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

44–255 PDF 2008

PROTECTING CHILDREN FROM

LEAD-TAINTED IMPORTS

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE,

AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND

COMMERCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

SEPTEMBER 19 AND 20, 2007

Serial No. 110–65

(

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

energycommerce.house.gov
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan, Chairman

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

BART GORDON, Tennessee

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois

ANNA G. ESHOO, California

BART STUPAK, Michigan

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland

GENE GREEN, Texas

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado

Vice Chairman

LOIS CAPPS, California

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania

JANE HARMAN, California

TOM ALLEN, Maine

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

HILDA L. SOLIS, California

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas

JAY INSLEE, Washington

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JIM MATHESON, Utah

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana

JOHN BARROW, Georgia

BARON P. HILL, Indiana

JOE BARTON, Texas

Ranking Member

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois

FRED UPTON, Michigan

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING,

Mississippi

VITO FOSSELLA, New York

STEVE BUYER, Indiana

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania

MARY BONO, California

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

DENNIS B. FITZGIBBONS, Chief of Staff

GREGG A. ROTHSCHILD, Chief Counsel

SHARON E. DAVIS, Chief Clerk

DAVID L. CAVICKE, Minority Staff Director

(II)
(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois, Chairman

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

Vice Chairman

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina

JOHN BARROW, Georgia

BARON P. HILL, Indiana

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JIM MATHESON, Utah

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex officio)

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida,

Ranking Member

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING,

Mississippi

VITO FOSSELLA, New York

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania

MARY BONO, California

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

JOE BARTON, Texas (ex officio)

(V)

C O N T E N T S

SEPTEMBER 19, 2007

Page

Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois,

opening statement ................................................................................................ 1

Hon. Cliff Stearns, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida,

opening statement ................................................................................................ 3

Hon. Jan Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, opening statement ....................................................................................... 4

Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas,

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6

Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, opening statement ....................................................................................... 7

Hon. Joseph R. Pitts, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 9

Hon. John Barrow, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia,

opening statement ................................................................................................ 9

Hon. Lee Terry, a Representative in Congress from the State of Nebraska,

opening statement ................................................................................................ 11

Hon. Charles A. Gonzalez, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Texas, opening statement ................................................................................ 12

Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Texas, opening statement .................................................................................... 13

Hon. Darlene Hooley, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon,

opening statement ................................................................................................ 15

Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Tennessee, opening statement ............................................................................ 17

Hon. Diana DeGette, a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado, opening statement ...................................................................................... 18

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 19

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

Carolina, opening statement ............................................................................... 21

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

York, opening statement ...................................................................................... 22

Hon. Mike Ross, a Representative in Congress from the State of Arkansas,

opening statement ................................................................................................ 23

Hon. Jim Matheson, a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah,

opening statement ................................................................................................ 24

Hon. Mike Ferguson, a Representative in Congress from the State of New

Jersey, opening statement ................................................................................... 24

Hon. Jane Harman, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement ........................................................................................ 26

WITNESSES

Nancy A. Nord, Acting Chairman, Consumer Product Safety Commission ........ 27

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 78

Thomas H. Moore, Commissioner, Consumer Product Safety Commission ........ 33

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 34

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 95

Robert A. Eckert, chairman and chief executive officer, Mattel, Incorporated .. 63

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 64

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 102
Page

VI

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Ruth Ann Norton, executive director, Coalition to End Childhood Lead Poisoning, Baltimore, MD, submitted statement ......................................................... 110

SEPTEMBER 20, 2007

Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois,

opening statement ................................................................................................ 113

WITNESSES

Dana Best, M.D., American Academy of Pediatrics .............................................. 114

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 117

Olivia D. Farrow, assistant commissioner, Division of Environmental Health,

Baltimore City Health Department .................................................................... 130

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 131

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 240

Michael Green, executive director, Center for Environmental Health ................ 132

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 135

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 263

Lori Wallach, director, Global Trade Watch .......................................................... 146

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 148

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 276

Mary Teagarden, professor, global strategy, Thunderbird School of Global

Management ......................................................................................................... 166

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 168

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 271

Carter Keithley, president, Toy Industry Association, Incorporated .................. 193

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 195

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 268

Allen Thompson, vice president, global supply chain policy, Retail Industry

Leaders Association ............................................................................................. 196

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 198

Michael Gale, Fashion Jewelry Trade Association ............................................... 203

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 205

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 243

Gary E. Knell, chief executive officer and president, Sesame Workshop ............ 215

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 217

Kathie Morgan, vice president, technical committee operations, ASTM International ................................................................................................................. 225

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 226
(1)

PROTECTING CHILDREN FROM LEADTAINTED IMPORTS

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room

2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bobby L. Rush

(chairman) presiding.

Members present: Representatives Schakowsky, Butterfield, Barrow, Markey, Towns, DeGette, Gonzalez, Ross, Hooley, Matheson,

Dingell, Stearns, Whitfield, Radanovich, Pitts, Terry, Burgess,

Blackburn, and Barton.

Also present: Representatives Ferguson and Harman.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Mr. RUSH. The subcommittee will come to order. The Chair will

recognize himself for the purpose of an opening statement.

It is important that this subcommittee convene on this particular

issue. It is difficult to believe that children are still being dangerously exposed to the dangers of lead, given that Federal law

banned the neuro-toxin almost 30 years ago. It used to be that

young children, particularly those in low-income communities, had

to be protected from the peeling paint from old houses. They were

even admonished for innocently putting paint chips in their

mouths. But now, incredibly, children face lead exposures from a

far more innocuous source, from the toys they play with.

The danger of lead to young children and their developing brains

are well known. Chronic exposure to lead can lead to attention

problems, learning disabilities, anti-social and delinquent behavior,

even mental retardation. Acute exposure can result in severe illness and death. As such, in 2007, given that all we know about the

dangers lead poses to our children, how is it possible that lead can

still be found in the alloys of children’s jewelry and in the paint

of toys? How is it that our regulatory system has broken down?

Who are the stakeholders responsible for such a travesty? And

most important, how do we fix the problem?

This morning, in beginning our 2-day hearing, we take the first

steps toward answering all of these questions. Since becoming

chairman of this subcommittee, I have repeatedly stated that reforming the Consumer Product Safety Commission to better protect
2

children is one of my top priorities. Today I want to begin a deliberative process that eventually results in legislation that significantly strengthens our national safety net for children and their

families. I want to work on a bipartisan basis with our friends in

the minority to ensure, among a host of other goals, that a timely

and effective recall system is in place.

Indeed, I want to work toward a solution in which these dangerous products never, ever make it to the store shelves in the first

place. The problem of lead in children’s products have many dimensions. First, we must start with the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Is the CPSC adequately equipped with the resources and

underlying regulatory authority to address lead in children’s toys

and jewelry? Is the Commission capable of preventing these products from entering interstate commerce and quickly recalling defective products that slip through the cracks?

Second, what are the global market forces that underlie the manufacture and importation of these lead tainted products? Eighty-six

percent of toys in the United States are manufactured in China.

Why is this? Why is China such an attractive venue for toy manufacturers and how do health and safety standards and their enforcement, I might add, differ from those in the United States and

other countries?

Third, who bears responsibility for these lead tainted children’s

products? Retail entities seem to blame the manufacturers or importers of these toys, while manufacturers and importers blame

their contractors and subcontractors from China. This chain of

commerce from production to retailer clearly does not have the requisite quality controls in place, nor is there adequate Federal oversight to ensure that all stakeholders abide by well-defined rules

and regulation.

As such, it is important that all parties in the chain of commerce,

from media companies that market popular icons such as Elmo, to

toy manufacturers and importers, to retail outlets, to the Congress

and the CPSC, take ownership of this problem and earnestly work

to fix the problem at all costs. The health and well-being of our

children is far too important for us to tolerate needless finger

pointing and petty squabbling. Our kids can afford to be childish;

we cannot.

On that note and in closing, let me express my extreme disappointment with one invited stakeholder for refusing to testify before this subcommittee. Dollar General is one of the biggest retailer

chains in the United States and they largely sell their products to

working class and low-income consumers. Dollar General and other

discount stores have a heavy presence in districts such as mine in

Chicago. Just as was the case with lead paint and the disproportionate impact it had on low-income children who live in dilapidated homes and public housing, I fear that the current toy fiasco

will likewise have a disproportionate impact on children who live

in underserved economically disadvantaged communities where

some cheap toys and children’s jewelry dominate the shelves of socalled dollar and 99 cent stores, which have a heavy presence in

poor neighborhood.

If a company like Dollar General can sell their products to my

constituents and make money off of my constituents, one would
3

think they could, at a minimum, appear before this subcommittee

and answer some important questions for my constituents. I am

not pleased with Dollar General’s blatant disregard for the importance of this hearing and their refusal to appear before tomorrow’s

germane panel.

With that, I want to thank our witnesses, who have agreed to

testify in front of this subcommittee today and I look forward to

hearing from all of them. With that, I yield back the balance of my

time.

The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee, my friend from Florida, Mr. Stearns.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFF STEARNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me compliment

you for holding this hearing. You and I have worked together on

this project and in fact, we sent out 20 letters, together, to 20 manufacturers of toys and we have responses back from these, and I

understand you and your staff have put them on the committee

Web site, and I think that shows that this hearing has been transparent and our efforts in working together is for the common good.

Parents, obviously, are particularly concerned about the amount

of toys recalled for containing lead paint in excess of the Federal

mandatory standard, which is 600 parts per million. While many

of the toys recalled this year have been from smaller manufacturers and importers, it has been more surprising to many of us that

a significant number of the recalled products are produced by industry leaders, notably Mattel, that obviously has the resources

that perhaps the smaller manufacturers do not have.

As the subcommittee examines this issue, we will probably look

at appropriate legislation, if it is required. But I want to commend

Chairman Nord for her thoughtful draft proposal that she has already brought forward, the Product Recall Information and Safety

Modernization Act, PRISM Act, she developed, with her staff, and

has shared with us on this committee. There are a number of good

proposals contained within her draft proposal and I think, Mr.

Chairman, a lot of these merit our consideration if we move forward with our own piece of legislation.

Let me say I believe there are two problems highlighted by the

recalls. The first is quality assurance and control of the manufacturing, design and production of consumer products, particularly

toys. The recalls have gained much attention, I believe, because

there has been a loss of trust that has created doubt whether the

products are safe for children. Parents have relied upon many of

the name brands because they have always stood for quality. Industry professionals readily admit that prior to the recalls, Mattel

was viewed as having one of the most rigorous quality control systems in place, yet here we are, holding a hearing on this subject

and we are left questioning how these products made it through

the production chain, into our stores and into our homes.

What is equally troubling is what this means for the rest of the

toy industry. If Mattel was a leader, what quality control systems

do the smaller manufacturers and importers have in place? Are we

facing more problems down the line? There is good and bad news
4

that comes from this recall operation. The bad news is that the

problems with unsafe consumer products are similar to our problem with both imported and domestic contaminated foods. We do

not have the resources to test every product that comes into our

shores.

The good news that toys are manufactured and reproduced in an

identical fashion. Tests of reproduction runs should indicate immediately whether a problem exists with the entire production run

and should be detected with sampling tests. If a problem occurs

with the production run, all the products can quickly be recalled.

