-ray gun. I 

tested every fabric and every trim and I tested possible trims on 

sample cards that I might use in the future and in 15 hours every 

test result I had was no lead detected. 

Mr. HARPER. What was the cost for you to rent that device, if you 

recall? 

Ms. FAY. To rent it, it was for 5 days, $2,500 and I shared the 

cost with four other companies and I know that many of the handmade toy lines members across the country were having testing 

parties where they would get big groups of people to also use an 

XRF scanner so that everyone knew that all of their products were 

free of lead. And I also know in Oregon you are allowed to take 

your products to the Housing Development Department and they 

test them with an XRF scanner for free. 

Mr. HARPER. I am just curious that you found no problems in 

what you spent the 15 hours with. 

Ms. FAY. I found no problems with any of my products. 

Mr. HARPER. And the four other companies that shared this with 

you or the 5-day rental cost with you, did they find any problems 

that you were aware of? 

Ms. FAY. I am aware of some problems with shoes and mostly on 

the soles of the shoes, sometimes companies had like a colored dot 

that helped recognize their brand and that dot on the sole of the 

shoe sometimes had lead that I know of. 

Mr. HARPER. And do you know what that particular company did 

in reaction to that, if you know? 

Ms. FAY. They threw them all away. 

Mr. HARPER. OK and is it your desire that you produce and manufacture goods that are safe? 

Ms. FAY. Yes and it was for most of the handmade toy lines it 

if not every single one of us, we started our businesses because we 

wanted safe products for our kids and we felt that if we made them 

with our hands and we knew that the time and attention going into 

this product was there, the products would be safer. 

Mr. HARPER. When you shared this cost for this and you said 

$2,500 for this device for the 5-day rental, have you been given a 

cost estimate of what the third-party testing would be for you? 

113 

Ms. FAY. At the time, I had just sold my house and I took almost all of our money, invested in my business so I had $30,000 worth 

of product and my testing costs were $27,000. 

Mr. HARPER. OK, thank you, Ms. Fay. 

Mr. Woldenberg, if I could just ask you on, you know, how do you 

without doing the testing what do you propose? What is a reasonable response to what we are seeing here? 

Mr. WOLDENBERG. Well, we have always tested and there is no 

way to know if you comply with a standard without testing. We 

also can’t use an in-house testing lab. We are not big enough and 

aren’t prepared to manage one so, you know, what we want to do 

is manage to a standard. Set a reasonable standard and then the 

government shouldn’t get involved in telling us how to meet it. We 

know well how to meet it and we have been doing it more then 2 

decades successfully. 

Mr. HARPER. So do you see a greater burden on small volume 

businesses with this possible requirement? 

Mr. WOLDENBERG. What I just articulated or what exists? 

Mr. HARPER. Yes. 

Mr. WOLDENBERG. What I just articulated would be far easier. 

You know, Ms. Fay just described wasting thousands of dollars 

testing stuff that everyone knows is safe. That is just a terrible 

burden on any business whether it is a single business or a business with 150 people. 

Mr. HARPER. OK, thank you. 

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. The gentleman yields back. 

The chair recognizes Dr. Cassidy for 5 minutes. 

Dr. CASSIDY. Ms. Cowles, I am sorry, how do you pronounce your 

name? I am sorry. 

Ms. COWLES. That is all right, Cowles. 

Dr. CASSIDY. Cowles. I have to admit I started laughing when 

Mr. Woldenberg said he has to label rocks as a potential threat for 

lead poisoning if they are swallowed. Does that seem reasonable to 

you? 

Ms. COWLES. I don’t think that is part of CPSIA and I don’t 

think he is saying it is either, the labeling of his rocks. 

Dr. CASSIDY. OK, so OK, so that is however that is interpreted 

because I think you felt as if you had to correct? 

Mr. WOLDENBERG. That is the only way we can sell products 

with lead is we had to find an exemption. There is an exemption 

for educational products and the cost to us is we have to put the 

word lead on our product. We don’t believe anyone will buy things 

that say lead on them if they are for children. Who wants to buy 

a product that says it has lead in it? It is death. That is what is 

going on in Illinois right now with the lead labeling law which is 

essentially overriding your legislation. 

