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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

81–957CC 2002

THE CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION:

THE NEW CHAIRMAN’S AGENDA

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SEPTEMBER 4, 2002

Serial No. 107–128

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

W.J. ‘‘BILLY’’ TAUZIN, Louisiana, Chairman 

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER COX, California 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

GREG GANSKE, Iowa 

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

CHARLES ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, Mississippi 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

TOM DAVIS, Virginia 

ED BRYANT, Tennessee 

ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

PETER DEUTSCH, Florida 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

TOM SAWYER, Ohio 

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri 

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin 

BILL LUTHER, Minnesota 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Louisiana 

JANE HARMAN, California 

DAVID V. MARVENTANO, Staff Director 

JAMES D. BARNETTE, General Counsel 

REID P.F. STUNTZ, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida, Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

Vice Chairman 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

ED BRYANT, Tennessee 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky 

W.J. ‘‘BILLY’’ TAUZIN, Louisiana 

(Ex Officio) 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Louisiana 

JANE HARMAN, California 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

PETER DEUTSCH, Florida 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan, 

(Ex Officio) 

(II) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Testimony of: 

Stratton, Harold D., Jr., Chairman, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission ........................................................................................................... 6

(III) 

(1)

THE CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION: THE NEW CHAIRMAN’S AGENDA 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2002

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE AND

CONSUMER PROTECTION, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:11 p.m. , in room 

2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Cliff Stearns 

(chairman) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Stearns, Bass, Markey, and 

Gordon. 

Staff present: Kelly Zerzan, majority counsel; Brendan Williams, 

legislative clerk; and Jonathan Cordone, minority counsel. 

Mr. STEARNS. The subcommittee will come to order. And let me 

welcome all of you back as Congress starts this session. And welcome to today’s hearing entitled The Consumer Product Safety 

Commission: The New Chairman’s Agenda. As the title suggests, 

we welcome the new Consumer Product Safety Commission Chairman Hal Stratton to the subcommittee. We are pleased to have Mr. 

Stratton, a former New Mexico State legislator and attorney general, testifying before the committee this afternoon. 

The Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection Subcommittee 

has not held hearings on the CPSC to date, although that certainly 

has not been for lack of interest on our part. Unfortunately, without a confirmed chairman, the CPSC has been legally without a 

quorum since May 2002, which has prevented the Commission from 

fully exercising its enforcement authority. For instance, it has been 

unable to impose civil penalties, issue subpoenas, accept settlements, mandate recalls, issue complaints or rules, adopt a budget, 

or even enact an operating plan. 

The arrival of the chairman, Chairman Stratton, remedies the 

idleness at the Commission. With the new chairman now at the 

helm, the Commission can reengage the fight to protect our consumers and in particular our most vulnerable citizens, including 

children and seniors, from dangerous and defective products. 

The CPSC is an important commission that has been tasked by 

statute with protecting the public against unreasonable risks of injuries associated with consumer products. The CPSC has jurisdiction over more than 15,000 kinds of consumer products used in and 

around our homes in sports, in recreation, and in our schools. 

As a commission with broad consumer protection jurisdiction, the 

CPSC can be a very valuable bully pulpit. This office can be and 

2

should be used as an effective means of distributing information on 

dangerous products subject to recall and for disseminating important consumer education information. It is not the job of the CPSC, 

however, to use that pulpit as a substitute for Commission action. 

If an individual or a company is breaking the law and putting the 

public in danger, the Commission should take action in regular 

order. Moreover, the job of the CPSC is to actively enforce the law 

as enacted by Congress. Thus, if the Commission believes that the 

Consumer Product Safety Act needs to be changed, we certainly 

welcome his suggestions. 

I am pleased to know that Chairman Stratton is in agreement 

with me that the Commission’s mission is to enforce the law. Indeed, one of the first actions taken by him was to impose a $1 million civil penalty against General Electric for failing to report to 

the CPSC in a timely manner a defect in certain models of its dishwashers. For the protection of our citizens, it is important that 

companies understand the importance of complying with the law. 

Moreover, I agree with and support his efforts directed at enhancing the Commission’s efficiency by strengthening its informationsharing activities with other Federal and State agencies. Furthermore, as noted, it is important that the CPSC explore improving 

its ability to communicate important consumer product safety information to the American public. 

Speaking of information, I believe that a critical function of the 

Commission is the collection and analysis of consumer product 

safety data. Therefore, I urge you, Mr. Chairman, to consider a rigorous review of the Commission’s data collection and review processes with the objective of improving the quality of both the data 

and its analysis. 

Mr. Chairman, I also agree with you that as the number of consumer products that are imported grow exponentially, the Commission should explore ways of enhancing its oversight of these products. Let me suggest that one way of doing so is for the Commission to work closely with industry standards-setting organizations 

in general, and with international forums specifically. 

As for specific issues of interest to this committee, I am sure you 

are aware that a number of committee members have introduced 

bills that involve the CPSC. I, for example, have introduced a bill 

calling on the Commission to set fire safety standards for cigarettes. I know my colleague, who is acting as ranking member 

today, the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey, has a keen 

interest in that issue and also in Federal regulation of fixed-site 

amusement parks. I agree with my colleague that we should at 

least, with the Commission’s input, explore the fire-safe cigarette 

issue; yet, I respectfully disagree with him that there is a need for 

Federal regulation of fixed-site amusement parks. Those sites enjoy 

a great safety record as evidenced by the fact that in the year 2000, 

out of the 320 million visits to those sites, only 125 visitors were 

hospitalized for injuries. State government oversight of such facilities has proven to be very effective. 

And, finally, I would like to bring to your attention two other 

bills. The first was introduced by the distinguished ranking member of this subcommittee Mr. Towns, who is not with us today, 

from New York, and my colleague from Illinois on this side Mr. 

3

Shimkus, addressing children’s sleepwear. The second piece of legislation which I support was introduced by my colleague from New 

Hampshire Mr. Bass giving the CPSC jurisdiction over a brand 

new innovative personal mobility device called the Segway. 

The CPSC has a full plate of issues before it, and I am confident, 

Chairman Stratton, you will address each of these issues with the 

same professionalism and experience properly fitting the post. So 

I thank you very much for accepting the position—and I mean that 

sincerely—and thank you for testifying this afternoon before the 

subcommittee, and I look forward to working with you in the 

months ahead. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Cliff Stearns follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFF STEARNS, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

Welcome to today’s hearing titled ‘‘The Consumer Product Safety Commission: 

The New Chairman’s Agenda.’’ As the title suggests, we welcome the new Consumer 

Product Safety Commission (CPSC) Chairman, Hal Stratton, to the subcommittee. 

We are pleased to have Mr. Stratton, a former New Mexico state legislator and 

Attorney General, testifying before the Committee this afternoon. 

The Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection Subcommittee has not held hearings on the CPSC to date, although that certainly has not been for lack of interest. 

Unfortunately, without a confirmed Chairman, the CPSC has been legally without 

a quorum since May 2002, which has prevented the Commission from fully exercising its enforcement authority. For instance, it has been unable to impose civil 

penalties, issue subpoenas, accept settlements, mandate recalls, issue complaints or 

rules, adopt a budget, or even enact an operating plan. The arrival of Chairman 

Stratton remedies the idleness at the Commission. With a new Chairman now at 

the helm, the Commission can re-engage the fight to protect consumers, and in particular our most vulnerable citizens, including children and seniors, from dangerous 

and defective products. 

The CPSC is an important Commission that is tasked by statute with protecting 

the public ‘‘against unreasonable risks of injuries associated with consumer products.’’ The CPSC has jurisdiction over more than 15,000 kinds of consumer products 

used in and around the home, in sports, recreation and schools. 

As a Commission with broad consumer protection jurisdiction, the CPSC can be 

a valuable bully pulpit. This office can be, and should be, used as an effective means 

of distributing information on dangerous products subject to recall, and for disseminating important consumer education. It is not the job of the CPSC, however, to use 

that pulpit as a substitute for Commission action. If an individual or company is 

breaking the law and putting the public in danger, the Commission should take action in regular order. Moreover, the job of the CPSC is to actively enforce the law 

as enacted by Congress. Thus, if the Commission believes that the Consumer Product Safety Act needs to be changed, we certainly welcome those suggestions. 

I am pleased to know that Chairman Stratton is in agreement with me that the 

Commission’s mission is to enforce the law. Indeed, one of the first actions taken 

by Chairman Stratton was to impose a $1 million civil penalty against General Electric for failing to report to the CPSC in a timely manner a defect in certain models 

of its dishwashers. For the protection of our citizens, it is important that companies 

understand the importance of complying with the law. 