What I don’t understand is how the testing was done that did not

initially detect these problems.

In addition to the industry response to ramp up their testing of

their products, the Chinese Government announced last week, during a product safety summit, here, that they will take steps to ban

the use of lead paint in their toys, in all toys. I welcome the step

and would like to know how they intend to enforce that ban. The

second problem is the larger problem of risk posed by products that

do not meet U.S. safety standards, including lead paint and lead

content. When the United States passed the current ban on lead

paint in toys in 1978, the threshold became 0.06 percent or 600

parts per million.

According to a study of the President’s Task Force on environmental health risk to children in 2000, lead paint, lead-based paint

content used in homes prior to that averaged 9 percent for interior

paint after 1960, but had been as high as 74 percent, dating to the

1940s. So we have come a long way to eradicate the harms that

lead in our environment has caused us, particularly for children

who are growing up and are more easily susceptible to elevated

lead in their blood levels.

So Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing the response and action plans of industry participants to prevent a repeat of this summer’s problem. The efforts of some to increase their testing are a

good first step and I want to hear more how they will ensure safe

products. This is an important issue and I look forward to working

through the issues and determine what action would be required.

And I thank you.

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady

from Illinois, my colleague, Ms. Schakowsky.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAN SCHAKOWSKY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Chairman Rush. I want to congratulate you for opening this investigation and for calling this

hearing today in perhaps the most important subject that we deal

with, which is the protection of our children. The issue today is

lead paint on toys, a clear and present danger to the health and

development of infants and toddlers. So who would endanger our

children this way? Unfortunately, all parties bear some of the burden from manufacturers to retailers to the agency that is supposed

to protect our children and families; the Chinese, who are responsible for applying lead paint to Elmo, Big Bird, Ernie and other

toys, including accessories for Barbie, but Mattel was also respon-
5

sible for contracting with Chinese sweatshops to make the toys

without being willing to spend the money to supervise production.

No one believes that Mattel intentionally sold toys that they

knew were painted with lead, but they certainly didn’t do enough

to stop it. Our committee staff that recently traveled to Beijing and

Hong Kong learned that it is a common practice for foreign firms

ordering goods from China to employ strict quality control measures over the production process. These are necessary steps that

should never be left to Chinese contract or subcontract manufacturers. It is well known that the legal and regulatory systems of

China are not to be relied upon as a guarantee for product quality,

particularly in an environment where Chinese firms are subject to

enormous price pressures.

Mattel chose to gamble with our children’s health, apparently for

a few extra dollars or to meet the demands of mega firms like WalMart, that are always pushing for the cheapest good, regardless of

the human cost. Mr. Chairman, our staff has not been able to discover what happened because Mattel has decided to obstruct our

inquiry. They failed to arrange a visit to two of the contracting

plants in China, despite our repeated requests. They refused to

make their investigators available for staff interviews in Hong

Kong, another of our requests.

In fact, they refused to make the man responsible for Chinese operations available for an interview in Hong Kong. We have yet to

receive an accounting of what happened in China that caused our

children to be exposed to lead paint or the magnets that can harm

young children. I believe that Mr. Eckert, Mattel’s chairman, hopes

to be able to stonewall us the way he has stonewalled the CPSC

over the years, refusing to obey the law that requires the reporting

of consumer complaints about defects in Mattel toys because he believes the law to be unreasonable, as he recently explained to the

Wall Street Journal.

I wonder if the board of directors of Mattel has done appropriate

due diligence on the managerial failures that have resulted in recalls of millions of unsafe toys. This is apparently a management

that tries to hide its systemic failures. Mattel says it sells 800 million units and only a few million are defective and dangerous and

besides, they will do better in the future. Mr. Chairman, I, for one,

believe that Mattel’s management has forfeited their right to expect any parent to trust them. Certainly, we should not until we

have a credible report on the breakdown of quality control that

placed our children in danger.

Mr. Chairman, I think we should determine whether Mr. Eckert

considers the perjury and obstruction of justice laws also to be unreasonable. He should be reminded that attempts to obstruct our

investigation will not be tolerated. And finally, I am looking forward to hearing from CPSC chair, Nancy Nord and Commissioner

Moore. Like parents and grandparents around the country, I want

to know why CPSC has not done a better job protecting precious

children, our most precious treasure, from unsafe and potentially

lethal products.

I hope we will hear today that the CPSC has decided not just

that it needs more resources, but that it is going to adopt a more

aggressive approach to consumer safety. I yield back.
6

Mr. RUSH. I thank the gentlelady. The Chair now recognizes the

ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Barton of Texas.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. BARTON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this

hearing and for Ranking Member Stearns’ support of this hearing.

A lot of what we do up here is of intellectual curiosity to Members,

it is all-important public policy, sometimes it is personal. Today is

one of those days, for me, that is personal. Most members of this

committee are at a stage in our lives where we buy toys for our

grandchildren, our nieces and our nephews and great-nieces and

great-nephews, and I have four grandchildren. But I have a 2-year

old toddler, son, Jack. He had his 2-year birthday party this past

Saturday. So this is personal for me.

When you can’t trust Thomas the Train and you can’t trust a

company like Mattel, I remember when Mattel was the advertiser

of the Mickey Mouse show in the 1950s. It is just staggering that

we have to worry about some of these issues. But to their credit,

the American toy manufacturers, as they found out that they have

got problems with some of these products, they have done voluntary recalls and the Consumer Product Safety Commission has

instigated some other recalls.

And if we have a productive hearing, and I am sure we will, with

Chairman Rush’s personal involvement and full committee chairman Dingell’s involvement, if we need to take steps legislatively,

as the ranking Republican, I am willing to commit that I will work

in a bipartisan fashion, because I want the toys that are sold and

used by the children of America to be safe, period. Not may be safe,

not reasonably safe, but safe. My son, Jack, got a big Tonka dump

truck last Saturday and a Radio Flyer tricycle. And his mother, my

wife, Terri, and I, when we went to the toy store, we really looked

at where those products were manufactured and looked at the

label, because we want him to be safe. And with a 2-year old, if

it will go in his mouth, it is going to go in his mouth. You just

know that.

So Mr. Chairman, I have got a lengthy statement on official policy, but just simply let me say that if you are an American toy

manufacturer, I really don’t care where you manufacture your toys.

I would rather they be manufactured in the United States of America and really prefer they be manufactured in good old Texas, but

if you are going to manufacture them in China or Taiwan or Timbuktu, wherever, they had better meet the American safety standards and the government officials of these countries, especially the

Chinese, better start getting it.

They seem to think that all we are interested about in the

United States is the cheapest product at the lowest cost, but they

are sadly mistaken. There are some things that price is the predominant issue with, but the safety of our children, there is no

price you can put on that, Mr. Chairman. And certainly, for young

Jack Kevin Barton, all of 2 years old, his safety, just like the children and the grandchildren of every other member of this committee is paramount, so I am going to pay real close attention and I
7

appreciate you holding this hearing and I would submit my full

statement for the record.

Mr. RUSH. I want to thank the gentleman for his comments and

his personal statement. I also want to inform the gentleman that

Radio Flyers are manufactured in Illinois, the next best place to

Texas.

Mr. BARTON. Well, he hadn’t figured out the pedal part of it, yet.

He is still in the scooting part of it.

Mr. RUSH. OK. All right. The Chair now recognizes the chairman

of the full committee, Mr. Dingell of Michigan.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And I begin by thanking

you and Ranking Member Stearns for holding this hearing today.

It is an important one and it is very timely. As I have said in the

hearing of this subcommittee on May 15, our responsibility to our

children and this country’s responsibility to protect these children,

is one of the most important in our society. I am pained to note

this morning that it appears that all of us have been derelict in

this matter. It is the responsibility of this committee, the subcommittee and very frankly, the Federal Government, to determine

the resources that are available and the sources of the lapse that

have taken place and to take all necessary steps to correct it.

It would be far too easy to attribute this summer’s recall of children’s toys and other products to Chinese poorly regulated export

manufacturers. To be sure, that is true, and China is clearly not

without blame. But regulatory deficiencies, shoddy business practices and the forces of globalization all play a substantial role in

this catastrophe. In short, there is lots of blame to go around to everybody.

Appearing before us today are the two commissioners from the

Consumer Product Safety Commission, CPSC. As the Nation’s consumer safety watchdog, this agency bears significant responsibility

for protecting our children, yet it has remained largely under-funded since its inception. And it should be noted, of late, it has endured an exodus of competent staff and an apparent significant

diminution of its ability to carry out its responsibilities. In addition, CPSC’s testing laboratory is an embarrassment. I note that

there are only two of the five authorized commissioners available

and we are going to have to find out whether they have the capacity to carry forward with their proper responsibility.

I would expect, then, that Acting Chairman Nord and Commissioner Moore will help our committee to understand the situation

and to strengthen the CPSC by answering some of the following

questions. (1) How has CPSC’s dwindling resources affected its

ability to intercept dangerous products at U.S. ports? (2) Has reliance on voluntary industry compliance given rise to recent toy and

other manufacturers and children’s product recall crises? Lastly, I

think we are going to have to ask that acting Chairman Nord discuss, in detail, the agreement recently included between the CPSC

and the Chinese general administration for quality supervision inspection and quarantine.
8

I would note that the Chinese have set extraordinarily high levels of failure, not just in these kinds of consumer products, but also

in foods, drugs, cosmetics and appliances and devices. More precisely, then, in what terms of concrete results are we to expect that

this agreement is going to deliver any additional protection to

American consumers?

I note also appearing before us today is Mr. Robert Eckert, who

is Mattel’s CEO. The practices of Mattel and its role in industry

leader reflect no credit upon it, yet I am concerned about the apparent disdain for Federal regulation and laws present in some

public statements. The front page of the September 4, 2007 Wall

Street Journal reported Mr. Eckert’s comments that Mattel discloses problems on its own timetable because it believes both the

law and CPS enforcement practices are unreasonable.

I think he will probably want to explain these matters, but I will

want to hear a similar explanation from the CPSC about why they

are not more diligent in addressing these questions and what they

have proposed to about this or whether additional authorities are

needed from this committee and from the Congress to address this

kind of behavior and disregard the proper responsibilities of the

manufacturers or importers, and what the CPSC is going to do to

get the attention of these people so that they will be a little more

attentive to their responsibilities to America and to its children.

I further wish to convey my great disappointment that Mattel

made little demonstrable effort to comply with the requests of a bipartisan delegation of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

staff recently, in Hong Kong, to meet with its internal investigators

and quality control staff. That is a poor kind of cooperation to be

afforded this committee and it will hardly be helpful in our relationship with the company. I expect Mr. Eckert will be available to

answer these questions about the status and intent of Mattel’s internal investigation of its recalls this summer, with clarity and provision.

Lastly, I have heard that CEO’s apology for lead tainted toys, but

I would seek reassurance about this pledge to improve the safety

of Mattel’s products, given Mattel’s past resistance to cooperating

with CPSC over the safety of another toy, Power Wheels. I look forward to the committee’s second day of hearings on this matter,

also, Mr. Chairman. In particular, I find it prudent that we should

explore the following. (1) How should the United States structure

future trade agreements to enhance the protection of American consumers? (2) How can the U.S. and others compel China to enforce

its own regulations? (3) What sorts of quality control practices

should U.S. businesses employ in China to assure supply chain integrity? (4) How do cost pressures applied by large retailers to toy

and other manufacturers diminish quality control?