Dr. CASSIDY. But I think there is a dispute as to whether or not 

you are actually required to put that on. 

Mr. WOLDENBERG. We hired counsel and had a 1-hour conference 

call and whether or not this product was saleable under U.S. law 

without this label. I very much opposed putting a label on it. I was 

overruled by my outside counsel. 

Dr. CASSIDY. OK, I can only imagine what that cost you. 

114 

Mr. WOLDENBERG. Exactly. 

Dr. CASSIDY. Now, the next thing is I am new to this committee 

so I have kind of an open mind but Ms. Fay do you have a logger 

making a little wooden airplane? 

Ms. FAY. I volunteer at a senior center. 

Dr. CASSIDY. Hang on, hang on, decorating with a non-lead based 

paint? 

Ms. FAY. No, there is no paint on it. 

Dr. CASSIDY. OK, that has to be tested for lead content? 

Ms. FAY. Yes and not the lead. It does not if it is not coated with 

anything other then natural materials but the ASTM testing. 

Dr. CASSIDY. Which is what? I am sorry to be so ignorant? 

Ms. FAY. They call it S963 and it is the required under the 

CPSIA that any toy has to go through a series of tests depending 

on what type of toy it is. 

Dr. CASSIDY. OK. 

Ms. FAY. So for example, you have to—we pay someone to hold 

an object from shoulder height and drop it to make sure. That is 

a laboratory test that they would have to pay. And the logger at 

the senior center, he is a retired logger. 

Dr. CASSIDY. So this guy kind of doing a handicraft has to pay 

a third-party engineering group to hold it out by hand and drop it 

to see if it shatters? 

Ms. FAY. If he wants to sell it. 

Dr. CASSIDY. Because I mean I am just asking what would your 

comments be about that? 

Ms. COWLES. I think I said in my testimony that we, you know, 

since the time this law passed we are very receptive to the problems of one-of-a-kind items, very small crafters such as Ms. Fay is 

talking about and are open to looking at reasonable testing programs. We are not—we would not say that those toys do not need 

to be tested in some way because again it doesn’t matter to the 

child whether the nice gentleman at the senior center is making it 

or if it is brought in from China. If a wheel is going to fall off and 

cause a choking hazard for a very young child the parent should 

still know. 

Dr. CASSIDY. Well, let me ask you I don’t know, again I don’t 

know this. I am learning in this committee. Obviously, I have 

young children. They always put things in their mouth, a little bit 

older now but you could swallow a ball and that could choke. Is a 

ball, let us say a ping-pong ball or is a rubber ball on a paddle, 

is that covered under this? I mean clearly they could die from 

dying swallow a small little rubber ball. 

Ms. COWLES. Yes, they can and they do, yes. 

Dr. CASSIDY. Is that covered under this legislation? 

Ms. COWLES. Yes, balls would be covered because they are a toy 

so those products and again the choking hazard is for products for 

children under the age of 3. So those products usually small balls 

and the paddles you are talking about are not made for children 

under 3. 

Dr. CASSIDY. Now, but as I have been reading the testimony and 

the stuff applied that is not applied, the common toy box concept 

does not apply to those sorts of toys? 

115 

Ms. COWLES. That is dealing with lead and things more than the 

choking hazard. There are additional labeling requirements for toys 

for children over 3 but under 6 to indicate once again that a child 

under 3 should not have them but the common toy box we are talking about is the lead issue. 

Dr. CASSIDY. Now, I actually think if you are speaking of a common toy box, just thinking of my three children, that a ball would 

be more likely to be taken from one of them then an ATV and so 

if there is a common toy box, they will grab the older child’s ball 

and try and put it in their mouth and hopefully nothing bad happens but it could. If we are going to accept the rationale, the common toy box means that you have to limit exposure to some of 

these toys I don’t see the rationale for limiting it to what we limit 

it to. 