Moreover, I agree with and support your efforts directed at enhancing the Commission’s efficiency by strengthening its information sharing activities with other 

federal and state agencies. Furthermore, as you have noted, it is important that the 

CPSC explore improving its ability to communicate important consumer product 

safety information to the American public. Speaking of information, I believe that 

a critical function of the Commission is the collection and analysis of consumer 

product safety data. I would urge you, Mr. Chairman, to consider a rigorous review 

of the Commission’s data collection and review processes with the objective of improving the quality of both the data and analysis. 

Mr. Chairman, I also agree with you that as the number of consumer products 

that are imported grow exponentially, the Commission should explore ways of enhancing its oversight of such products. Let me suggest that one way of doing so is 

for the Commission to work closely with industry standard setting organizations in 

general and within international forums specifically. 

4

As for specific issues of interest to this Committee, I am sure we aware that a 

number of Committee members have introduced bills involving the CPSC. I, for example, have introduced a bill calling on the Commission to set fire-safety standards 

for cigarettes. I know my colleague from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey, has a keen 

interest in that issue and also in federal regulation of fixed-site amusement parks. 

I agree with my colleague that we should at least, with the Commission’s input, explore the fire-safe cigarette issue. Yet, I respectfully disagree with him that there 

is a need for federal regulation of fixed-site amusement parks. Those sites enjoy a 

great safety record as evidenced by the fact that in the year 2000, out of the 320 

million visits to those sites, only 125 visitors were hospitalized for their injuries. 

State government oversight of such facilities has been proven to be very effective. 

Finally, I would bring to your attention two other bills. The first was introduced 

by the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Towns, and my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, addressing children’s sleepwear. The second legislation, which I support, was introduced by my colleague from New Hampshire, Mr. 

Bass, giving the CPSC jurisdiction over an innovative personal mobility device 

called the Segway. 

The CPSC has a full plate of issues before it and I am confident that Chairman 

Stratton will address each of these issues with the professionalism and experience 

properly befitting the post. Thank you Chairman Stratton for testifying before this 

subcommittee today, and I look forward to working with you into the future.

Mr. STEARNS. With that, I welcome the ranking member, the 

gentleman from Massachusetts. 

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman very much, and I thank the 

gentleman for conducting this very vigorous schedule. We are the 

first subcommittee in the House of Representatives to have a hearing. I know that it pleases everyone in the audience that they are 

the first hearing after the break. You can see the incredible enthusiasm that they have for being the first people to make the adjustment from the summer into the fall schedule, and I want to congratulate you for providing that kind of leadership. 

And to you, Mr. Chairman, welcome to Congress. 

Mr. STRATTON. Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. It is a wonderful institution. It is one that is not 

as fully appreciated by independent agencies as it could be, but 

only because there is never a full appreciation for how much we 

want to work hand in glove with independent agencies in order to 

accomplish more good for the public. But we congratulate you. It 

is a high honor, indeed, that you now hold, a great responsibility 

indeed. 

The CPSC was, in fact, established pursuant to the Consumer 

Product Safety Act, which streamlined and consolidated Federal 

safety regulatory activity relating to consumer products within the 

Consumer Product Safety Commission. In my opinion, this agency 

is a huge government success story. With a limited budget and resources, it has been responsible for actions that have saved the 

lives of countless Americans and protected many more from serious 

injury. The CPSC is the government agency that makes sure that 

cribs, toys, and other products in our homes or around schools or 

in recreational areas are not hazardous and recalls them when 

they are hazardous. The CPSC oversees the safety of 15,000 different kinds of consumer products. This is an agency with a long 

history of safeguarding the public and particularly children from 

commercial products that cause harm or threatens the safety of 

children. 

This hearing is quite timely for us because it gives us an opportunity at the outset of the new chairman’s tenure to ascertain his 

agenda and to identify ways in which the agency can perform its 

5

functions better and how Congress can supplement the authority 

and resources of this Commission so that it can do even more good 

than it has in the past. 

I have introduced three bills that address certain CPSC issues. 

The first, H.R. 1488, would restore the jurisdiction of the Consumer 

Product Safety Commission over fixed-site roller coasters and 

amusement park rides for safety purposes. In 1999, 4 people died 

in 5 days at 3 different amusement parks; yet, because of a special 

interest loophole in our consumer product safety laws, the CPSC 

was and is totally powerless to do anything about it. The Nation’s 

chief product safety watchdog cannot even send an investigator to 

find out what happens when people die on these machines. The 

Consumer Product Safety Commission cannot make safety recommendations. They cannot ensure that every other park with the 

same or similar ride is even informed of the causes of accidents, 

and it cannot take any preventative action. Meanwhile, every time 

a park builds a new ride, it is faster, more thrilling, closer to edge 

of safety than the last one. 

According to CPS data gleaned from hospital emergency rooms, 

serious injuries on fixed-site roller coaster rides have soared 95 

percent since 1995. Still we do nothing. Roller coasters are huge, 

complicated machines that hurdle children through space at 100 

miles per hour with the force of the space shuttle. My bill would 

give the Consumer Product Safety Commission the same jurisdiction over such rides that it currently has over bicycles or cribs or 

other devices that, in fact, are much less dangerous and move at 

a much slower speed than roller coasters do. 

The second bill, the John Joseph Moakley Memorial Fire Safety 

Cigarette Act of 2002, requires the Consumer Product Safety Commission to establish a fire safety standard for cigarettes to reduce 

the risk of ignition presented by cigarettes. Every year almost 

1,000 lives are lost and $400 million in property damage occurs due 

to cigarette fires that could be prevented with current technology. 

This legislation is the first step in reducing the loss of human life 

and property and the number of fires firefighters must respond to 

caused by careless handling of cigarettes. 

And, finally, I have introduced, along with Mrs. Capps and other 

committee colleagues, the Consumer Product Risk Reporting Act. 

This legislation is designed to remedy deficiencies in the Commission’s authority by eliminating the cap on civil penalties for violations of product safety laws, increasing the penalty for a knowing 

and willful criminal violation, and giving the Consumer Product 

Safety Commission the authority to overrule a remedy chosen by 

a manufacturer to address a defective product in a product recall. 

It is worth noting that during Chairman Stratton’s first week in 

office, the Commission fined General Electric $1 million for 3.1 million faulty dishwasher switches. Now, that fine is a paltry sum for 

a company of G.E.’s size and for a violation of such significance. 

Austin Powers might think that $1 million is a huge sum, but in 

2002 that fine simply doesn’t serve as a deterrent to a company the 

size of General Electric, and Congress must act to remedy the current cap to give you, Mr. Chairman, the sufficiently strong deterrent power which you must—which you need in order to scare 

these companies, in many instances, into doing the right thing beVerDate 0ct 31 2002 08:44 Nov 08, 2002 Jkt 082546 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\81957 81957
6

cause of their fear, because of the paranoia that your Commission 

can induce by the sure and certain knowledge that you are not limited in the amount of penalty which you can impose upon these 

firms that are creating, in fact, conditions that are very dangerous 

not only to children, but to every other adult in our society. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this very important hearing. And, once again, I welcome you to the national public debate, 

Chairman Stratton. 

Mr. STEARNS. And I thank my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts. 

And the gentleman from Tennessee. 

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I have enjoyed 

your opening comments, both, and that they have been informative. 

[Additional statement submitted for the follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. W.J. ‘‘BILLY’’ TAUZIN, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON

ENERGY AND COMMERCE

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this important hearing. I am pleased to welcome the new Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), Hal 

Stratton, to the Committee. As the Committee on Energy and Commerce has jurisdiction over all consumer affairs and consumer protection issues, we are pleased to 

have you here today to describe your agenda for the future of the CPSC. 

Although a small agency in size, the CPSC has a remarkably large responsibility 

to help keep American consumers safe from defective and dangerous products. As 

a litigator and former Attorney General for the state of New Mexico, you will find 

yourself at home heading an agency dedicated to protecting the American consumer. 

In reviewing your testimony, a couple of points caught my attention. Specifically, 

I hope that you will succeed in your mission to increase recall effectiveness. There 

are a number of ideas that have been floated to increase the percentage of consumers responding to recall notices. One in particular, to require manufacturers to 

include a postage-paid response card with each product, is one that should be justified on the merits. The CPSC should study this issue carefully, and any action 

should be justified by the data. 