And last of all, what additional authorities, funding and resources does CPSC need, as well as legal authorities, to see to it

that they are able to properly carry out their responsibilities in

matters of this kind. These questions and others are going to inform the committee and enable us to do a better job to improve our

ability to protect our consumers and their children. We intend to

remain vigilant in this task and produce tangible results. I will

note that we will be having legislation on this. We will shortly be
9

introducing legislation to address some of the problems with regard

to Chinese imports and Food and Drug in its inability to address

problems at our borders.

And I intend to do a similar thing with regard to CPSC and we

will be looking forward to answers and cooperation from CPSC

today to see what must be done by this committee and we will anticipate that they will give us answers, both about their authority

and how they are functioning, whether they have the resources

that they need to do their job and also, what they have to do to

get enough commissioners down there to have the quorums and to

be able to conduct their business in a proper fashion.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you and I commend you for this hearing

and I thank our good friend, Mr. Stearns, also, for his participation.

Mr. RUSH. I want to thank the chairman. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts, for 5 minutes of

an opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. PITTS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH

OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won’t take all that time,

but first of all, thank you for holding this important hearing on

protecting children from lead tainted imports. Our children, as it

has been said, are our future, and therefore we must ensure their

protection in all ways possible. The documentation describing the

deaths of children from lead painted toys, as well as from swallowing magnets from toys is disturbing and unacceptable. And of

course, our sympathies go out to the families who have lost children due to illnesses related to the issues we are discussing today.

It is vital that toy manufacturers, as well as the U.S. Government, where appropriate, be assertive in enforcing standards and

safety inspections at all points of the manufacturing process. Manufacturers must hold contractors and subcontractors accountable

for upholding production standards. And the U.S. Government

must hold Chinese and U.S. companies accountable for the safety

of their products. Recent steps by toy manufacturers are welcome,

but there must be a system in place to monitor local contractors

in China and other nations in which enforcement of regulations

may be lax or entirely nonexistent.

It is in the best interest of our Nation’s children, as well as the

toy companies and their contractors and their subcontractors, to

abide by safety standards. And so I look forward to hearing our distinguished witnesses today, what they intend to do to ensure the

safety of their products and I thank you for and commend you for

holding this hearing.

Mr. RUSH. I want to thank the gentleman. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barrow, for 5 minutes of

opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARROW, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

Mr. BARROW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ranking

Member Stearns, for having this hearing. Everybody knows the dif-
10

ference between somebody who don’t know about a problem with

this product and don’t care, and someone who does know about a

problem with the product and don’t care to tell folks about it. It is

as old as the story they tell back home about the guy that bought

a mule from somebody only to discover, a couple of days after he

bought it, that it was blind. Went back to the guy that sold him,

said why did you sell me a blind mule and the guy said well, the

guy that sold it to me didn’t tell me about it and I sort of felt he

wanted it kept confidential.

Well, I sort of feel like the manufacturers in this country that

don’t know or don’t care, but there is no difference in terms of the

impact to the consumer. If the product is dangerous and you don’t

know, you should know. The impact is just the same as if you do

know and suppress that knowledge. We are all going to be held to

the standard of what people, what reasonable people know or

should know about their products and how they are affecting folks

in the stream of commerce.

And I think that applies to us, to the Government, as well. If we

know, because we have discovered things that are going wrong

with stuff that is coming into the stream of commerce, we have got

to act. Now, Ranking Member Stearns made an allusion to the food

situation. And me, I don’t know, maybe taking a broad view of history, maybe food is going to kind of wake us up to some of the problems of globalization and the way that exporting and outsourcing

our clothes and just about everything else hasn’t. Certainly, that

was the experience of this country when the FDA was adopted in

the first place.

But as the only Member of Congress, on both the Agriculture

Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee, I can share

with my colleagues and report to you all what we learned on the

Agriculture Committee about how things are done differently in

two different models we got in this country for regulating imported

food. You got the model that the FDA uses when they are trying

to monitor the importation and the quality of specialty crops that

are being imported in this country getting mixed up with our domestic specialty crops, and what the USDA is doing in the cases

of meat.

Now, the USDA does not rely on the kindness of strangers to determine whether or not the meat that is coming into this country

is safe. We send inspectors abroad, the USDA sends USDA inspectors to the packing facilities abroad to inspect the conditions there

at the packing facilities. This is in marked contrast to the policing

policy followed by the FDA for monitoring the quality of specialty

crops, the vegetables that are getting mixed up on our shelves.

What we do with imported specialty crops is very different. What

we do is we monitor the subject population and wait and see if

someone gets sick in the test group. And after someone in test

group has gotten sick, we try and figure out where it comes from

and we flag stuff and we can trace it up the stream of commerce.

The test group is 350 million Americans. We are all guinea pigs for

the FDA’s method of compliance, of monitoring folks’ compliance

with the quality and safety of food that comes into this country.

Now, we don’t do that with the USDA. We take an affirmative,
11

proactive stance to try and make sure the imported meat is safe

before it gets here.

We need to take the same approach with respect to commodities

that are manufactured abroad for use in this country. We haven’t

just got our toys mixed up, domestic stuff mixed up on the shelves

with stuff that is made abroad. It is something like 86 percent of

the toys in this country are manufactured in China. So we have to

make sure that we don’t just interdict this stuff after it enters the

stream of commerce, but before it lands on our shores. I think we

ought to think about trying to adopt the model of the USDA and

try and stop manufacture, the wholesale manufacture of unsafe

products in our trading partners to begin with.

If the idea of letting this stuff get into the stream of commerce

and match the flows and then trying to stop it after it reaches our

shores is impractical. It is what the FDA is doing and that is why

people are getting sick from eating crops and they are not getting

sick from eating meat. Now, that seems to me to be a model that

we can build on. Certainly, we need to know that what is going on

now is not behind the scenes, it is not somewhere unaware of. Now

that we know about it, we are all tasked with doing something

about it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RUSH. I want to thank the gentleman. The Chair now recognizes, for the purposes of opening statement, Mr. Terry from Nebraska.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LEE TERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to express my appreciation to you for holding this hearing, not only because lead on

our toys is an important issue for our families and because I have

three children, although the youngest is now 7 and probably

doesn’t chew on too many toys. Certainly, though, I think this is

a matter that we need to be vigilant. There is a variety of information in discussions about how to properly handle this. I agree with

the gentleman from Georgia that if we could do a better job at the

source, the supplier, the manufacturer, to adopt the best practices,

to make sure that the product is safe once it is packaged, to be exported to the United States.

I think the move by the Chinese Government is positive, but as

the full committee chairman has said, unfortunately, China has a

history of not following through with its promises, so I want to

hear from Mattel especially how they feel the Chinese Government

is going to react and enforce what they have promised in tightening

up the procedures in China. What we have heard, from others that

have testified in past testimony in the Senate, one of the issues

with the Chinese manufacturers is for one run of the manufacture

of a toy and spraying on paint, that batch of paint meets the standards, but the next buckets of paint they pour in don’t. And so literally, you can have the same batch of toys with some meeting the

standards and some not.

So you really have to be able to rely on the Chinese who basically

run these factories over there to crack down, otherwise I am going

to agree with my colleagues on the other side that says that maybe
12

the importers of these toys that are slapping their name on it

should look to different countries to set up a new shop for manufacturing. I also want to congratulate the chairman on holding a hearing on lead contamination. One of the reasons why this issue is important to me, personally, is that I am from Omaha, Nebraska.

One-third of my city is a Superfund site for lead contamination.

Now, that is soil. That is from several of our factories from the

1800s up until the mid–1950s and 1960s before they closed down.

But what lead does when it is ingested by a child, especially a toddler like Mr. Barton’s son, Jack, what it does is it retards the development of the brain so that you have, as they develop into young

adults, have a more difficult time of learning. That is the lesser of

the symptoms, as we have learned from an incident in Minnesota,

in ingesting a lead toy or medallion, is that it can also lead to

death.

So I appreciate, I guess the one silver lining from these hearings

and all of the news media attention on these toys, is that the public

has become educated on lead poisoning. That has been the single

most difficult part of our Superfund site in Omaha, is educating

people in the Superfund site, especially those with children, on

what they need to do to reduce the risk of lead contamination. So

in one fell swoop, Mattel and others have helped educate an American public, because as Mr. Rush can certainly testify to, when we

represent urban areas, like I do, almost every house is contaminated with lead paint.

And we need to have, I think, broader discussions in this country

about lead poisoning in our urban areas and so I am going to keep

bringing up lead throughout here as a way to educate the public

on lead poisoning, because we have an epidemic of lead poisoning

in our own country that we need to deal with, as well. So Mr.

Chairman, I appreciate you holding this hearing. I think, overall,

we are going to do good for this country by this hearing.

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gonzalez, for the purpose

of an opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your

leadership on this issue and I want to remind everyone that this

is not the first hearing that you have conducted where we have had

the chair of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and we

should have learned, at that hearing, basically what set the stage

for what we are experiencing today regarding the lead-based paint

toys that were contaminated.

I think I came away from the last hearing, because I know that

the chairman has made her best effort. She has sought us out. I

think she even has some proposed legislative remedies and such.

But what I learned from that hearing was that we have a commission that is under-staffed and overworked. Congress is, I think,

party to some of that condition by cutting its funding, historically.

So I don’t think that we actually come into this with clean hands.

And the other thing I learned that I really thought, that the indus-
13

try was pretty much self-regulated, that we had a watchdog with

a muted bark and no bite.

Now, Mr. Dingell has indicated we are going to have some legislation. I know that the chairman is going to make some recommendations today. I am hopeful and I think that she will, and

we need to be acting on it. The American people truly believe that

the Government is there to protect them, especially from unsafe

products. But I am here to tell them that is not the fact. And you

have heard some of my colleagues allude to the situation. We are

faced with the reality that it really is industry driven. You have

already heard references to basically a toy company can make a determination when it feels it may be imperative to take some action

regarding a toy that has been placed in the stream of commerce

that poses a danger to Americans and their children. That is not

the way it is supposed to work.

So where is the Government’s responsibility? And it is not solely

Government, but it has to be the toy company, it has to be the retailer and even the consumer has a role to play. As Mr. Barton

pointed out, when he and his wife went to buy the toys for their

son, there was due diligence exercised by the consumer. So I think

there is a role for all of us, but I tell you, it definitely will start

with the commission and it ends with the commission. But it will

take a joint effort, a collaborative effort, and that is what we

should be seeking today.

I will tell you now, there was no doubt this was going to happen.

If you were here for the last hearing, we were just waiting for an

incident. It just so happened that it was toys and it was Mattel,

which is obviously one of the most prominent toy distributors, manufacturers. And we are going to get into design and we are going

to get into manufacturing and we are going to see what is the duty

of someone that supplies toys, that designs them and then offshores and the manufacturing of those toys, to make sure that

whoever is manufacturing them, in China or in any other country,

is abiding by those standards that we are going to apply to that

finished product when we bring it onto our shores.