Ms. COWLES. Well, I think that because even for the child over 

3, lead is still a neurotoxin and it is still going to hurt that child 

if they do mouth it and so there is no reason for lead to be in children’s toys. 

Dr. CASSIDY. Mr. Woldenberg, you were shaking your head. 

Mr. WOLDENBERG. Well, small parts are not illegal for children 

over 3 and there are many cherished childhood products such as 

Legos would be illegal if they were so if your observation is there 

are lots of small parts out there that children could be putting in 

their mouth, it is absolutely true, and it is a risk that is solved by 

parental supervision. 

Dr. CASSIDY. OK, I yield back. Thank you. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Olson. 

Mr. OLSON. I thank the chair and I thank our witnesses for coming today. It is pretty obvious that this is a matter of great importance because of the emotions that are being felt here in this committee and because as a father of a beautiful 14-year-old daughter 

and a 10-year-old son, all I want for them is to be healthy and 

happy. 

And, Mrs. Fay, I just want to tell you, you are not alone and I 

want to prove that to you because I am going to read a letter that 

I received from one of our Texans back home. And her name is 

Celice William Jackson and she is the owner of Mommy’s Heartbeat and she just makes clothing for little babies in her home and 

here is what she wrote. ‘‘This bill, we are talking about CPSIA, requires manufacturers of any product intended for children 12 and 

younger to test their end product for lead and phthalates. The way 

the test is performed is by testing each component of the product 

in order to say whether it passes or not. For example, if I make 

a diaper and I have pink snaps, thread and fabric, when I send my 

diaper to be tested they will test the snaps, thread and fabric. But 

say I run out of pink thread and I use blue then I have to send 

in the diaper to be tested again which means that the fabric and 

snaps will be retested just because I used a different color of 

thread. By the way, it is nearly impossible for non-metallic thread 

to contain lead. I believe we can both agree that this testing is 

wasteful and redundant. I am a work-at-home mom to a beautiful 

9-month-old daughter. If CPSIA stands as is, I will be forced to 

stop doing business. I cannot afford the hundreds of dollars reVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:27 Aug 09, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 112\112-10 021711\112-10 CHRIS
116 

quired just to test one product. The economy is in bad enough 

shape as it is without having thousands of small businesses closing 

their doors and the cost of children’s good skyrocketing.’’ 

My question for you, are you aware of more businesses that in 

your shape, Ms. Fay, out there in Oregon. 

Ms. FAY. We get e-mails from companies all over the country 

talking about how this law is affecting them and we have compiled 

a list of businesses that have already closed due to the CPSIA. 

However, this list is small in comparison to what will happen if the 

CPSIA is fully implemented without changes. We know that if the 

stay of enforcement, if third-party testing is allowed to expire after 

December and no amendment has fixed our problems, 90 percent 

of our membership will have to close their businesses. 

Mr. OLSON. Yes, ma’am, and again we need to fix that up here 

in the House of Representatives. 

Ms. FAY. Please. 

Mr. OLSON. That is something we can fix and something we 

should fix. 

A question for you, Mr. Woldenberg, and just sort of the cost for 

your business here and how much of the cost of CPSIA impacted 

your business, your product lines. I mean your testimony states 

that your business costs of compliance have increased ten-fold, tenfold. 

Mr. WOLDENBERG. Well, I can illustrate that for you. You know, 

if we tested every one of our products once in destructive testing 

and all of our testing is destructive, we would have to test 1,500 

products. Right now hanging over our head is the so-called 15- 

month rule which should be called the 30-month rule and this is 

a picture of what I would have to test. This is 81,000 units. This 

is what they look like. All of this would be destroyed and I have 

to pay for that. And it is a huge, huge distraction as well. There 

is just no end to the threats that come from this law. 

Mr. OLSON. So you have to destroy 81,000 units? 

Mr. WOLDENBERG. Yes, that is what it looks like. 

Mr. OLSON. Just for testing and those are units that you could 

be selling, making money and growing your business? 