Additionally, you note in your testimony that you want to enhance the consumer 

education information supplied by the Commission. I wholeheartedly support this 

goal. An expensive and time-consuming product recall is not the only way to ensure 

consumer safety. Education and outreach programs aimed at the consumer should 

be the very first line of defense. Not only can such programs help consumers make 

informed product decisions, but can also help people use those products in safe and 

responsible ways. 

I hope that we can have an open dialogue regarding the future needs of your Commission and the goals of this Congress. Thank you, Chairman Stratton, for coming 

before this Committee today and I look forward to hearing your testimony.

Mr. STEARNS. With that, Mr. Chairman, we welcome you for your 

opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HAROLD D. STRATTON, JR., CHAIRMAN, U.S. 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION 

Mr. STRATTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today. It is an honor to come talk here, and 

it is, quite frankly, a lot of fun. So I appreciate you asking me over. 

I have to note that you have been asking me to do this for a while, 

back through earlier this year, and I apologize for taking so long 

to get confirmed, but it did take a little longer than we expected, 

and I will try to do better next time. I wasn’t confirmed until July 

25, and I was sworn in on August 2. That is when the Commission 

then resumed its quorum, which, as you indicated, it lost. I believe 

actually on May 2 was when the quorum was lost. 

7

I will also point out, however, that notwithstanding the fact that 

a quorum existed up until the 1st of May, that there was no chairman at the Commission, which is really the administrative person 

running the Commission, since last November. So it has been difficult. And I must say, based upon what I have seen since I have 

been there, they have done a pretty good job over there getting 

along without a chairman and without a quorum. 

And I must say, when it comes to the G.E. Settlement, as the 

Congressman pointed out, it came in my first week, so the staff has 

to be given a lot of credit for continuing to work on that, along with 

the Briggs & Stratton settlement that we also had that same week 

and a couple of other recalls. 

I have filed a written statement for the record, and I believe I 

have provided you with my Senate testimony and, if not, my written statement in the Senate. And rather than read that, I think I 

will just highlight that for you, and then we can get on with whatever questions you have. 

Once again, I have been there—although I was sworn in on August 2, I have only been in my office since last Wednesday, so that 

was my first day. It took a little—it turned out to be a little more 

difficult to get the family moved from New Mexico and out to Maryland than I thought it would, so it took a little while. We were 

working—I will say, our staff was in and working. 

I told the Senate that I didn’t have an agenda for this position, 

and what I meant by that was not what we are talking about here 

today. What that meant was I don’t have any political agenda for 

this position. The agenda that I have is to get as many consumer 

products that cause an unreasonable risk of death or injury to consumers off the market as quickly as possible in accordance with the 

Consumer Product Safety Act as passed by Congress. 

There is a number of ways to do that. You know what they are; 

they are in the act. They are by recalls. They are by the penalties 

that the Congressman has talked about, we have got injunctive 

power, and also by setting standards, voluntary and mandatory. 

So that is what our agenda is, pure and simple, and I find it, 

frankly, fairly easy to determine what Congress’s intent is by looking at the statute. And I—I don’t know whether that comes from 

being a lawyer, a former legislator, a former attorney general, or 

maybe all of those put together, but it is pretty clear to me that 

this Congress wants unsafe consumer products out of the market 

regardless of what the other considerations are, other political considerations or any other type of considerations. And so we understand what you want, and it is going to be our intent to be very 

tough on those who knowingly or even negligently without remedying it put these kind of products in the market. 

By the same token, I would hope—I hope our staff, if they listen 

to our direction, will work very closely with those companies out 

there that are willing to work with us and cooperate and do recalls 

and do the right thing. We plan to work with them and try to get 

those products off the market as quickly as possible. The goal is not 

necessarily to be punitive and not necessarily to penalize people for 

the purpose of getting headlines in the newspapers, but first and 

foremost to get the products off the market and get them out of the 

hands of consumers who they might harm. Now, that doesn’t mean 

8

you don’t go forward and penalize people for the deterrent reason 

or for whatever reason, but that is what our No. 1 goal is, and that 

is it pure and simple, and that is the agenda. 

I did mention, and I will just mention them here, two or three 

areas that I thought that we would work on kind of outside of that 

statutory agenda or as part or as a subpart of that agenda. The 

first one is better communication with the agencies. As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman—actually, you set out a good statement of 

my agenda, but I will just kind of reiterate and highlight what we 

are planning on, and that is better cooperation amongst agencies. 

We have seen how important that is with our agencies; I have seen 

it in the past in the law enforcement area, and I have seen what 

happens when law enforcement agencies cooperate, and I have seen 

what happens when they don’t cooperate. And I can tell you, it is 

a lot better when they cooperate. And we are going to do our very 

best to cooperate with other Federal agencies of the Federal Government and State and local jurisdictions to get as much information-sharing and as much information as we can have. 

We have recently signed an agreement with Customs to try to 

get more information from them, for them to be able to provide us 

more information. So we are hoping that that will be a step in that 

direction to obtain more information from Customs on imported 

products. 

Also, the thing I hear from everybody, particularly my family I 

might add, is how are we going to get notified about these recalls? 

How are we going to get information from the Commission? What 

is the process to do that? What, can’t you do it better? 

I would suggest that if it could be done a whole lot better, they 

probably would have done it by now. I don’t think there is any will 

not to find a good way to notify consumers over at the Commission. 

I think they are doing what they can, and I think the best vehicle 

that we have right now is the media. And I today am not here to 

tell you that I have some big grandiose plan that I have managed 

to derive to increase that contact, but that is going to be a No. 1 

goal, because no matter how good our information is, if we don’t 

get it out to consumers, it doesn’t make a lot of difference. So, that 

is No. 2. And we are open to all suggestions on that. Once again, 

we don’t have any prearranged agenda, but we do think it is a very 

good function and something that needs to be improved. 

Finally, as I indicated in regard to the Customs agreement, we 

do want to work more on imported products. Most of the toys and 

things like that are made overseas, so we need to make sure that 

we cover that subject and that we have an ability to determine 

products that are coming into the country that do not meet the provisions of the CPSA. And we also, I think, need to maybe—since 

we do have a global market now, that we need to do a better job 

at coordinating with other countries and harmonizing our laws 

with other countries and working with them in the future. So that, 

Mr. Chairman, that is generally a synopsis of what we plan to do. 

I want to say to you, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your 

courtesy in meeting with us today. I personally, along with anybody on my staff, am available at any time to meet with Congress. 

We want to do this the way Congress wants us to do it, and we 

look forward to working with you toward that goal. Thank you. 

9

[The prepared statement of Harold D. Stratton, Jr., follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HAROLD D. STRATTON, JR., CHAIRMAN AND COMISSIONER, 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is an honor to appear before you 

today as Commissioner and Chairman of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). I welcome the opportunity to appear before your committee. 

By way of introduction, I would like to begin by telling you about myself. 

I was born in Muskogee, Oklahoma and reared in Oklahoma City. My father 

served in the 8th Air Force as a B-17 pilot in World War II and subsequently practiced law for over 35 years. My mother, sister, and her family, continue to live in 

Tahlequah, Oklahoma, the capital of the Cherokee Nation, of which I am an enrolled member. 

I attended the University of Oklahoma where I received degrees in geology and 

law. Subsequent to graduating from law school, I served my Army ROTC commitment on active duty in the United States Army. Thereafter, in early 1977, I permanently moved to Albuquerque to begin my career in the private practice of law and 

to live in the varied and diverse culture and environment that is New Mexico. 

In 1978, I was elected to the New Mexico House of Representatives where I served 

four terms. Among other positions, I served as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, vice chariman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee—and, one 

term as a member of the Transportation Committee. 

In 1986, I was elected to the office of New Mexico Attorney General where I 

oversaw the state’s only dedicated consumer protection agency and the state’s largest white collar crime prosecution unit. 

Since the state constitution limited me to one term as attorney general, I reentered private law practice in Albuquerque in 1991. 

During my career, I have been honored to argue and handle cases before a number of courts, including the United States Supreme Court. 

Throughout my career, my highest priority has been to work and to serve my community with honesty, integrity, impartiality and fairness, toward my employees, 

other state executive and legislative officials, my collegues in the legal community 

and, most importantly, toward the people I have served. 

As I stated at my confirmation hearing, it is my sincere commitment to serve the 

people of this country with integrity, fairness, and with independent unbiased judgement. This is the way I approached my role as a consumer advocate in New Mexico 

and I look forward to continuing this role at the national level. 

On a personal note, my wife Theresa, and I are the proud parents of two daughters, Alexandra, age 7, and Claire, who is 3. As parents, we fully appreciate the importance of consumer product saftey for all American families. As a father of two 

young children, I can assure you that I think about product safety every day. 