Again, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Mr. RUSH. I want to thank the gentleman. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Burgess, for 5 minutes.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate you

holding the hearing today. Now, most of us, with the increasing

number of recalls that we have seen, are extremely concerned

about the safety and security of really, what we consider rather

mundane, normal household products, and now, especially in regard to our children’s toys and as a parent, the last thing you

would ever want to do is give your child something that could

cause them harm. However, that determination seems to be getting

harder and harder by the day to make, as more and more recalls

are announced.

In a lot of ways, America has the safest products in the world,

but after a summer of recalls, the confidence of the American consumer is severely undermined. And what most of us are concerned
14

about is the safety of imported goods, especially those imported

from the People’s Republic of China. And what that leaves us with,

as far as we are trying to discriminate is something harmful or not

harmful to bring into our home, we look for that country manufacturer, and I will just tell you, in my household, if it is made in

China, it does not come home.

In July, my friend and colleague, Mr. Greg Walden, who is on the

Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee with me, we sent a letter to the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee asking for an

investigation regarding for the many food and consumer product

safety recalls from the People’s Republic of China. In August, in response to the Thomas the Train recall, I sent yet another letter to

the O & I subcommittee. Once again, I urged them to embark on

an investigation regarding the increasing number of consumer

product recalls from the People’s Republic of China. I have yet to

receive a response back from the subcommittee, but Chairman

Rush and Ranking Member Stearns, I thank you for your leadership on this specific issue in calling for this hearing today.

I have given those two letters to the majority counsel and ask

unanimous consent that they be included as part of today’s record.

Chairwoman Nord, I am glad you are here with us today. I know

that you and your colleague, Commissioner Moore, will provide

some much needed insight regarding the recalls of the Consumer

Product Safety Commission. In some ways I am disappointed in

how the committee handled the hearing in June and I think the

committee could have benefited greatly from your testimony 3

months ago, when we were just on the cusp of discovering the severity of this problem. Obviously, the head of any Federal agency

should be treated with respect, regardless of one’s political affiliation. I am grateful that you have graciously agreed to be here

with us today.

You can’t turn on the television at 6 o’clock at night in Washington, DC without hearing Lou Dobbs talk about this, and I was

watching him, because I wanted to see what my e-mails and letters

are going to look like the next day. And the media, rightfully so,

has spent a lot of time and attention on the issue of recalls this

summer and we are all concerned about the number of recalls. But

it is also important that we step back and think about some of the

things that are being done correctly and make certain that we don’t

do anything to undermine those things.

Chairwoman Nord, even though you specifically note, in your testimony, that the Consumer Product Safety Commission has not historically engaged in international activities and does not have direct authority to handle imported products at ports, you and your

agency have made some significant progress in regards to the issue

of Chinese imports and last week’s agreement with China’s general

administration of quality supervision underscores this. I am grateful that your agency was able to get China to agree immediately

to implement a plan to eliminate the use of lead paint. I will have

to say people in this country already expected that their toys be

painted with lead-free paint, but this is clearly a step in the right

direction.

And certainly now, as Chairman Dingell has pointed out, we

have got to hear, going forward, what is going to happen as far as
15

the enforcement. I am also grateful that members of industry and

manufacturing are here today. I am extremely interested in what

happens to all of the volume of recalled product that is going to be

returned. Do we burn it and put the lead into the atmosphere? Do

we bury it and put the lead into our groundwater or do we just

simply resell it on eBay and continue the problem?

I would also like to briefly mention the voluntary recall system

versus the mandatory recall system. Right now manufacturers bear

a legal responsibility to report to the Consumer Product Safety

Commission if there are problems. This is existing Federal law and

manufacturers must play by the rules. Now, Chairman Dingell

talked about a mandatory system of recalls. I am concerned that

if we go to an exclusively mandatory system of recalls, we will extend the timeline. I think it is important that the chairwoman has

the flexibility to ask for a voluntary recall. I cannot imagine anyone

in industry ignoring that call for a voluntary recall and that can

happen in a couple of weeks.

If we go the mandatory route, we have to go through the courts,

involved lawyers and you know what happens there. It is a couple

of years before we get something resolved. Now, in my district back

in Texas, a local television station, Fox 4, has documented a problem with sandals, flip flops, that cause a severe localized dermatitis. I cannot imagine what the cause for that might be, but again,

we need to get to the bottom of that. And the CPSC is not just to

protect consumers, it is to protect manufacturers, too, because

when the confidence of the American public is undermined, the

manufacturer is ultimately the one who is going to suffer. Again,

we will not buy a product in my household if we see that it was

manufactured in the People’s Republic of China.

Mr. Chairman, I will submit my entire statement for the record.

I do understand Chairwoman Nord has some draft legislation that

bears us looking at that. We also need to talk significantly about

the funding. I am concerned, with all the talk about funding, and

we had that discussion earlier this summer, that the House Appropriations Committee, really, the increase in funding was rather

modest for their budget this year and I will be interested in hearing from both Chairwoman Nord and Commissioner Moore about

their opinion of the House level of funding that was sent by the Appropriations Committee and I will yield back the balance of my

time.

Mr. RUSH. I want to thank the gentleman. The Chair now recognizes, for the purposes of opening statement, the gentlelady from

Oregon, Ms. Hooley, for 5 minutes.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DARLENE HOOLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

Ms. HOOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing and thank you, Chairwoman Nord and Commissioner

Moore for being here today and providing your testimony. Like

Representative Barton, this is very personal. Last week, my district

director, who just had a baby, found out that her baby’s favorite

teething ring had lead in it. Now, I wonder how many other parents are out there that have given their children teething rings
16

with lead in it. When it says safe for children, people have expected

that it is going to be safe for their children.

Hopefully, it is no longer news to anyone that we have a serious

problem with the influx of dangerous lead-tainted and faulty children’s products flooding our shelves. So far this year, the Consumer

Product Safety Commission has issued 113 recalls, 43 due to excessive lead. I would like to believe this number won’t go up, but I

know that it will. Not enough has been done to make sure that toys

that reach the shelves across this country are safe and there is

plenty of blame to go around.

Manufacturers have not been as vigilant as they could have been

in monitoring and testing their complicated off-shore supply chains.

To prevent the introduction of dangerous toys and other children’s

products into the marketplace, manufacturers should be required

to have independent, third party tests certifying their products are

safe before they reach our shelves. I commend the Toy Association

to agreeing that this needs to happen.

Recent recalls have highlighted safety problems with Chinese imports. An overwhelming majority of the recalls have been from

China. China is now our second largest trading partner and yet,

last year supplied the United States with 86 percent of its toys.

Currently, it is almost as we are relying on China’s weak safety regime to make sure that products we import for them are safe. We

can all agree that this isn’t enough.

Consumer Product Safety Commission is another piece of this

puzzle. The CPSC is charged with the enormous task of protecting

the public, including children from unreasonable risk associated

with consumer products. Right now we are trying to do this with

400 employees in contrast to the thousand they had in 1981. Clearly, this is not sufficient. They also lack, in some areas, statutory

authority to protect the consumers. By the CPS’s own admission,

the 1950s facility they are using to test potentially dangerous products don’t even meet the code.

Moving forward, I sincerely hope the CPSC will be as constructive and proactive as possible in addressing this multifaceted and

complicated issue. I also hope that we quickly and thoughtfully

pass legislation, giving them the resources and the authority to be

more effective in performing their vital duties. We have to be careful, though. In the process of addressing the problems with CPSC,

we should not replace the testing by the private sector. The CPSC

needs to establish uniform testing rules that the private sector has

to adhere to.

It is vital to our children and economy that parents are confident

that when they purchase, off the shelves, that product is safe. I

look forward to hearing from both panels today and working with

my colleagues on addressing this very serious problem. And I yield

back the remainder of my time.

Mr. RUSH. I want to thank the gentlelady. Now the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Whitfield, for the purposes of opening statement. The gentlemen from Tennessee and

from Kentucky left. Now the Chair recognizes the gentlelady from

Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn, for the purposes of an opening statement.
17

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE

Ms. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for holding today’s hearing and I do want to welcome our witnesses. We

are looking forward to hearing from you and exploring some of

these issues that do relate to consumer product safety and the

quality of imported products. As a mother, as a retail industry veteran, and also now as a Member of Congress, I have different

lenses through which I can look at and evaluate this issue. I think

all of us also look at it as a consumer, as we purchase and use

these products. And it is something that I think is of deep concern

to us as we evaluate the safety of the products that have made

their way into the U.S. retail mainstream. It is something that affects every single socioeconomic level.

And I think it is of concern to us that we see an up-tick in the

occurrences of products that contain toxins and it is going to be imperative that this subcommittee carefully examine these problems

that have been brought on by both the recent and the not-so-recent

recalls that are in this industry and to look for a solution that is

going to give peace of mind to the American consumers. There is

no substitute for a safe marketplace and I know that our witnesses

today are going to talk with us about effective policy and what they

see is effective policy for ensuring that marketplace.

Now, I hope that, as we approach this, that we have an eye towards solving the problem and not pointing fingers because a solution is what we need to this, whether it is the potential inadequacies that the Federal Hazardous Substance Act or the regulatory

structure at the CPSC or companies that are importing, let us

agree to isolate the problem and then agree to work toward a solution on addressing that. And I hope that nobody is going to be

tempted to blame all businesses and start to paint with a very

broad brush and I know that there is going to be some that say

we need more money and we need a bigger regulatory regime and

we need new Government programs.

And many times that will happen, but I think we have to ask:

Will millions of dollars and new Government spending and hundreds of new bureaucratic inspectors prevent willful negligence on

the part of some of the Chinese regulators? Or will they prevent

those with the different sets of standards, those foreign contractors

and those local officials that have different sets of standards from

ours, those in developing nations, from preventing shoddy quality

control of product manufactured in their country?

Now, on the issue of funding, knowing this would come up, I

went back and looked at this. The current budget authority and the

appropriated funding levels for the CPSC are nearly $10 million

higher for fiscal year 2007 than it was in the final year of all

Democratic government in 1994 and that is in the term of 2006 dollars and that is taking inflation into account. So we have got more

money that is there for the CPSC than in 1994. And clearly then,

it is hardly a direct correlation between additional funding and

new employees and a hazard-free marketplace.

So then we have to say what is the problem and looking at the

43 toy recalls that we have had this year alone and the 14 separate
18

instances related to unsafe exposure levels to lead paint, we have

to say that is 43 too many and I know that many responsible industry leaders, certainly one in my home State of Tennessee, are

already acting above industry standards and are testing imported

products for toxic components at levels that exceed the Federal

standard, whether it is lead or otherwise. And it seems to me that

these actions are instructive and that we can learn from these companies who have taken the initiative.

We all know that the private sector is a partner with the Federal

Government in determining that the U.S. marketplace is safe from

toxic products and we want to be certain that everyone lives up to

their responsibility and then see if there are additional steps that

are needed. Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for the hearing. I am

looking forward to hearing from our witnesses. We welcome you

and I yield the balance of my time.

Mr. RUSH. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Colorado,

Ms. DeGette, for 5 minutes.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIANA DEGETTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will submit my full statement for the record, but to avoid trying to be redundant, I just want to say the parents of this country right now

really feel like they are under siege and if you had to ask me, when

I ran for Congress 10 years ago, would I be sitting in a consumer

protection hearing in 2007 talking about lead paint in toys, I would

have laughed and frankly, most of the parents of America would

have laughed because they thought, maybe 30 years ago, that the

problem of lead paint in toys had been resolved.