Mr. WOLDENBERG. Right, this is a shipment of 81,000. I wouldn’t 

get to do that. 

Mr. OLSON. Well, yes, sir. I mean I know that back home in 

Texas there are a lot of old boys who would like to destroy 81,000 

cartons there but that is not the way we are going to grow our 

economy. We need to get the regulatory burdens off your back. 

Mr. WOLDENBERG. Thank you. 

Mr. OLSON. And anything we can do to help you, we are going 

to do it. 

Mr. WOLDENBERG. Thank you. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you very much for your time. 

Yield back. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. The gentleman yields back. 

The chair recognizes Mr. Pompeo for 5 minutes. 

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I just have a couple questions for Ms. Cowles. The American 

Academy of Pediatrics testified at the Commission’s one hundred 

parts per million technological feasibility yesterday that there is a 

117 

point where we go from the sublime to the ridiculous when it comes 

to treating all products as presenting the identical, the same risk. 

In your judgment, have we reached the ridiculous when we treat 

a bicycle or a geology kit or a jewelry charm precisely the same 

way? 

Ms. COWLES. I don’t know that I would call it ridiculous. I think 

that it is not really treated the same way. The charm is obviously 

going to be, you know, has definitely caused harm. I think we are 

looking at the way that lead is addressed in those different products but the effect of lead in each of those products if the child is 

able to ingest it is going to be the same. 

Mr. POMPEO. Right and but we still have got the same hundred 

parts per million standard for each of those items and you think 

that is appropriate given the variance in the product and the product’s usage and the product’s contact with human beings? 

Ms. COWLES. You know, I think that we should certainly look at 

inaccessible lead so that if there is lead in products that there is 

no way that the child is going to touch, that is one issue but I think 

that the way I look at it if you want to simplify it is as Rick said, 

parents do not want to buy products that have lead in them for 

their children. We had a lab testify yesterday at that same hearing 

that said most of the products that they are testing are already 

well below the hundred parts per million. I think we can do this 

and we can make these products without lead. It is what parents 

want and we can quibble about how bad the effect will be but I 

think that as Rick said if you tell the parent there is lead in it they 

really are not going to want to buy it so why don’t we get the lead 

out of it. 

Mr. POMPEO. In your judgment, Mr. Woldenberg showed us a picture of some product that will have to be destroyed. In your judgment, should the Federal Government make him destroy that product? 

Ms. COWLES. I think he is talking about destructive testing. He 

is not talking about he is destroying it because it has lead in it. 

Mr. POMPEO. But no he is talking about destructive testing. Do 

you think that he should? 

Ms. COWLES. I am not familiar with his testing process as to why 

all of that would have to be destroyed. 

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Woldenberg, you were going back with my colleague, Congressman Butterfield, a few minutes ago about whether 

the label there was necessary or required and your counsel overruled you and told you it was. Has your counsel told you how many 

more hours he is going to get to bill once the database comes online? 

Mr. WOLDENBERG. The database is going to be a full employment 

plan for our outside counsel. 

Mr. POMPEO. And so, Ms. Fay, you don’t have inside counsel? 

Ms. FAY. Can’t afford it. 

Mr. POMPEO. And we have heard different testimony this morning about the risks and problems potentially with that database 

people have different judgment. Commissioner Tenenbaum was 

pretty clear in 10 days she feels like she is required to publish it 

regardless of its merits. Do any of the three of you involved in the 

manufacturing process think that makes sense? 

118 

Mr. WOLDENBERG. I do not. We can’t evaluate the information 

that we are given because we are not given full access to the information and one of the biggest concerns that I have about the database is that by the government getting into the business of a safety 

blog they are training our customers not to call us. I want to talk 

to them directly about problems. 

Mr. POMPEO. I really want and that is actually where I was 

headed. I appreciate that. Do any of you ever fear that your customers when they are not happy with your product won’t call you? 

Mr. WOLDENBERG. That is my biggest nightmare. 

Mr. MORRIS. Certainly in our industry, Congressman, the manufacturers get lots of calls from their consumers and they find vital 

information very well and very thoroughly because the consumer 

when they call usually has the model number, they have the exact 

information in front of them and that is the best way to get the 

information. 