The Congress has vested CPSC with the power to affect the safety of every consumer in America. The commission’s actions have saved many lives; prevented 

many injuries; substantially improved the safety of countless consumer products; 

and heightened the public’s awareness and knowledge about consumer product safety. 

As a former state legislator, I very much appreciate the important role this committee plays in consumer protection. My job is to enforce the laws that you pass. 

Consequently, I would welcome a continuing dialogue with you to insure that the 

commission understands the committee’s positions and provides the committee with 

the information it needs to effectively perform its legislative responsibilities. My 

staff and I will make every effort to be available to you in a formal or informal setting. I hope that the committee members will let us know what they are thinking 

on these important issues. 

In the short time that I have been on the job, I have had the opportunity to work 

closely with many of the CPSC staff, and have been impressed with their professionalism. A transition time is always challenging, but it is also rewarding. 

Although I have been on the job in this position only a few days, I would like 

to respectfully suggest a few general areas that I believe are important to the success of the CPSC’s mission. 

First, it is our intent to administer and carry out the mandate of the Consumer 

Product Safety Act as written and in accordance with the intent of congress. This 

means eliminating from the market consumer products that create an unreasonable 

risk of injury or death. 

With respect to unreasonably dangerous products, I encourage companies that discover such products that require action to notify the CPSC immediately, as the law 

10

requires. We will do everything we can to work with them to remedy the problem 

in a way that protects the public. 

Companies that withhold such information, and who do not do as the law requires, will be dealt with accordingly. The CPSC exists to get dangerous products 

out of the market place. The public takes it seriously, I know that you take it seriously, and those who fail to disclose unreasonably dangerous products will find out 

we take it seriously at the CPSC. 

In the management area, I intend to explore ways where the commission could 

benefit from increased communication with other federal and state agencies. I believe improved information sharing betweeen these agencies would enhance CPSC’s 

capabilities and maximize the commissions’ limited budgetary resources. CPSCs 

mission often complements that of other agencies such as the Department of Justice, 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and the Environmental Protection Agency, to name a few. As a former state attorney general, I have seen both good and 

bad interagency communications. I know from experience that agencies get more 

done with less when they communicate well with other agencies working on similar 

matters, and build good working relationships. 

In addition, I belive it is very important to strengthen and enhance the commissions consumer education and information outreach programs. To that end, we intend to work hard on increasing the effectiveness of consumer product safety education. Educating consumers as to product related hazards is an important component of the CPSC’s mission. 

The problem here is not a lack information. we have plenty of that. The commission implements and participates in numerous recalls during the course of a year, 

some big, some small. The problem is getting information to the public, and, often, 

getting people who are distracted by the hustle and bustle of day-to-day life to pay 

attention to it. I expect the CPSC to continue to develop more effective ways of communicating our message to the public. 

I also believe it is essential to continue to enhance the commission’s oversight of 

imported products. CPSC’s repsonsibilites continue to grow dramaticallly as more 

and more consumer products enter the United States. Working with appropriate 

government agencies, I would like to review existing roceedures and if warranted, 

attempt to improve them. 

Many imported products do not meet our safety standards. There can be no question that the most efficient way to protect the public against dangerous imported 

products is to stop them at the border. 

Once again, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am honored to be 

here. I am prepared to respond to your questions.

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I will just start out with some of the questions that I have. 

I think you touched on perhaps three of the things that we are concerned about one is information-sharing between all the government agencies; and, two, just as your wife said, how is she going 

to get notified when there is a discrepancy or there is a problem 

with the product; and, three, your idea of what are you going to 

do about this global market, and how are you going to ensure that 

Americans have products that are safe. That is a full agenda for 

you. 

And I think the thing I was—my first question was—is going 

back to what your wife said to you. Then there does need to be a 

better notification system. Now, should you go on the Today Show? 

Should you somehow try to get evening news coverage? I mean, 

that is what you will have to decide. But I think there is a certain 

element of this media side to get it out, because the wheels of government grind very slowly, and for your wife to get notified about 

a product is going to take a long time. And so I think you are going 

to have to—with your experience as attorney general, you were 

elected to attorney general, you served in the statehouse for 7 or 

8 years, you obviously had that skill. So I would urge you to be 

proactive on this basis. And I am not sure that just depending 

11

upon the government and its wheels to grind out this information 

is going to be enough. 

And, you know, that is what I would say to you. You have got 

to convince Congress and everybody that you are going to be 

proactive here, because your wife and mine want to know what is 

happening and not wait until they continue to buy a poor product. 

Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, I only say that I hope I don’t have 

a problem with my wife, because if she isn’t the first to know, then 

I have bigger problems at home than I have down at the Commission. 

I was on the Today Show my first week in office and some other 

shows, and I had made the comment when I was being sworn in 

at the Commission with the employees that I was going to be on 

the job 24 hours a day and 7 days a week, and they took me up 

on it. They came over to the house at 2:30 in the morning in Albuquerque, and I had to get up at 1:30. And so I decided that if I was 

going to make those comments, I had to do that. So I have already 

done that, and I have indicated I am going to be available to do 

that any time, any place. 

And I can tell you that I have been very impressed with the public affairs staff at the CPSC, to get sworn in on a Friday and already have a round of things going on, those shows the following 

Wednesday or Thursday, was pretty quick. 

But I understand what you are saying. I think that is very important. I was, quite frankly, surprised at the number of people 

that day that saw me. I attended an event with the Vice President 

that same day, and I was surprised at the number of people that 

actually saw it. So there is no question that it is quite effective, 

and I intend to do as much of that as the media will allow. 

The one other thing I would mention, and I would ask particularly the print media to help us on this, we need—when we send 

them notice of the recall, we need them to print them. And we 

would ask that those media outlets have a special column or at 

least a special procedure that once they get those, that recall information—and they are going to get it from us immediately—that 

they run it. 

You might think that is happening already, but it is not. There 

are a number of very important newspapers in this country that 

don’t run that right away, and I know my newspaper in Albuquerque, even though we got it to them the day—I think the day 

before we announced it, they didn’t run it for a week or two. So, 

I am going to ask all of these media outlets to try to cooperate with 

us, and run that information prominently and as quick as they will 

do it. 

Mr. STEARNS. You mentioned in your opening testimony that you 

are going to get tougher on the safety of imported products, and 

you mentioned the global economy that we face. And I guess my 

question is, to you, do you have any specific plans perhaps that are 

new to your agency on how to get this goal realized to protect 

Americans from products that come from the Pacific Rim or from 

the North American continent or the European Union in which we 

do not have complete jurisdiction over, and yet these products come 

in here and consumers are using them in their day-to-day activities 

and finding that they are a problem and they are not safe? And so 

12

I think that is another area where you could help give us some assurance that you intend to be aggressive on this and to provide assurance to the American public about safety and global products. 

Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, I hope we have taken the first 

step toward doing that by signing this agreement with Customs. 

The best way I know of of interdicting the illegal products is to hit 

them right at Customs and to be notified by Customs. So if we can 

get a relationship going with them to help then cooperate with us, 

that will go a long way toward achieving that goal that you just 

mentioned. 

The other thing we need to do is we need to be just as tough on 

importers as we are on domestic companies who violate the act. 

And if we can’t get to the companies in China or Europe or wherever they happen to be, we can certainly get to their importers and 

distributors here, and that is where I think we will have to begin 

the enforcement process. 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, do you have any way to get to the 

companies in, for example, China or India? I mean, these are companies, particularly in China, which I am not sure that you could 

make any kind of impact. So, how do you handle that? 

Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, I frankly don’t know the answer 

to that question, but I suspect we can’t get to them directly, and 

that is why I say we have to—they all have distributors here, and 

they all have importers here who handle that here on this side, and 

then they all have retailers. So I think we can get to them that 

way, and if they don’t have distributors or importers doing it, then 

they are not going to get products in the country. They can’t do it 

directly. 

But I must say, you have got me on that one. I will have to get 

that answer for you and get back with you. 

[The following was received for the record:]


g:\graphics\81957.001
13


g:\graphics\81957.002
14


g:\graphics\81957.003
15

Mr. STEARNS. I am going to ask you a couple of questions that 

perhaps—and I am very understanding. You have been on the job 

since Wednesday, and I think you are doing a grand job, I mean, 

and it is going to take a long time to understand all the issues. But 

I present these because they are in the public forum, and I think 

under this kind of hearing that we should ask some of these questions just to lay them out. The CPSC has spent over $7 million and at least 6 years of significant staff time studying the issue of flammability standards for 

children’s sleepwear. And I guess the question is after all this time 

and all this money, has this issue been resolved? Has the CPS staff 

relied on good data, or it has taken so long because the data is 

flawed? But perhaps this is not a question that you can answer in 

this short time, but this is—certainly long-term Members of Congress have concern. We hear about this issue continuing to go on, 

so I ask you that. 

Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, that is a good question. I checked 

right before I came over here today to see whether that had been 

resolved or we had gotten the latest information from staff on it. 

We had not. All I can say is it seems like a long time, to me. And 

I don’t know why it hasn’t been resolved, but it is something we 

are going to get resolved as soon as we legally and procedurally 

can. But I can’t—— Mr. STEARNS. I understand. 

Mr. STRATTON. I can’t tell you why it has taken 7 years to do 

anything. 

Mr. STEARNS. My time has expired, and if the Members like, we 

will have a second round. But now I yield to the ranking member 

from Massachusetts. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

One of the issues in the news very recently has been the rapid 

growth of West Nile disease across our country and the number of 

fatalities that have been identified related to this mosquito-borne 

disease. And many of the reports in the media indicate that children and senior citizens are the ones that are most particularly 

vulnerable to that disease. 

Former CPSC Chairwoman Ann Brown has recently spoken out 

about the concern that many parents may overreact to the prospect 

of their children getting West Nile disease by utilizing bug spray 

and insect repellants containing DEET. Now, DEET is actually not 

recommended nor is it considered to be safe for young children, although adults can use it in moderate doses. DEET actually is toxic 

to young kids and should not be used for infants under 2 years of 

age and can sometimes cause seizures in toddlers. For kids over 2, 

repellant containing no more than 10 percent DEET is recommended, and parents are encouraged to apply the repellant 

around the child’s eyes, avoiding the mouth and the eyes. 

Given the concern about West Nile, many parents will be purchasing insect repellant products for their homes and families. Do 

you believe that the CPSC has any role in this area in ensuring 

that such products are clearly labeled, that parents are warned and 

are cognizant of the danger of DEET to young kids? In fact, as we 

know and we watch on the news in the evenings, in many of these 

areas we see children being bathed in insect repellant by their parVerDate 0ct 31 2002 08:44 Nov 08, 2002 Jkt 082546 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\81957 81957
16

ents in order to protect them. Have you looked at this issue of 

DEET, and is it something that you believe comes under the jurisdiction of the CPSC in terms of your responsibility to warn parents 

about the dangers? 

Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, we have not looked at it that I 

know of. This is the first I have heard of this. Ms. Brown hasn’t 

called us about this, as far as I know, so I don’t think she has notified about her concern about this, nor do I believe this is one I have 

seen in the media, and so this is the first I have heard about it. 

It is something we will be happy to look at without coming to a 

legal conclusion about whether we have jurisdiction over that. I 

mean, if it is a consumer product and it is not covered by some 

other agency or excluded by the act, we have jurisdiction. 

On that particular item, I don’t know. We will be happy to take 

a look and get back with you immediately and let you know what 

we think. 

Mr. MARKEY. And so will you give me a call? 

Mr. STRATTON. Absolutely. 

Mr. MARKEY. Okay. I appreciate it. 

Now, on the next issue I need your help, Mr. Stratton. The 

amusement park industry has an admirable safety record in general, but just as any other industry that you regulate, accidents do 

happen. Right now if a child is hurt on an amusement park ride, 

the safety response of that accident is comically convoluted. If it 

turns out that the ride was mobile, that is, not permanently fixed 

to the land it sits on—that is, one of these traveling carnivals that 

moves from city to city, from State to State—then the CPSC has 

full authority to investigate, order safety changes, and share what 

it learned with other similar ride owners and ride manufacturers. 

In the last 5 years, according to emergency room data, injuries on 

those rides went up 34 percent. 

But if it turns out that the ride was bolted down to the site, well, 

that is a different story for an injured child. In its wisdom, Congress has declared that if the ride is fixed, that is, can’t be moved, 

as one of the giant roller coasters or giant rides, then the Consumer Product Safety Commission cannot do its job. It has no jurisdiction. In the last 5 years, according to CPSC’s emergency room 

data, injuries on these fixed-site rides rose a whopping 93 percent, 

35 percent for the mobile small rides that go State to State, 93 percent increase in emergency room visits over a 5-year period for 

these fixed-site rides. 

My question is, does that make any sense to you, Mr. Chairman, 

or do you agree that it would be preferable for you to have uniformed regulatory oversight authority so that all amusement park 

riders receive equal protection regardless of whether it is a fixedsite or a mobile ride? 

Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, after being on the job since 

Wednesday, on the details of that particular issue I don’t really feel 

qualified to give you advice on that today, but it is something we 

would be happy to look at and consider and get back with you on 

that as well. 

I will say this: That right now my general feeling is that anything you here in Congress pass and say we should regulate, we 

are going to regulate; and anything you say we shouldn’t regulate, 

17

we are not going to regulate. And that is your decision, your prerogative, your responsibility to do that. And as far as expanding or 

contracting the jurisdiction position of the Commission, I at this 

date don’t have any real opinion on that. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. Will you give me a call on that one? 

Mr. STRATTON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MARKEY. Okay. How long do you think it will take here? 

Mr. STRATTON. When do you want me to call you? 

Mr. MARKEY. The end of next week. 

Mr. STRATTON. Sure. 

Mr. MARKEY. Is that enough time? 

Mr. STRATTON. Sure. 

Mr. MARKEY. Is that enough time? 

Mr. STRATTON. Sure. 

Mr. MARKEY. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask that we include in the record 

an article from the Annals of Emergency Medicine, January 2002, 

titled Amusement Park Injuries and Deaths. As you know, since 

1999, I have sought a public health and safety limit on these 

issues, and I would like to have it included in the record at this 

time. 

Mr. STEARNS. By unanimous consent, so ordered. 

[The information referred to follows:]

18


g:\graphics\81957.004
19


g:\graphics\81957.005
20


g:\graphics\81957.006
21


g:\graphics\81957.007
22


g:\graphics\81957.008
23


g:\graphics\81957.009
24


g:\graphics\81957.010
25

Mr. MARKEY. And one final question, if I may, Mr. Stratton. Do 

you support Congress acting to lift the cap on civil penalties for violations of product safety laws? Don’t you think that a $1 million 

fine of a company the size of General Electric is, for them, the 

equivalent of a parking ticket, just the cost of doing business? And 

it doesn’t even show up because their numbers are so large that 

they are dealing with, even as a rounding error it doesn’t show up. 

Do you believe that you should have a greater ability to impose 

larger fines on these companies? 

Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me say that I don’t 

see that as the equivalent of a parking ticket. And the reason that 

I——

Mr. MARKEY. Well, to General Electric I said it is the equivalent 

of a parking ticket. 

Mr. STRATTON. Or to General Electric. I do not consider that to 

be equivalent of a parking ticket to General Electric, and the reason is—is because I think there is a lot more to being fined and 

getting a penalty from the CPSC than just the amount of money. 

So I think there is—there is quite a stigma that is attached to that. 

So I am not quarreling—I am not quarreling with your premise, I 

am just saying that I don’t think that the amount of money is the 

only thing to be considered in that particular scenario. 

Mr. MARKEY. Well, you are saying that the stigma that is attached from being criticized by CPSC is such an incredible public 

relations disaster for General Electric that that itself substitutes 

for the money that you are not able to extract from them as a penalty? 

Mr. STRATTON. No, sir, I am not saying that. I am saying that 

is an additional negative aspect. 

Mr. MARKEY. I agree with that, but what I am saying to you is that General Electric is $100 million, $200—a $100 billion, $200 

billion corporation, and a $1 million fine is so teeny tiny that to 

change its entire chain of consumer products in order to avoid—it 

can only really be given an incentive if the financial penalty is so 

great—you know, with a $1 fine, a company, with the stigma, you 

can get this thing resolved under your theory. You know, the dollar 

amount isn’t that important, it is just the fact that the CPSC has 

censored you. But I think that each of us makes a decision that—

let us put it like this. A parking fine of $15 or $20, that is a risk 

you will run. A speeding ticket of $200 or $250 or $300 with the 

accompanying loss of your license, that is something that 99 percent of people wouldn’t even consider engaging in, Right? So the 

dollar amount does play a role in terms of what the risk is that 

people are willing to run in terms of the crime or the offense that 

they are willing to commit. 

Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Markey, I don’t disagree with you. And let 

me——

Mr. MARKEY. So, are you saying that it is adequate? 