But what has happened in the meantime is about 86 percent of

our toys are coming from China and obviously our regulatory

scheme, both the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the independent toy manufacturers and others, are simply not stepping up

to meet the oversight demands that that increased number of imports is bringing on us. The reason I say the parents of America

feel like we are under siege is it is coming at us from all sides. We

buy spinach for our children thinking that we are feeding them

healthy foods and then they end up with E. coli or salmonella because of our food safety inspection system.

We buy, as the ranking member, Mr. Barton, said, Thomas the

Tank Engine for our nephews or our sons and we have to worry

about whether those toys are contaminated by lead. So with all due

respect to my friend from Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn and others,

I think that we need to take a long, hard look at the consumer

product review, the entire situation in this country, and see why

we are having such extreme lapses. Last week, my staff wrote, in

my statement, I am a parent of two daughters and I remember

buying them toys, as kids, but in fact, last week I found a princess

crown and some other things, some rings and earrings and things

in my car that my 13-year old daughter had bought. I guess that

says something about my 13-year old daughter.

She brought this stuff home and it was manufactured in China

and I was sitting in the car looking at it, trying to decide should
19

I put it in the bag for Goodwill or should I put it in the bag of paint

and paint thinner that I was taking to the toxic waste disposal site.

That is really kind of sad when parents are thinking about that,

Mr. Chairman, and it turns out that my concerns were probably

well-founded. Ms. Hooley talked about how there were 15 recalls by

the Consumer Product Safety Commission last year, but before

2007, there were an average of four recalls a year. So obviously, it

is skyrocketing up.

And what is even worse, the Consumer Product Safety Commission found that of the 113 recall notices for children’s product, 42

were for toys and 71 were for other children’s products like jewelry.

And in fact, of these, 38 percent had to do with excessive lead. So

in fact, 7 million pieces of children’s jewelry last year, like the ones

that were in my car, were contaminated with lead and these are

things that little girls are putting on their heads and in their

mouths and on their fingers and on their ears. We can’t accept that

and we can’t accept a regulatory scheme that allows that.

So Mr. Chairman, I think that this 2-day hearing is one of the

most important things we can do in Congress this fall because

many of my colleagues have said, accurately, that the blame is well

spread around and the solution is not simple. I will say one thing,

though, and again, I need to respectfully disagree with my friend

from Tennessee, if you are not going to have adequate and robust

oversight, it is hard to see how you can avoid some of these problems.

In fact, if you look historically, since 1981, the Consumer Product

Safety Commission has shrunk from 1,000 employees to about 400

today. President Bush’s budget that he has submitted would actually cost the Consumer Product Safety Commission 19 more employees. So in truth, while throwing money at problems never

works, you have to have a regulatory scheme that is robust and

that is adequately enough staffed. And I think that is part of the

solution, but industry has to step up as well, and we all know that.

With that, I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Ms. DeGette follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DIANA DEGETTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this 2-day hearing.

The fact that this hearing is 2 days shows how important the topic is—protecting

the interests of children. Children are our most precious resource, for they are the

future of this country. If we want a bright future for them, and for us, we have to

make sure they are made healthy, through appropriate health care, provided a first

class-education, and be kept safe.

We have a long way to go in all of these areas, but this past year has shown acute

failures in our ability to protect children from dangerous toys. In particular, they

have been exposed to millions of products with dangerous levels of lead paint and

lead content.

Protecting kids from lead is not some wild-eyed notion. Lead is contaminant

which can cause serious health problems and even death. Lead builds up in the

blood stream overtime and causes developmental and behavioral problems in children. For example, studies have shown that lead in the body can reduce a child’s

IQ. Acute lead poisoning, caused when one quickly ingests a large amount of lead,

can cause serious injury or death. Kids get exposed to lead by chewing on or swallowing toys covered in paint or otherwise tainted by lead.

I’m a parent of two daughters I remember buying them toys as kids. Simply put,

parents want to feel secure that when they do something nice for their kids they

aren’t unknowingly giving them a toy that could be deadly. Hard-working and busy
20

parents shouldn’t have to figure out which products have lead; and, in fact, that

would basically be impossible because there is no way to know if a toy has lead or

lead paint just by looking. Parents have to rely on industry and government to prevent these dangerous toys from ever getting into the hands of kids.

On that score, we are failing at an alarming rate. According to the prepared testimony of Mr. Thomas Moore, Commissioner of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), prior to 2007, the CPSC had been averaging four recalls per year

for children’s toys with excessive levels of lead paint. This year there have already

been 15. Overall, the CPSC has issued 113 recall notices for children’s products this

year, 42 for toys and 71 for other children’s products, like jewelry. Of these 38 percent had to do with excessive lead. In terms of raw numbers that comes to 7 million

pieces of children’s jewelry.

Some of these recalls were pretty high profile. Mattel alone had three separate,

massive recalls, including ones which covered such popular products as those involving Sesame Street, Dora the Explorer, and Barbie. It wasn’t just Mattel either—RC2

Corporation had to recall 1.5 million Thomas the Train toy cars.

Most of these toys were made abroad, particularly in China, and much has been

made of that fact. China is now our second largest trading partner; our trade with

it has grown to $343 billion per year. We get 86 percent of our toys from China.

Relying on imports from China to such a large extent creates significant problems,

not only with respect to toys but food safety as well. Getting business in China

means keeping costs low, which some do by cutting corners and using cheaper lead

paint or lead products. Its consumer protection laws are weak and, most importantly, at many levels there is a lack of enforcement. Corruption is a significant

problem. While I think relying on China alone to combat this is foolhardy, we do

need to work with the Chinese to improve their regulatory enforcement. I am

pleased that that is being worked on by the CPSC.

But, at the end of the day protecting American consumers is the duty of American

companies and the American government. Americans need to step up and get the

job done. Over the years we have seen more and more American companies move

manufacturing overseas in search cheap labor and a lower cost of doing business.

Regardless of the merits of the behavior, it is no excuse for weakening safety protections.

These companies use contractors, who in turn use subcontractors, who in turn use

other subcontractors. I know companies are trying and have rules to prevent the

use of unsafe materials. But such a confusing and complex supply chain makes it

difficult to ensure their own rules are being followed. Rules are useless if they are

routinely being ignored or flouted. These companies need to show more active involvement and quality control. They need to have sufficient numbers of their own

people there at plans, monitoring contractors and subcontractors to ensure compliance.

I know today we are talking about lead-tainted imports and manufacturing issues

abroad, but I think its worth nothing that a recent study found that over 75 percent

of all toy recalls since 1988 have been due to design defects. Just this year, one of

the Mattel recalls included products which had small magnets. The design of the

product was so poor that the magnets could fall out and be ingested by children,

causing serious injury. So, not only do companies need to look at manufacturing

practices, but design practices as well. It is their responsibility to design and create

products that are safe.

Simply relying on industry to police itself is also not enough. We need third party

verification that standards are being followed. That is why I have cosponsored H.R.

3499, the ‘‘Children’s Products Safety Act of 2007’’ sponsored by my good friend and

colleague Representative Hooley. This bill would require all products for kids five

and under to have a certificate, issued by an independent third party lab, that these

products comply with our safety standards. And, it would prohibit imports that do

not have such a certificate.

Finally, there is a significant role for government and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), which has the mandate to protect consumers from harmful

products. Of course, that is hard task without sufficient resources.

The CPSC has shrunk over time, declining from 1,000 employees in 1981 to about

400 today. Its budget is a paltry $62 million in fiscal year 2007. Again according

to Commissioner Moore, this lack of resources is, not surprisingly, negatively impacting the ability of the CPSC to do its job. For example, it has only 15 people

to work in our ports and inspect the thousands of products we import every day.

What was President Bush’s solution to this? A budget that Commissioner Moore

says would cost the CPSC 19 more employees. My friends on the other side of the

aisle like to talk about cutting big government and its wasteful spending, but I

think saving money at the expense of children’s safety is wrong.
21

As I was cleaning out my garage the other day, I was organizing all of my kids’

old toys. After the recalls of this past summer, I started to wonder whether or not

I needed to separate the toys into ones I could give to charity and ones that amounted to hazardous waste. Parents should not have to wonder whether or not their kids’

toys are deadly. America can do better.

I look forward today to hearing from our witnesses and discussing how we can

get this system back on track. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks the gentlelady. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Radanovich, for 5 minutes for an opening statement. I want to thank the gentleman for

waiving. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from North

Carolina, Mr. Butterfield, for an opening statement.

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

CAROLINA

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to thank you very

much for holding this important hearing today on protecting our

children and protecting our consumers from lead tainted imports.

The prevalence of lead tainted products has been a serious problem

in the United States for many, many years and this issue has not

received the attention it clearly deserves and so this hearing today

is very timely. I want to commend you, Mr. Chairman, and I want

to commend the committee and my colleagues on both sides of the

aisle for your strong commitment to protecting this Nation’s most

vulnerable population, our children.

Research reveals that contact with lead tainted products can seriously impact the health of children. Repeated exposure to lead is

accumulative and detrimental to the blood system. Regular contact

can cause reduced IQ, learning disabilities, attention deficit disorders, behavioral problems, stunted growth and impaired hearing

and kidney damage. Further, at high levels of exposure, a child

may become mentally retarded. He or she may fall into a coma,

may eventually die. Children can come in contact with lead

through various sources, one of which is toys. And so this is a very,

very serious issue.

In reading the material, it appears that 86 percent of all toys

sold in the United States are manufactured in China. Major toy

manufacturers rely on their relationships with contractors in countries abroad to ensure the product being manufactured meets U.S.

standards. Sometimes the highest quality components do not go

into these products manufactured overseas and the safety of children is compromised. And it appears that some of our manufacturers are knowingly engaging in this conduct and if that happens to

be true, and these hearings today will help us in that quest for

knowledge, then they should be held accountable.

In an effort to combat the potential safety issues that arise from

contractors with little oversight, the Toy Industry Association has

proposed new testing requirements which require all toys manufactured for sale in the United States to be tested by our standards

and also standardizes procedures to be used industry-wide to verify

product compliance with U.S. safety standards.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very good step. It is a very good first

step in ensuring that products used by our children are safe. Our
22

constituents demand that we do our part to oversee these industries with the help of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

The CPSC, who is charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risk of serious injury or death for more than 15,000 types

of consumer products under their jurisdiction, is experiencing

strained resources, that is obvious. They are experiencing very significant backlogs. And I support an increase in funding for this

agency, but also believe that the agency needs a strategic plan in

place to ensure consumers continue to be protected.

I am particularly looking forward to the testimony of Commissioner Moore, who shares my deep concern for the need to reinvigorate and better fund the Consumer Product Safety Commission. On

that note, Mr. Chairman, I would like to welcome the witnesses

today and commend them on their dedication to this issue and

their work for the American people. I look forward to their testimony and working with my colleagues and stakeholders on this

and other product safety issues. This is an important dialog that

must continue. Our children are our future and we must protect

them.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my 1 minute and 15 seconds.