Mr. POMPEO. Until 45 days ago I was involved in and I was running a manufacturing business and my customers when they 

weren’t happy often were pretty successful at locating me. I also 

felt like we had an incentive to respond to that in a way that was 

meaningful to the customer and corrected any potential problems 

with product that we may have made. Do you all feel like you have 

adequate incentive already to address customer concerns about 

problems with your products? 

Mr. WOLDENBERG. Absolutely and it is how a conscientious manufacturer has to behave. It is our responsibility. 

Mr. MORRIS. That is why in many cases the claims that a manufacturer will make about materially inaccurate information is 

largely going to be that is not my product. It needs to be resolved 

and there is no reason that the Commission can’t take an extra 

couple of hours to read a report and make sure that is accurate. 

Mr. POMPEO. I appreciate it. Thank you all for coming today. 

I yield back my time. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. The gentleman yields back and no other members are present to ask questions. 

Without objection, the chair is going to insert five additional 

statements for the record of our hearing that have been submitted. 

We have previously shared these with the minority and believe 

that they will improve the hearing record. So ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mrs. BONO MACK. And so in conclusion of the hearing, I would 

again like to thank all of our witnesses today. We all appreciate 

your time and the stories that you shared with us. We all want 

safer products for our children. There is no question. But we also 

want to stimulate and encourage businesses rather than stifle 

them with unnecessary regulations that have little to no impact on 

safety. Our challenge is to figure out how to strike that balance 

and this is only the first of our discussions on that topic. I would 

like to most especially thank the Ranking Member Butterfield for 

his help today and his support and offer an open door to him as 

we work through all of these policies and to each and everyone of 

you I believe that we can do great things if we work together and 

that is my intention to do it that way. 

119 

So thank you to the audience for your kindness today and that 

concludes—oh wait, wait, oh just a little business. I remind members that they have 10 business days to submit questions for the 

record and to ask that the witnesses please respond promptly to 

any questions they may receive. The committee is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:08 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

Thank you, Chairman Bono-Mack, for holding this, your first hearing as Chair of 

the Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade Subcommittee, on the Consumer Product 

Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA). I think we all agree that there are significant 

problems with this law that need to be addressed urgently. I am also interested in 

hearing about the effect of this law on the resources of the Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

The Energy & Commerce Committee worked on the CPSIA on a bipartisan basis 

under the leadership of then-Chairman Dingell and then-Ranking Member Barton. 

The bill passed the House on a nearly unanimous basis. The Senate did not proceed 

with the same bipartisan approach, but in conference we nevertheless went along 

with some of their provisions. Some of our conferees have expressed regret on that 

score. In any case, not long after the President signed CPSIA into law, serious problems emerged. 

We all care deeply about our children and their safety - nearly every one of us 

on this dais has a child or grandchild. No one wants to put little children at risk. 

But this law may be doing exactly that. By dictating so much of the Commission’s 

work, in too many cases we have shifted its attention to products that pose little 

or no risk and away from more significant issues. At the same time, we have deprived the Commission of the flexibility to develop common-sense solutions to the 

problems of implementation. The retroactive effect of the law has caused the Salvation Army, Goodwill Industries and thrift stores across the land to destroy used 

products, including even winter clothing that is sorely needed by millions of American children. 

While we have seen little evidence of improvement in children’s safety, there has 

already been an extreme impact on the children’s product market - particularly for 

small- and micro-sized businesses. The Commission has pushed off the day of reckoning for some businesses by postponing, again and again, the expensive requirements for third-party independent laboratory testing of children’s products. But the 

Commission has already told us that it believes its hands are tied-it can do nothing 

more to exempt products from this costly testing, even when the risk, if any, is 

minute and the burden to small business is gargantuan. In fact, the Commission 

is now working on regulations that would require even more testing-regulations that 

will pile on even greater costs in this terrible recession. 