Mr. STRATTON. No. 

Mr. MARKEY. That is my question. Do you believe that the cap 

on you is okay, and you don’t want it lifted, and you think you can 

get your work done? Or, if Congress did lift it and gave you greater 

discretion, would that be something that you would receive with 

your approval? 

26

Mr. STRATTON. Well, I think it is something we need to look at 

and we need to consider. But let me point out one thing. It is not 

just—it is not as simple as raising the caps. I mean, the cap is 

$1.65 million. So, the cap is more than $1.5 million, it is not $1 

million. And you might ask the question—in fact, I have been 

asked the question: Why didn’t we get more than a million? Why 

didn’t we get the $1.65 million, because it is G.E., and because the 

conduct is somewhat egregious in some people’s opinion. And the 

answer is it was a settlement prior to litigation. We wanted $1.65 

million; they didn’t want to pay anything. The lawyers get together 

and they—including the Justice Department, because as you know, 

the Justice Department gets involved in this, and the lawyers get 

together, and you come to some compromise without litigation. 

Regardless of what the caps are, if there are no caps whatsoever, 

I can just tell you as a litigator for the last 25 years that the more 

money you try to get from somebody, the more resources you are 

going to spend trying to get it, and sometimes you have to do that. 

And I don’t disagree with doing that, and I think many times it 

needs to be done. And that might very well have been a case that 

we needed to do it. But I hope in considering whether the caps are 

lifted, I hope if you do lift the caps and you expect us to get $10 

or $20 or $100 million penalties from people, that you will give us 

the resources to proceed to do that. We need the litigation resource, 

including the lawyers and all the other litigation support, to go 

after that. 

Really and frankly, right now I don’t know whether—I mean, 

some people have criticized me for even mentioning this, but I 

think industry knows this and business knows this. Right now our 

biggest problem isn’t the cap; our biggest problem is having the resources to push it up to the limit of the cap and get that money. 

Mr. MARKEY. Right. But you were attorney general in the State 

of New Mexico. 

Mr. STRATTON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MARKEY. So you know that as a negotiator, if the other side 

already knows what your upper limit is going into a negotiation 

and in a settlement, that they have the upper hand. On the other 

hand, if you as the attorney general of New Mexico had this unlimited ability now to impose a penalty, you were in a position from 

the public’s perspective, protecting everyone in the community, not 

just the corporation, to extract a good result that would leave the 

public protected for the long term. 

Right now every company, every corporation that you are negotiating with knows what the upper limit is. They know it is $1.6 million. And you are handicapped, your hands are tied, because they 

come in with a very good negotiating position. And $1 million is a 

good result if you can’t go any higher than $1.6 million, but if you 

had no cap, Mr. Chairman, as you were as attorney general of New 

Mexico, don’t you think you would be in a better negotiating position for the public to extract public safety protection? 

Mr. STRATTON. Generally, yes, if you had the firepower to back 

up your position. 

Mr. MARKEY. Right. But the firepower is the fine. Now your negotiators, your staffers have the ability to go in and negotiate with 

27

some real clout behind them if the other side believes the chairman 

would accept their recommendation. 

Mr. STRATTON. If I may. The firepower is not the ability to negotiate; the firepower is the ability to go to court and force them to 

do that if they disagree. And if they won’t do that, if they just say, 

we are not going to pay it, we are going to see you in court—— Mr. MARKEY. Right. But—— Mr. STRATTON. The firepower is having the staying power to go 

into court and be there for several years and get the large fine. 

And let me just say, I am not opposed to your legislation. I mean, 

I will go on record right now saying I am not opposed to it. And 

if you pass that legislation, it is just fine with me. I just want a 

little more time before I come to a conclusion about what I think 

is the best course to deal with that issue. 

Mr. MARKEY. But if you want more firepower, you want more 

staffing, you tell us what you want, we will give it to you. Tell us 

how many more people you want to be able do this. But let me also 

say this to you in terms of firepower: You may not be given permission by OMB to ask for any more firepower, but nonetheless, we 

would be willing to give—unless you want—— Mr. STRATTON. We have a budget request. 

Mr. MARKEY. If you work for the nuclear department, they will 

give it to you. Okay? If you want Star Wars, they will give it to 

you. But for consumers, I doubt that they will give you any more 

firepower, so you are kind of stuck with what you have got. 

But what I am saying to you is that as the protector of the public, the other side should be in a very uncertain world, and you 

would get a much faster negotiated settlement if they knew that 

your recommendation were ultimately to be to go to court to get 

$20 or $30 or $40 million settlement and not $1.6 million, and that 

your side, your team, would be able to get a settlement early and 

to get these defective products off the marketplace. 

We are talking about 3.1 million dishwashers that had a defective product that could cause fires. So all you need is three or four 

fires. With the average house or homes in the United States right 

now, it hits $1 million after three fires, if the homes burn down, 

and we are talking about 3 million dishwashers that could have 

this defect. So the sooner you are able to go in and effectively negotiate, the sooner the public doesn’t have to worry that this inherent 

defect could, like a lottery ticket, come to their home, burn it down, 

lose their life savings, but perhaps also lose the lives of some family members. 

We are on your team. We want to help you. We know you want 

to do a good job, and we will do our best for you. 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank the gentleman. 

The gentleman from New Hampshire is recognized. 

Mr. BASS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And congratulations, Chairman Stratton. 

Mr. STRATTON. Thank you. 

Mr. BASS. And I apologize for having come in slightly late and 

missed your opening statement. 

I heard my friend from Massachusetts talk about the amusement 

ride issue, which is interesting to me, with the number of amusement rides in my home State as well. I recall from my legislative 

28

days that we in New Hampshire have a bureau in the Department 

of Safety that regulates ski areas, amusement rides, and something 

else I can’t recall. And I believe that they have standards that are 

equal to or greater than any of the standards that are promulgated 

by CPSC for mobile—for mobile amusement systems. I just recall 

that, and it is old information. 

The other thing is it seems to me that increases in accidents may 

be significant, but they may also not take into account the fact that 

these fixed facilities now, instead of having one roller coaster, 

might have eight or four or three. And, therefore, I think it might 

be helpful in the debate perhaps, if this continues to be an issue, 

to have CPSC do some sort of a study to determine which States 

have regulations in place that are adequate, and whether or not 

these increasing number of accidents which on the face of it appear 

to be pretty alarming are the result of factors outside of lack of 

Federal regulation. 

Mr. MARKEY. Would the gentleman yield just briefly? 

Mr. BASS. Sure. I would be happy to yield. 

Mr. MARKEY. From—— Mr. BASS. And I am not prepared to debate this, but—— Mr. MARKEY. I am not going to debate. The point that I am going 

to make here is that I live in Massachusetts. We spent every summer going up to vacation in New Hampshire. So, it is good news 

to know that the people in New Hampshire put stronger protections on Canobie Lake Park or other amusement park rides that 

my family was on. On the other hand, what happens when New 

Hampshire residents get in their cars and they go to other States? 

It turns out that one-third of all rides in the United States are 

never inspected by anybody at any time. So it is not so much that 

you can protect your own State, because most families get on these 

rides when they are not in their own States, when they are traveling on vacations with their kids, and they assume that the other 

State has the same protections that their home State has. 

Mr. BASS. It would be interesting to examine those issues in 

those other States and perhaps determine to start a dialog as to 

why they don’t have the kinds of regulatory processes that should 

be in place there. But I wasn’t here to discuss that. 

I appreciate the chairman’s making reference during his opening 

statement to a constituent of mine, Dean Cayman from Manchester—he is technically out of my district, I guess—but who has 

invented a personal mobility device called a Segway, and from a 

regulatory standpoint, at this point it is neither fish nor fowl. And 

over the last year and a half or so, I and others in Congress have 

been attempting to assure that CPSC has jurisdiction over devices 

such as this or generically. They are low-speed electric personal assistive mobility devices. 

And I was wondering, Chairman Stratton, if you have had a 

chance to think about this, and if you thought—if you could give 

me your views about whether or not you think CPSC should have 

jurisdiction over these types of devices. 

Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, once again I really—I have 

thought about it because I read about it in the Wall Street Journal 

and other places like that. I have not come to a conclusion, and I 

haven’t thought it through that much. 

29

Once again, if you all want to pass a bill that gives us jurisdiction, we are more than happy to have it. Maybe we have jurisdiction, I don’t know. I don’t know that the legal staff has concluded 

that yet. But—— Mr. BASS. Chairman Stratton, would an effort—and you may 

have answered this question already—by Congress to clarify the jurisdiction be welcomed on your part? 