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and now recognizes

the gentleman from New York, Mr. Towns, for an opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW

YORK

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me begin

by thanking you, Chairman Rush, and Ranking Member Stearns

for holding this hearing on protecting our children. I have a statement; I would like to submit it for the record, but I want to make

just a few comments. First of all, the blame game is not going to

be the solution. I think we should have an open and honest discussion, recognizing the fact that if it requires additional resources,

that we put the resources there. We need to make certain that we

have a solution. I have a lot of concerns. First of all, even in the

recalls, nobody seems to know whether they are successful, unsuccessful or anything. They just announce recall and then after they

announce recall, they go about another recall and then another recall. But nobody seems to know, in terms of whether the recall was

successful, how many happened to have been returned. Nobody

seems to know.

I think, in this day and age, in 2007, and I think that we should

be in a position to assess and to determine, in terms of what is

really going on. So I am hoping that in this discussion today, that

we will look at every aspect and be open about it and talk about

what we can do to make certain that we move in a different direction. We are talking about our children, we are talking about the

safety of our children and we are talking about parents who work

real hard to try and purchase these toys for their children and all

of a sudden they find out that the toy is creating a problem. And

I think that we owe them more than that.
23

So I am hoping that this committee will come to grips with the

fact that if more resources are needed, let us make certain that

they have the resources. And I am hoping the agencies will be honest and tell us if they need. Sometimes agencies will come here and

knowing that they cannot do the job because they do not have resources and will sit at the table and never make the request. You

know why? And I think that the time has come that we must get

over that, get past that, because this is a very serious situation. We

are talking about life and death. That is what we are talking about

today.

So I am hoping that you understand and that we can move forward with that in mind. And on that note, Mr. Chairman, I would

like to submit my entire statement that I have for the record. And

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks the gentleman for his comments

and now recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Ross, for

purposes of opening statements.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE ROSS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

Mr. ROSS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this expansive

hearing on the recent recalls of products containing lead. These recent recalls of contaminated toys and other items highlight the fact

that consumer safety is at risk in America. It is especially troubling

that these items are used by the youngest and obviously, most vulnerable members of society. I am troubled that we have reached

the level of congressional hearings to determine why, in this day

and age, in this 21st century, our children’s health has been put

at unnecessary risk by contaminated toys, of all things.

We have a responsibility, a duty, to provide our children with the

best start in life. Parents deserve answers. We know that exposure

of lead content can prove to be dangerous, if not deadly, to individuals, especially children. And it is my hope that over the duration

of this hearing we gain a better understanding of existing Federal

and State limits on lead in consumer products. We must further explore the role of the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s activities to establish lead limits for children’s products.

And we need other hearings, Mr. Chairman. Today it is the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which we have basically put

this agency in place, as a Congress, to protect consumers. In my

opinion, this commission has failed our children and we need to determine if a legislative remedy is needed. But in fairness to them,

it is not just this one agency, but we need to look at all the agencies that protect us, as consumers. We raise a lot of catfish in Arkansas; it is a big part of our economy. And I recently learned that

for all the fruits, vegetables and seafood coming into America, to

all the ports in America from all over the world, there is something

like 70 FDA inspectors. Not per shift, not per port, 70 for all the

ports in America, for all the fish, seafood, fruits and vegetables

coming in. So it is another example of how, from a consumer advocacy standpoint, we are failing consumers.

I think it is also important that we review how retailers have responded to the current toy crisis and how all industry, manufacturers and retailers, can work best with the Government to ensure
24

that we have the most robust safety systems in place in the United

States. As both a parent and an elected official representing many

parents in Arkansas, I remain committed to taking steps to prevent

further unnecessary exposure of dangerous products to our children. Hopefully, the testimony and discussions today and tomorrow

will provide us greater insight towards possible legislative remedies.

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my

time.

Mr. RUSH. I want to thank the gentleman. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Matheson.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JIM MATHESON, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

Mr. MATHESON. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. I know

a lot of opening statements have covered the relevant points to be

made in opening statements here today, but I guess I would just

point out that globalization creates both opportunities and challenges and today we are talking about addressing one of the challenges of globalization, and that is you have a much wider supply

chain and much more complex set of distribution channels to come

up with how products are in this country now.

As I would echo comments on this panel, as a parent, I have

great concern about making sure, when I buy a product in the

store, that it is safe and I think a lot of people in this country are

looking to Congress and to the industry to work to come up with

the solution that ensures the integrity of when a consumer in this

country buys a product, they can feel like it is safe. And that is the

objective we all ought to keep in mind as we have these hearings

today. Mr. Chairman, I really applaud you for scheduling 2 days

of hearings on this. I know we will have additional work on this

as we go forward and I look forward to working with you to achieve

that goal. Thanks so much. I yield back.

Mr. RUSH. I want to thank the gentleman. Now, the Chair asks

for unanimous consent that two members of the full committee, but

not members of the subcommittee, be recognized for opening statements and to participate in this hearing. So the Chair asks for

unanimous consent. Is there any objection to the Chair’s request?

Hearing none, the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New

Jersey, Mr. Ferguson, for the purposes of opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE FERGUSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. FERGUSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad to be able

to return to the subcommittee for a brief time. I want to thank you

and Ranking Member Stearns for holding this hearing to draw attention to this issue that affects every parent and every child

across our country. I want to thank our witnesses for coming today,

I look forward to their testimony.

In recent weeks and months we have been bombarded with reports of toy recalls from well known toy manufacturers from across

the country. In recent months, we all know that Mattel has recalled millions of toys representing popular and beloved children’s
25

characters like Dora the Explorer and Barbie and Elmo and Thomas the Tank Engine, toys just like this one. We have all seen these.

My wife and I have four young kids in our house. We went through

of all of our toy boxes and found some toys. My wife reminded me,

just yesterday, that some of the toys in our very house, we had to

go through and clear them out and throw them in the trash.

Millions of parents across the country are doing the very same

thing that my wife and I are doing in our house and that many

of our constituents in New Jersey are doing in their very homes,

as well. In the past 6 months, nearly 21 million Chinese-made toys

have been recalled. Eighty-six percent of all toy and game imports

come from China. As I say, I am sure every parent in the country

had the same reaction that my wife and I did when we began reading these news reports. We have toys like these, our kids have put

toys like these in their mouths all the time. No parent in our country should ever have to worry about whether their children’s toys

are toxic or could make them sick.

If toy companies choose to manufacture their products in China,

they need to take every precaution that those toys meet U.S. safety

standards. If they don’t, I believe Congress must give Federal regulators the authority to ensure that our kids’ toys won’t actually

harm them. America’s moms and dads shouldn’t be worried that

the health of their children could be put at risk when they play

with something so simple as the Thomas the Tank Engine or Dora

the Explorer backpacks. They expect that established safeguards

are in place to protect their kids.

It is our responsibility, as lawmakers and parents and educator

and law enforcement, to do everything possible to protect our children at all costs. We will not settle for un-enforced standards or lax

inspections when our children’s safety is at stake. And that is why

I, along with my friend from New York, Mr. Towns, have introduced H.R. 3477, the Safe Toys for Kids Act. This bipartisan legislation would ban uncertified imports from entering the United

States by requiring that all imported children’s products be tested

and certified by an independent group.

This bill is the House companion to legislation that Senators

Durbin and Nelson have introduced in the Senate. In light of these

national recalls, I am pleased to see that companies like Toys R Us

and Disney have stepped up to announce that they intend to recheck and increase checks on products on store shelves. Currently,

the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission allows manufacturers to inspect their own children’s products. However, this is clearly, as we have learned, is not enough. Our bill would require an

independent group to test both imported and domestic toys geared

toward children 5 years and younger.

This legislation will go far in ensuring that parents can buy toys

for their children with the peace of mind that what they are bringing into their home is only of the highest quality. Now, we know

that our parents and our children deserve nothing less than that.

While this is not a cure-all, I believe it is a good framework to

begin a discussion on what we can do to prevent these dangerous

and sometimes even deadly toys from falling into the hands of our

Nation’s children.
26

I look forward to hearing our witnesses’ testimony. I am anxious

to hear their ideas on how we can work together to solve this problem. I want to thank the committee and the chairman and the

ranking member once again for holding these hearings and again,

thank you for allowing me to participate. I yield back.

Mr. RUSH. As stated before, the Chair extends the unanimous

consent request to the gentlelady from California, Ms. Harman,

who is recognized for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANE HARMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Ms. HARMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to Mr.

Stearns for extending me this privilege. I am a member of the full

committee and I have watched attention paid to this issue with

great interest. There were Senate hearings last week and the hearings that you are planning for today and tomorrow are obviously

critical. I came down here for several reasons. Like many on this

committee, I am a mother, in my case, of four children. I am a

grandmother of one with two more on the way. My granddaughter,

Lucy, is a fanatic for Elmo, her favorite toy, who is all over her

room and in my own office upstairs, I have a collection of Barbie

dolls, one of them is Barbie for President. Why not?

My other reason for being here, however, is that in my district

is El Segundo, CA, the home of Mattel, and we will hear from Bob

Eckert on the second panel. He is, in addition to the chairman and

CEO of the largest toy manufacturer in the United States, he is

also the employer of 2,000 or so of my constituents and it is of

great interest to me that they continue to be productively employed

in a company that continues to be the largest manufacturer of toys

in the United States.

Kids die from lead. Everyone has made this point. That is our

first obligation. But employees lose jobs if manufacturers don’t behave responsibly and I believe that Mattel is complying with the

requests of this committee and going to make even more efforts to

behave responsibly and this mother is on the case to assure you

that that happens.

Let me just make a couple of additional comments. In my personal conversation with Bob Eckert last week, I was impressed by

the steps he wants to take. I did listen to his Senate testimony

where he said he took personal responsibility on behalf of his company for the actions it had taken and the actions that it will take.

I applaud that. I think those steps that he wants to take are useful. I also suggested that he consider taking over ownership of all

of Mattel’s plants in China; Mattel owns 50 percent of those plants,

but taking over ownership of all of them so that he can more effectively monitor the paint used and other safety issues, but also consider moving some of his manufacturing back to the United States.

It occurs to me that that could be a win-win since, as we all

know, the United States and the Consumer Product Safety Commission has banned lead paint on toys and children’s furniture

since 1978 and it is obviously easier to make sure those standards

are observed here. My bottom line is that this hearing matters. Additional Federal regulation matters. But the taking of responsibility by those who run America’s big corporations is also central to
27

solving this problem and I am watching closely, as we all are, to

make certain that Mattel, in particular, takes personal responsibility and does the most it can do to solve the problem that will protect the professional livelihoods of its workers and it will certainly

guarantee that Lucy Peck, my granddaughter, can buy more Elmo

dolls and enjoy the toys that she obviously loves.

And it will finally protect this enormous legacy of Barbie, which

I think has in, a kind of interesting way, been a symbol, both for

some of the excesses of America, but also some of the goals of

American girls and women, and I am pleased that we are having

this hearing and look forward to participating.

Mr. RUSH. I want to thank the gentlelady. There is a vote that

has been called on the floor. We have one 15-minute vote and two

5-minute votes. It is the intent of the Chair to ask our two witnesses of panel I to come and give us an opening statement and

that after they conclude their opening statement of 5 minutes

apiece, we will recess to go to vote and then we will come back for

questioning.