In short, it is up to us to fix the problem. We have no time to waste. This summer, the lead limits are set to drop again, to even lower levels. Again the effect will 

be retroactive, so our retailers and thrift stores will once again be destroying inventories of products that are already the safest in the world. I want to make clear that 

we do not intend to undo everything we did in the CPSIA, but we have every intention of fixing the law so that it works and the Commission can get back to its job 

of protecting our children. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS

Thank you Chairman Bono-Mack and Ranking Member Butterfield for holding 

this hearing today on the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act and Consumer 

Product Safety Commission resources. The CPSIA was passed in the 110th congress 

to help protect consumers against dangerous products that may do them harm. This 

legislation affects a broad spectrum of our economy, from the manufactures of toys 

to the children that play with them. Our constituents want to know that we are 

doing everything in our power to make sure their children are kept safe. 

I’m also interested in hearing from our witnesses today about how and more importantly when CPSIA’s new rules will be finalized and implemented. As it currently stands the new rules have been in limbo due to concerns with-in the industry 

about unintended consequences. While I sympathize with the cost concerns of small 

businesses the safety of our nation’s children should be our first priority. 

120 

I look forward to working with industry and consumer groups to make sure 

CPSIA’s new rules and data base system are properly implemented and adhered to. 

Thank you and I yield back the balance of my time. 

121 


66511.066
122 


66511.067
123 


66511.068
124 


66511.069
125 


66511.070
126 


66511.071
127 


66511.072
128 


66511.073
129 


66511.074
130 


66511.075
131 


66511.076
132 


66511.077
133 


66511.078
134 


66511.079
135 


66511.080
136 


66511.081
137 


66511.082
138 


66511.083
139 


66511.084
140 


66511.085
141 


66511.086
142 


66511.087
143 


66511.088
144 


66511.089
145 


66511.090
146 


66511.091
147 


66511.092
148 


66511.093
149 


66511.094
150 


66511.095
151 


66511.096
152 


66511.097
153 


66511.098
154 


66511.099
155 


66511.100
156 


66511.101
157 


66511.102
158 


66511.103
159 


66511.104
160 


66511.105
161 


66511.106
162 


66511.107
163 


66511.108
164 


66511.109
165 


66511.110
166 


66511.111
167 


66511.112
168 


66511.113
169 


66511.114
170 


66511.115
171 


66511.116
172 


66511.117
173 


66511.118
174 


66511.119
175 


66511.120
176 


66511.121
177 


66511.122
178 


66511.123
179 


66511.124
180 


66511.125
181 


66511.126
182 


66511.127
183 


66511.128
184 


66511.129
185 


66511.130
186 


66511.131
187 


66511.132
188 


66511.133
189 


66511.134
190 


66511.135
191 


66511.136
192 


66511.137
193 


66511.138
194 


66511.139
195 


66511.140
196 


66511.141
197 


66511.142
198 


66511.143
199 


66511.144
200 


66511.145
201 


66511.146
202 


66511.147
203 


66511.148
204 


66511.149
205 


66511.150
206 


66511.151
207 


66511.152
208 


66511.153
209 


66511.154
210 


66511.155
211 


66511.156
212 


66511.157
213 


66511.158
214 


66511.159
215 


66511.160
216 


66511.161
217 


66511.162
218 


66511.163
219 


66511.164
220 


66511.165
221 


66511.166
222 


66511.167
223 


66511.168
224 


66511.169
225 


66511.170
226 


66511.171
227 


66511.172
228 


66511.173
229 


66511.174
230 


66511.175
231 


66511.176
232 


66511.177
233 


66511.178
234 


66511.179
235 


66511.180
236 


66511.181
237 


66511.182
238 


66511.183
239 


66511.184
240 


66511.185
241 


66511.186
242 


66511.187
243 


66511.188
244 


66511.189
245 


66511.190
246 


66511.191
247 


66511.192
248 


66511.193
249 


66511.194
250 


66511.195
251 


66511.196
252 


66511.197
253 


66511.198
254 


66511.199
255 


66511.200
256 

Æ 


66511.201