Mr. STRATTON. Always. Yes, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Bass, it 

would be. 

Mr. BASS. Well, Chairman Stratton, I look forward to working 

with you on this matter over the next few months. And I will yield 

back to the chairman. 

Mr. STRATTON. Thank you. 

Mr. STEARNS. The chairman yields back the balance of his time. 

The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized. Mr. Gordon. 

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Stratton, welcome to our hearing today. 

Mr. STRATTON. Thank you. 

Mr. GORDON. In your remarks you said that your first priority 

was—and I will quote here—means eliminating from the market 

consumer products that create an unreasonable risk of injury or 

death. What is a reasonable risk of injury or death that you are 

willing to put up with? 

Mr. STRATTON. Well, Mr. Chairman, you can’t determine that 

here today without knowing the facts and the hypothetical. I mean, 

automobiles create a risk of death. People get killed in them all the 

time. Airplanes do. So—— Mr. GORDON. You know a lot about the sleepwear, since, again, 

I am sure you have done your homework, I can tell, from what you 

have done here and your staying up nights and your getting up 

early. So you, I am sure, have reviewed this several years and several—or thousands of man-hours and women-hours working on 

this. So, if one child is seriously injured or dies from the faulty 

sleepwear, is that enough, or do you need—or what do you need? 

What is reasonable and what is unreasonable there? 

Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, I don’t know. It depends on the 

circumstances of why that occurred, what the circumstances are. 

But before you can make that decision, I suppose—— Mr. GORDON. So do you need more information? Have they not 

provided you with enough—is all this 7 years and all this time, is 

that not enough? What else do you need to know? 

Mr. STRATTON. I don’t—I am sorry, Mr. Gordon, I am not sure 

I know what your question is. What do I need to know about the 

sleepwear standards? 

Mr. GORDON. Well, first of all, I want you to try to tell me what 

was a reasonable risk, and you said you couldn’t do that without 

specific information. So then I was saying that how much more 

specific could you be—could you have, I guess, than all the information that you have, your organization has gathered on the 

sleepwear. So since you do have a lot of information there, I 

thought that might be able to help you explain to me what is the 

difference between a reasonable risk and an unreasonable risk. 

Mr. STRATTON. I think first our final staff—I think our staff has 

not completed their final studies on that, and it hasn’t been proVerDate 0ct 31 2002 08:44 Nov 08, 2002 Jkt 082546 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\81957 81957
30

vided to me. And I am not aware of the 7 years of work they have 

done on it, being there since last Wednesday. I will admit to you 

I am not privy to everything that they have done. 

Mr. GORDON. But you have been studying and getting ready for 

the office, haven’t you? 

Mr. STRATTON. I have been—you mean during the course of confirmation? 

Mr. GORDON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. STRATTON. I have been keeping up. I kept up with pretty 

much what I could in the media, but because I was not—I could 

not be presumptuous about being confirmed or act presumptuous 

about being confirmed, I was not having contact with the Commission and ordering them to provide me all of this information. So I 

was really not privy to help from the Commission until August 2. 

Mr. GORDON. Okay. Well, I am still interested in trying to find 

out what the difference is. Since you—you know, this was your testimony. You said, you know, that you want to eliminate from the 

market consumer products that create an unreasonable risk of injury and death. So I am just trying—or death. I am trying to figure 

out what is the difference between reasonable and unreasonable. I 

have got a 11⁄2 year old daughter at home. And we live near Rock 

Creek, and we don’t take our daughter out if possible in the early 

evenings or early mornings, as recommended, because of mosquitos. 

I am going to go home tonight and check on this DEET, is that—

I think that was what Mr. Markey said—because we, you know, we 

use that. So, let’s just—is a 1 percent chance that this is going to 

be harmful to the health of children, is that reasonable or unreasonable? 

Mr. STRATTON. It depends on the circumstances. 

Mr. GORDON. Okay. Well, why don’t you give me circumstances, 

then, that would make it unreasonable and maybe some that would 

make it reasonable so that I can get a better feel of where you are 

and your difference between reasonable and reasonable? Rather 

than—I am not doing a good job creating these so I will let you create those facts. 

Mr. STRATTON. I think what you have to do is look at the facts 

of each particular case as it occurred, and if it is in the one-child 

situation, I think you have to make a determination as to whatever 

caused that death is likely to cause more. You may be on the front 

end of the product, you may be on the back end of the product. 

What if the death occurred the day the product came out? Or what 

if the death occurred 10 years later and that was the first death 

you had ever had due to the product? 

You have to take those kinds of factors into consideration. And 

frankly, every single one of these, as far as I know, every single 

one—that is too broad of a statement to make. But all of these—

all is not too broad, I suppose. All of these issues are based upon 

scientific evidence and expert evidence that is produced to the 

Commission about why this product is defective or why this death 

occurred. And that is what most of the CPSC is: engineers, scientists, and people like that who are providing that information. 

We are the politically appointed adjudicatory body that then makes 

a determination based upon what they provide for us. 

31

So to suggest you can say that one death is reasonable or unreasonable, I am not willing to do it here today, because I might get 

over there and have a case and I might find a case where a death 

occurred in a particular way that I thought it was going to be recurring throughout the course of that product’s life, and I might be 

willing to say it is unreasonable, or I might find a death that didn’t 

do that. So it is impossible here to give you any kind of—it is irresponsible to give you any kind of percent, average, or any kind of 

hypothetical based upon that kind of factual or that lack of factual 

situation. 

Mr. GORDON. Well, how much more information could you have 

than this 7 years of study on the sleepwear? 

Mr. STRATTON. I am unfamiliar with the 7 years, Mr. Gordon. 

Mr. GORDON. Well, let us just say, well let us just maybe make 

it a little more generic. A bunch. Apparently you have got a bunch 

of information on this. How much more do you need? 

Mr. STRATTON. I don’t know, because until the staff provides that 

information to the Commission, I am unaware of what they have 

or what they need. 

Mr. GORDON. Is there a role for the chairman to encourage the 

staff? I mean, is your role to wait till they come, or do you feel like 

somewhere your role might be to say, it has been several years, 

could you hurry this up, are we going to make a decision? Is that 

your role or not? What would you consider that? 

Mr. STRATTON. I would say that is my role. 

Mr. GORDON. Okay. Well, I am sure you will be back and you will 

have more time to think about this in the future. But I would like 

to get a little better feel and maybe some examples of what is a 

reasonable risk versus an unreasonable risk of injury and death in 

terms of your office. 

Thank you sir. 

Mr. STEARNS. I thank my colleague. We won’t keep you too much 

longer. I think I have a few questions and then the ranking member has a few questions and then we will be complete. So we just 

ask for your patience here. 

Perhaps you are familiar with your predecessor. There was a 

Daisy BB gun recall case that she instituted last year. And I guess 

a question that we have on this side of the aisle is, do you intend 

to do anything on that or what is the status of your actions? 

Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, as I understand that case, the status is that it has been sent to be heard before an administrative 

law judge to determine whether there should be a recall of the—

I understand it is BB guns. I have intentionally not looked at this 

issue, and you will see why as soon as I am finished here. But that 

is my understanding of the status. And my further understanding 

is then the appeal from the administrative law judge is to the Consumer Products Safety Commission to the commissioners, and then 

we then sit as an adjudicatory or a quasi-judicial body to make that 

determination. 

So I am waiting, and maybe it is the lawyer in me or the fact 

that I have been in the judicial system, but I am waiting to see the 

evidence in that case and any action I will be taking will be as an 

adjudicator, one of three adjudicators that—to determine, based on 

the evidence, what should be done. 

32

Mr. STEARNS. And what do you think that timeframe would be? 

Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, I have no idea what the timeframe is right now. 

Mr. STEARNS. You and I talked earlier, and my question was 

talking about children’s sleepwear. I have one on upholstered furniture flammability. As I understand, the CPSC staff report on upholstered furniture flammability issued last October is the most extensive safety study and analysis in CPS history. It should be. It 

took a full 8 years to do this study. Generally, when they take that 

long, you wonder—and I guess, do you think we are at a point, 

after 8 years and the money we have invested, that there be a decision one way or the other, and can we expect this issue to be resolved shortly? And, if not, when? 

Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, I will just reiterate. I don’t know 

anything that I think should take 8 years. But once again, I wasn’t 

there for it, and they may have some reasons it has taken that 

long. I doubt they will be able to convince me anything should take 

that long. And you won’t be seeing things take that long, at least 

while I am there. 