So now the Chair invites the two witnesses, the one witness, the

Honorable Nancy A. Nord, the Acting Chairman of the Consumer

Product Safety Commission; the other witness on panel I is the

Honorable Thomas H. Moore, the Commissioner of the Consumer

Product Safety Commission.

We certainly thank you for appearing before this subcommittee,

taking the time out from your busy schedule to engage in this deliberation. Please keep your opening statements to 5 minutes because we do have to get over for this vote. The Chair now recognizes the Acting Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, Ms. Nord, for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF NANCY A. NORD, ACTING CHAIRMAN,

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Ms. NORD. Chairman Rush, Congressman Stearns, thank you for

the opportunity to again come before the subcommittee, this time

to discuss the important issue of lead exposure to children. Lead

poisoning in children can cause learning disabilities and behavioral

problems and because it often occurs with no obvious symptoms, it

frequently goes unrecognized. In high enough concentrations, lead

can also be fatal. While it is critical to understand the dangers of

lead, it is also important to recognize that the United States has

made tremendous progress in reducing the blood lead levels of children.

The percent of children aged 1 to 5 having excessive blood lead

levels declined from an astonishing 78 percent in the mid–1970s to

just under 1.6 percent in 2002. This achievement was due primarily to the phasing out of leaded gasoline and the ban on leadbased house paint in the 1970s. Still, an estimated 300,000 children continue to have excessive blood lead levels and many of them

are low-income and minority children. In fact, the overwhelming

source of lead exposure to children today is lead house paint and

lead contaminated dust found in old, deteriorating buildings.

As outlined in my written statement, the CPSC has a long and

active history in eliminating lead exposure from consumer products. But it is important to recognize that the CPSC must have a
28

legal basis for taking action to remove any product from the marketplace. Our governing statutes set out certain criteria that we

must, by law, follow. With respect to the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, which governs most children’s products. The law requires a finding that the lead in the product is accessible to the

child before we can legally act. That is not merely that the lead is

present, but there is actual exposure to the lead in the product.

An example of where we have found the needed exposure to justify regulatory action is children’s metal jewelry. This is because

when it is ingested, the lead in the jewelry can leech into the

child’s system. In 2005 the CPSC issued an enforcement policy

stating that we would recall any children’s jewelry containing more

than trace amounts of lead and setting out how we would test for

that lead. This was followed last year by the initiating of a rulemaking to permanently effect a ban. In the meantime, we have initiated an aggressive market surveillance testing and recall program for children’s jewelry containing lead that since 2004 has resulted in over 170 million units being removed from the marketplace, more than any other product category in the history of the

agency.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to briefly address the topic that

has thrust our small agency into the spotlight and that is this summer’s recalls due to lead-based paint. Here we are not so much concerned about exposure to the lead, because there is a statutory ban

on lead-based paint, so it is a per se violation, regardless of exposure. What happened, why the sudden rash of recalls for violation

of this ban. Well, the first point is that this year’s recalls are not

unique. Every year there are at least a few lead-based paint recalls.

This June, however, we had an unusually large recall of the popular Thomas the Tank Engine toys manufactured in China. This

came on the heels of some very high profile recalls of Chinese-made

pet food, toothpaste and other food and drug products. But even before the media attention began, due to the size and the scope of the

Thomas recall, we immediately began a sampling program to test

for lead paint on other toys. This, coupled with the publicity of the

toy train recall, caused Mattel and other companies to closely examine their own toy inventories. The result were the additional recalls that we announced over the last 2 months.

While it may appear that we are undergoing an epidemic of lead

paint on toys, these recalls have served their intended purpose. Not

only are they getting violated products off the shelves and out of

consumers’ hands, but they have caused the entire toy industry to

change practices to prevent such violations from occurring in the

future.

But finally, Mr. Chairman, as members of the subcommittee

have pointed out, it is really critical to prevent unsafe products

from reaching consumers in the first place and our China program

is an important step. And last week we signed an agreement with

the Chinese Government which pledged, for the very first time, to

undertake a series of concrete steps to reduce the export of unsafe

consumer products to the United States. While I am cautiously,

and I underscore the word cautiously, optimistic that this agree-
29

ment will help reduce violations of our standards, I also recognize

that follow-up is critical.

I note that the agreement is not a one-way street. The CPSC has

also agreed to undertake a number of educational, training and

communication activities to make sure that the Chinese Government and exporters fully understand and adhere to U.S. safety requirements. These activities, if they serve their intended purposes,

I think the effect will be much more significant and much more

long-lasting than simply putting a few more inspectors at the U.S.

ports.

Mr. Chairman, far from shrinking from the recent publicity that

the CPSC has faced, sir, I welcome it. Our small agency, I think,

has been ignored by the Hill and by the public for way too long.

I have sent to you some proposals and I would again ask that you

seriously the legislative proposals I have made because I think they

would significantly strengthen our responsibilities. Sir, everyone at

the CPSC, myself, we are all parents and we take our responsibilities very seriously. I applaud you on this hearing. I look forward

to helping you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Nord follows:]

STATEMENT OF NANCY A. NORD

Mr. Chairman:

Thank you for inviting me to testify today on the critical issue of protecting the

American public from unsafe consumer products, including imported children’s products that contain lead. Eliminating children’s exposure to lead in consumer products

has consistently been among the highest priorities of the U.S. Consumer Product

Safety Commission (CPSC) and has been part of our core mission since the inception

of the agency in 1973.

The history of the CPSC’S actions to abate lead hazards is well-known and wellrespected. When products that expose children to lead are discovered in U.S. distribution channels in violation of our laws, the CPSC acts decisively. We have a very

active lead program, both to enforce the statutory ban on lead paint for home use

and to analyze and act upon accessible lead in a variety of other products.

While the issue of lead exposure to children unquestionably continues to be a serious one, the United States has made dramatic progress on this front. A Federal

study of the issue estimated that the percentage of children aged 1 to 5 years old

with blood lead levels in excess of 10 micrograms per deciliter had declined from

77.8 percent for the 4-year period starting in 1976 to 1.6 percent for the period 1999

to 2002.

While the phase-out of leaded gasoline and the CPSC ban on lead paint are key

factors behind this progress, deteriorating lead paint in older dwellings remains the

primary source of lead intake for children. The CPSC has been and continues to be

ever vigilant and assertive in this ongoing war against children’s exposure to lead

in products under our jurisdiction.

Examples of the actions that the CPSC has taken over the last decade include:

1996—CPSC staff found that certain vinyl mini-blinds deteriorated when exposed

to heat and sunlight, creating lead dust that could be ingested. At the Commission’s

insistence, the industry ceased manufacture of vinyl mini-blinds that posed the risk.

1998—The Commission issued a policy statement urging manufacturers to eliminate lead in all children’s products and published this guidance in the Code of Federal Regulations.

2000—CPSC staff discovered lead in certain candy wrappers on candy imported

from Mexico, and at CPSC’S insistence, the importation of such candy was terminated.

2003—The Commission promulgated a regulation banning candles having

candlewicks containing more than 0.06 percent lead.

2004—CPSC’S lead hazard reduction efforts were further expanded with an initiative focused on children’s metal jewelry after staff tested samples and found a significant number contained high levels of accessible lead. That initiative resulted in

the recalls of more than 150 million pieces of inexpensive children’s metal jewelry.
30

2005—The CPSC issued a new enforcement policy and testing protocol specifying

how to test for accessible lead in children’s metal jewelry and recommending screening under CPSC test procedures. Since that time, importers and retailers have recalled millions of additional potentially unsafe children’s metal jewelry products.

2006—The Commission commenced a rulemaking that may result in a regulation

effectively banning lead in children’s metal jewelry.

2007—The CPSC is currently engaged with ASTM, a standards development organization, to develop a new product safety standard to eliminate or significantly reduce children’s exposure to lead in children’s vinyl products.

The Commission acts on a product hazard, whether through recalls or regulation,

under the legal authority that Congress has provided in our governing statutes. The

Commission banned lead paint on toys and children’s furniture in 1978. The agency

has vigorously enforced that ban ever since, including through the highly publicized

toy recalls this summer.

This ban on lead paint contrasts with our statutory authority for dealing with

lead and other heavy metals that might be found in children’s products. The popular

notion that CPSC has the authority to issue a rule that bans any lead in all ‘‘children’s products’’ is erroneous; the law requires that the agency consider exposure

and risk by the product.

The Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA) does not authorize CPSC to regulate lead in a product unless it may cause ‘‘substantial personal injury’’ or ‘‘substantial illness’’ under ‘‘reasonably foreseeable’’ conditions of use. That statute itself

bans ‘‘any toy or other article intended for use by children, which is a hazardous

substance, or which bears or contains a hazardous substance in such manner as to

be susceptible of access by a child to whom such toy or other article is entrusted.’’

I underscore this distinction because the significant recalls that the CPSC has announced this summer with regard to lead involve two distinct classes of children’s

products, that is, those that bear banned lead paint, such as Thomas the Tank Engine, and those that have accessible lead content, such as children’s metal jewelry.

As noted above, lead paint in children’s products has been banned since 1978, and

the Commission has initiated a rulemaking to ban on lead in children’s metal jewelry.

The Congress was farsighted when it crafted the CPSC’S governing statute. When

the law was written in 1973 (and I would note Chairman Dingell’s key role in authoring and enacting this important legislation), Congress recognized that this new

agency could not impose U.S. law on foreign manufacturers, so our statutes hold everyone in the stream of commerce in the U.S. responsible and potentially liable. In

brief, the American importer, as well as the domestic distributor and retailer, is

held responsible for complying with U.S. rules.

However, what the Congress could not foresee 34 years ago was the reliance on

imports that we are now facing. That is one reason that I believe it is in the best

interests of consumer product safety to modernize CPSC’S statutes and to strengthen the agency’s hand in protecting the American public.

As you know, the CPSC was last reauthorized by Congress in 1990 for a period

of two years. The marketplace has changed dramatically in the seventeen years that

have passed since Congress last revised our statutes. Not only are there new technologies that have emerged, and continue to emerge, in creating and manufacturing

products, but also technology has significantly changed the way that consumers

shop and purchase goods and the way that the public receives information. Most of

America’s consumer products, not just toys, now come from overseas manufacturers.

Much has changed in the marketplace, in technology and in communications since

1990.

The result is that the inspection and enforcement tools at the agency’s disposal

with respect to imported products are not as strong as they need to be. This is one

of the key reasons that several months ago I sent to Congress legislative proposals

aimed at improving the safety of both imports and domestically produced products

through a variety of means. Many of these proposals are reflected in various bills

that have been introduced in both the House and the Senate.

In addition to the dramatic shift from domestically produced consumer goods to

imports, other challenges require the modernization of the CPSC’S statutory authorities. For example, I have proposed that in instances of direct-to-consumer sales

from overseas manufacturers (including those via the Internet), the foreign manufacturer or exporter be the U.S. importer of record.

My legislative proposals are the first part of a multi-pronged approach that the

agency is pursuing to address the issue of Chinese imports. In addition to modernization of our governing statutes, the CPSC’S initiative includes dialogue and initiatives with the Chinese government; working with the private sector including
31

Chinese manufacturers directly; and increased surveillance and enforcement activities at the borders and within the marketplace.