Now, my understanding is they set a hearing in June for public 

input, a 2-day hearing for public input on these standards at the 

CPSC. Unfortunately, although I expected to be confirmed by then, 

I was not confirmed, so I didn’t have a chance to attend the hearing or be privy to that. But the staff is assimilating that and they 

are going to present it to the Commission, and I suspect it is going 

to be sometime this fall that we are going to get that. But I don’t 

have a better timeframe than that. 

I would like to say that I think when you go into one of these 

jobs, that you have absolute control over the staff and you can dictate when they get things to you. But I am not sure that is the 

case. 

Mr. STEARNS. Okay. Let me conclude by just making an observation on this fixed amusement sites issues. There were 320 million 

visitors last year at fixed-site parks; 99.99 percent visitors had no 

ill effects. So—and sometimes, like we had recently this summer in 

which someone—there was a fatality. It turns out that the person 

was mentally challenged and tried to get out of the—pushed the 

lap bar up and caused, in many ways, his own problem. And so 

when you look at the statistics, they are very small in terms of fatality; and, in fact, the latest CPSC figures show a 14 percent drop 

in the number of injuries related to fixed-site rides since 2000. 

So I think when you hear things, some of it is myth and some 

of it is fact, and so as Mr. Bass has indicated earlier, some of these 

facts have to be gotten under control to understand. But that concludes my portion. And now the ranking member will do his concluding remarks. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My only bit of dicta 

that I would add to what the chairman just said is that in almost 

every case that you are going to be asked to work on, 99 percent 

of the devices will have worked well; only 1 percent, or a smaller 

percentage, will not have. So the question is not whether or not you 

are going to have to act to deal with situations where 50 percent 

or 75 percent of the devices are not working; in almost every inVerDate 0ct 31 2002 08:44 Nov 08, 2002 Jkt 082546 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\81957 81957
33

stance your judgment is going to be applied to a situation where 

it is 1 percent or fewer of the devices are not working well. 

So, just applying that to West Nile right now, 99.9999 percent of 

all Americans have yet to get West Nile disease. So perhaps it is 

inappropriate to have that as the lead story in America every day. 

But every American is thinking about this disease right now because they don’t want their children, they don’t want their parents, 

to be the ones who become the victims of something that from their 

perspective may be preventable. 

And that is where I put the roller coaster industry. It is unnecessary to have this gap that exists between mobile rides and fixedsite rides. And the only way in which you can deal with the fixedsite issue is to have some Federal jurisdiction. The roller coaster 

industry was able to build a loophole into the first Ronald Reagan 

budget in 1981. Up until 1981 you and your Agency did have jurisdiction over fixed-site amusement park rides, but the industry 

didn’t want to be regulated anymore. They snuck it into that upor-down omnibus budget bill in 1981, and since then your Agency 

has been without the authority; and the disparity between mobile 

rides and fixed-site rides has risen as a result. 

Mr. STEARNS. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. MARKEY. I would be glad to; glad to yield. 

Mr. STEARNS. I think, though, Mr. Chairman, we have to understand that the difference between a fatality in which someone deliberately caused the problem, whereas it was a defect within the 

roller coaster—and this is not being differentiated when we make 

this discussion between the actual deficiency in the instrument 

versus the problem with the individual, for whatever reasons, being 

a daredevil, not fully understanding because of being mentally 

challenged—and so all of that I think has to be also put into perspective and I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman again. When I was a boy, 

and the gentleman from New Hampshire, Mr. Bass, made reference 

to it, Canobie Lake Park had the state-of-the-art roller coaster, this 

beautiful old wooden roller coaster which brings back many happy 

memories for Mr. Bass and myself and hundreds of thousands of 

others. Now, in this modern era, that Canobie Lake roller coaster, 

which still exists, is the equivalent of a Model T automobile compared to these supersonic-speed roller coasters that are being built 

and marketed to children across the United States today. The Gforces on many of these roller coasters are equal to the G-forces, 

the gravitational pull, that an astronaut is exposed to on the takeoff of the Shuttle. Well that’s not the Canobie Lake roller coaster. 

This is something else altogether in terms of the speed and the 

danger that these roller coasters present. 

And by the way, Mr. Chairman, I have been waiting 4 years to 

have a hearing on roller coasters, so you are in loco roller coaster 

right now. You are subject to—— Mr. BASS. Would the gentleman yield just for clarification? 

Mr. MARKEY. I will be glad to yield. 

Mr. BASS. For clarification, the gentleman surely doesn’t mean, 

doesn’t want to imply, that the Yankee Cannonball, which is one 

of the great roller coasters built in 1938 in Canobie Lake, is not 

to this day providing lots of enjoyment to many, many children all 

34

over the country. It is a great roller coaster, which although there 

may be more modern ones, this one is certainly still a great attraction and a lot of people from Massachusetts like to come up and 

spend their time in New Hampshire because Nantasket, I guess, is 

gone now, and I guess Revere Beach is gone and so forth. 

I yield back to the gentleman from Massachusetts. 

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman, and I wasn’t really intending to leave that impression at all. I was only trying to point out 

that the relationship between the roller coaster built in 1938 that 

is still operating today and which has brought enjoyment to hundreds of thousands if not millions of families and young people, the 

equivalent of that is the equivalent of the casino in Hampton Beach 

of my youth, which still exists as well, being compared to Fox 

Woods in Connecticut. I mean it is—the scale is just so much greater, you know, that you might as well be talking about prehistoric 

time in terms of the type of entertainment environment that has 

been created. 

And so all we are saying here is that in the immortal words of 

Thomas Jefferson, the government must evolve to deal with 

changes, times, and customs and habits. And for children who are 

on these rides, they are not being put on your grandfather or father’s roller coaster any longer. They are being put in a completely 

different situation. And I would just hope that that could be noted. 

Mr. Engel, who is a member of the full committee, and who is 

not a member of the subcommittee has asked me to pose to you the 

following question, Mr. Chairman. The previous administration 

was very supportive of a mandatory gun lock standard that would 

improve the effectiveness of the safety devices now found in the 

marketplace. In fact, Congressman Engel and others have sponsored a bill that I am a cosponsor of, pending before this committee, that would require the Consumer Products Safety Commission to craft such a standard. Do you share the previous administration’s concern about the quality of gun locks found in the marketplace that are being marketed as safety and access prevention 

devices? And, if so, would you welcome the jurisdiction provided by 

the Engel bill so that you can deal with the safety implications of 

that consumer product; that is, hand guns? 

Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, I welcome whatever jurisdiction 

you give us. And I look forward to you working out the amusement 

park jurisdiction because, as Thomas Jefferson would indicate, that 

is, I guess that is why you get elected to Congress. So we look forward to you all giving us direction on that as well as this one. And 

I know that we are currently working with the gunlock industry on 

voluntary standards. That is my information. I don’t know personally. This is what I have been told. And so they are working on voluntary standards. So I always share the concern. 

I am not familiar specifically with the previous administration’s 

concern, but I share that concern and I understand we are working 

on voluntary standards. If that doesn’t work out, then we will see 

what the next step is. 

Mr. MARKEY. And I have one other unanimous consent request 

to you, Mr. Chairman, to place in the record of this hearing an exchange of letters between Representative Dennis Moore of Kansas 

and former Acting Chairman of the CPSC, Thomas Moore, conVerDate 0ct 31 2002 08:44 Nov 08, 2002 Jkt 082546 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\81957 81957
35

cerning the need for implementation of a Federal standard for 

childproof caps on gasoline containers. 

Mr. STEARNS. By unanimous consent so ordered. 

[The information referred to follows:]


g:\graphics\81957.011
36


g:\graphics\81957.012
37


g:\graphics\81957.013
38


g:\graphics\81957.014
39


g:\graphics\81957.015
40


g:\graphics\81957.016
41


g:\graphics\81957.017
42

Mr. MARKEY. I thank you very much. And I thank you, Mr. 

Chairman, for coming in to see us today. You have one of the greatest jobs in the government. You can do so much good, and I hope 

that in your tenure you take full advantage of all the opportunities 

which are going to be presented to you. 

Mr. STRATTON. Thank you. 

Mr. STEARNS. I thank my colleague and I thank my other colleagues for their participation. And, Mr. Stratton, you have—as I 

understand it, other than your confirmation hearing, this is really 

your first congressional hearing. So congratulations. You went 

through, passed with flying colors, and we appreciate your participation—you and your staff who have been taking voluminous notes 

behind you. So I am sure they will have lots of information to give 

you. So again, thank you for coming and we look forward to seeing 

you and talking with you again. 

Mr. STRATTON. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. STEARNS. The committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:23 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