Historically, CPSC has not actively engaged in international activities. However,

in 2004, recognizing the continuous and significant increase in the number of imported consumer products entering the American marketplace from China, my predecessor became the first Chairman of the CPSC to travel to that country. That first

step was the genesis for a formal relationship between the CPSC and the General

Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ), our

counterpart agency in China, and it resulted in the signing of a Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) between our two nations later that year. Since becoming Acting Chairman last year, I have viewed the task of building upon that foundation

as one of my highest priorities.

In 2005, at the first U.S.-Sino Product Safety Summit, the CPSC signed an Action

Plan on Consumer Product Safety with AQSIQ. The Action Plan created Working

Groups to address issues in four priority areas’ fireworks, lighters, electrical products and toys.

The tasks of the Working Groups are to develop strategies to address safety problems; to be able to respond quickly to urgent product safety issues; to exchange information on changes to safety standards; and to exchange laboratory and inspection

personnel in each other’s respective facilities.

At the beginning of this year, we identified and communicated to our Chinese

counterparts specific problems and proposed actions to address these problems with

respect to each of the four product categories covered by the Working Groups. One

of the problems we flagged was the use of lead paint on toys in contravention of

our ban. In May 2007, I traveled to China with a delegation of top CPSC officials

for in-depth discussions of the issues identified by this process.

This hard work culminated last week at the U.S.-Sino Product Safety Summit

held here in Washington between the CPSC and our Chinese counterpart agency,

AQSIQ. I am pleased to report that we reached an important agreement with

AQSIQ, under which China will immediately implement a plan to eliminate the use

of lead paint on Chinese manufactured toys exported to the United States. They are

going to make sure there is no lead in the paint through inspections of U.S. destined

toys and a certification system for paint suppliers.

Since China has a weaker standard for lead paint than the United States, it is

really quite extraordinary that the Chinese agreed to enforce the stricter American

standard.

China also agreed to broad cooperation with the CPSC in the four major product

areas that I mentioned above. In each of the four work plans, China has agreed to

cooperate with the CPSC to ensure that its producers understand and comply with

U.S. safety standards for all of their exports to the United States. The work plans

provide a roadmap to improve the safety of these products through five main avenues:

First, in cooperation with the CPSC, AQSIQ has agreed to increase its inspections

of products destined for the U.S. and to undertake other activities to ensure that

exports meet all applicable safety standards. They have even pledged to encourage

Chinese manufacturers to meet UL ‘‘voluntary’’ standards for electrical products.

Second, AQSIQ, again in full cooperation and participation with the CPSC, will

expand the knowledge and understanding of U.S. product safety standards among

Chinese manufacturers and exporters.

Third, the CPSC and AQSIQ have agreed to various technical personnel exchanges and training activities to ensure full and mutual understanding of our respective laws and systems, including product testing methodologies.

Fourth, we have respectively agreed to establish regular and systematic exchanges of information about emerging product safety issues, including monthly discussions of recall activities and trends.

Fifth, AQSIQ has agreed to specific steps to assist the CPSC in tracing products

with identified safety problems to those Chinese firms involved in their manufacture, distribution and export. This will enable both of our agencies to better and

more quickly address safety issues as they arise.

This is significant achievement, and while it is in China’s economic interest to enforce U.S. safety standards, we will nonetheless be following up to assure that the

Chinese government fully implements this commitment. The CPSC will need to stay

engaged with the Chinese in order to get the follow through that we are looking

for. I am committed to that.

The third prong of our plan to address Chinese imports is to work with the private sector, both here in the U.S. as well as in China, to educate the Chinese manufacturers and exporters not only of the content of U.S. product safety standards, but
32

also the importance of adhering to those standards, including adhering to consensus

or what we commonly call ‘‘voluntary’’ standards.

As part of our plan to address this problem, in 2005 the CPSC published the

Handbook for Manufacturing Safer Consumer Products underscoring our message

that safety must be designed and built into consumer products in conformance with

safety systems planned, established and implemented at the direction of executive

management. The Handbook presents a comprehensive systematic approach to manufacturing safe products and has been published in Chinese and distributed

throughout China.

In 2006 CPSC facilitated the translation of the summary provisions of nearly 300

U.S. mandatory and voluntary consumer product safety standards into Chinese to

assist Chinese manufacturers in understanding what U.S. product safety standards

require when manufacturing various products. CPSC determined which standards

would be translated primarily by analyzing what imported Chinese products were

recalled in the largest numbers and selecting the corresponding U.S. mandatory or

voluntary standards for translation. The translation of these provisions of U.S. product safety standards facilitates Chinese manufacturers’ understanding of what is required of them when they manufacture products for the U.S. market.

The CPSC has also conducted industry-specific safety seminars and retail and

vendor training seminars in China. Staff has conducted a number of other safety

training activities in China dealing with toy safety, electrical product safety, fireworks safety and a supplier safety seminar for retailers.

Finally, we are undertaking conversations with specific industry groups to encourage testing and certification programs. For example, ANSI and other standards, industry and retail groups are considering the development of testing and certification

programs. The toy industry has already announced plans to move forward with such

a program.

The fourth prong of our plan of action for Chinese imports is increased surveillance and enforcement activities. Although the Commission was without a quorum

for over six months, the agency has been active in addressing the challenge of imported products, not only directly with the Chinese government, but also here in the

United States. In Fiscal Year 2006, the CPSC announced an all-time record number

of recalls of defective products. These recalls represented a wide range of consumer

products and product hazards. Over two-thirds of these recalls were of imported

products, primarily from China.

CPSC’S Compliance staff working in conjunction with U.S. Customs and Border

Protection (CBP) undertakes both routine and targeted surveillance and sampling

of products at U.S. ports of entry. CPSC recently began participating in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE). ACE is the new U.S. CBP processing system that strengthens our ability to identify likely shipments of non-compliant products before they arrive at U.S. ports. Our early experience with using the ACE system indicates that it will provide us with better data at an earlier point in the process so that our port inspection activities can be precisely targeted and thus more

effective.

CPSC obviously attempts to keep dangerous products from entering into the country in the first instance. However, in the event a defective product does enter the

stream of commerce, CPSC has been taking stronger measures to effectively remove

such products from the marketplace. For example, after a product has been recalled,

CPSC has stepped up the number of recall verification inspections of the recalling

firms to ensure the product is being removed from the marketplace. CPSC has also

adopted a new practice of notifying major retailers of all CPSC recalls, as well as

routinely conducting internet searches for sales of recalled products.

In contrast to the Food and Drug Administration or the Department of Agriculture, the CPSC is a small agency without the resources or authority to perform

overseas pre-inspections or large-scale port screening for all of the items under our

jurisdiction. In fact, CPSC has no direct authority to handle imported products at

the ports, much less to detain or seize them. Our statutes recognize that Customs

and Border Protection has the direct authority to deal with imported products at

the ports of entry.

We are committed to our mission, and within the constraints of our authorities

and resources, the staff at the CPSC enforces the law aggressively. In view of the

recalls that the CPSC has announced this year, parents and caregivers are understandably concerned. The Commission and the CPSC staff respect this concern, and

whether the product is manufactured overseas or here in the United States, our goal

is to keep unsafe products out of the stream of commerce and out of America’s

homes, yards and recreation areas.
33

Thank you for this opportunity to testify this morning and I look forward to answering your questions.

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks the acting chairperson. Now, the

Chair recognizes the Honorable Thomas H. Moore, a commissioner

of the Consumer Product Safety Commission for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS H. MOORE, COMMISSIONER,

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Mr. MOORE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and ranking member and members of the subcommittee, thank you for providing me with this opportunity to present testimony at this hearing on the important issues surrounding protecting children from

lead-tainted imports. Recalls of children’s products containing lead

or lead paint have received an enormous amount of attention. It is

very encouraging for me to see that our lawmakers are dedicating

themselves to working with the commission to define real solutions

to resource and authority issues that may be at the root of these

kinds of and other product safety problems finding their way into

the stream of commerce in our country.

The key to an effective regulatory and enforcement body is sufficient resources to carry out its responsibilities and mission. The

CPSC is a staff-intensive organization. I have always expressed

that at the heart of CPSC’s operation is its staff, without question,

our greatest and most important asset. Over the last few years, because we have achieved our budget required staff reductions

through non-targeted means, such as attrition, early outs and buyouts, we have lost some very key staffers. Over time, we hope to

be able to train replacements, but the experience that we have lost

will take years to recover. Moreover, the lack of sufficient resources

has severely limited our ability to do succession training, planning

and severely limited our ability to have depth of personnel behind

our key positions.

This summer has most definitely been the summer of the recalled toys made in China. There have been several highly publicized recalls of children’s products made in China for importation

and sale by well-established and long trusted domestic toy manufacturers. The safety issues associated with the increase in imports

have created new challenges for our commission. The commission

is currently looking at ways to address the developing issues surrounding imported consumer product safety. We are involved in

some activities, such as dialog and initiatives with foreign governments and the private sector, including domestic and foreign manufacturers.

For example, last week the commission signed a joint statement

in which our product safety counterparts in the Chinese Government proposed to stop the use of lead paint in the manufacture of

toys they export to the United States. However, we must be cautious in our dependence on foreign governments to make sure that

products exported from their countries comply with our safety

standards. Other countries expect, as we do, that the receiving

country’s regulators of the marketplace will find and address problems with products within their own borders.
34

Our own statute makes it clear, as does legislative history, that

it is not the commission’s concern whether a product made in the

U.S. for export meets the mandatory or voluntary product safety

standards of other countries. It may be a bit unreasonable for us

to realistically expect more from other countries than that which

we expect of ourselves. We, at the commission, are also working

with interested Members in both the House and the Senate to modernize our governing statutes to give us more leverage through the

regulatory process and our enforcement activities.

This subcommittee, in particular, has been tremendously engaged in our issues from the very beginning of this Congress and

must be given credit for providing the impetus for recommendations for legislative action submitted by members of the commission to the House, the Senate and the administration. Some of the

highly publicized recalls this summer have involved children’s

products that contain lead or contain paint that has lead in it. Toys

or other articles intended for use by children that bear lead containing paint are banned, hazardous products.

It is a prohibited act to introduce or deliver this introduction into

interstate commerce of banned, hazardous substances. Any person

who violates this law could be subject to both criminal and civil

sanction. As far as children’s products, such as jewelry or vinyl babies bibs containing accessible lead, I wish that the commission

had the authority to find it unacceptable for any amount of lead

or any other toxic substance to be in a children’s product. However,

our statute requires us to assess the accessibility of the lead and

this is the key measure under the Federal Hazardous Substances

Act, the FHSA.

We know that exposure to lead can elevate blood lead levels and

that such exposure could bring about developmental——

Mr. RUSH. Commissioner, we do have a vote and the time is up,

and we have got a little over a hundred Members who haven’t

voted and that is what I am looking at, so if you could bring your

comments to a close so we can run over to vote, I certainly would

appreciate it and I apologize for the inconvenience.

Mr. MOORE. That is all right. I am hopeful that we see significant results from all of our efforts and I thank you very much for

this opportunity.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moore follows:]

STATEMENT OF THOMAS H. MOORE

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you

for providing me with this opportunity to present testimony at your hearing today

on the important issues surrounding ‘‘Protecting Children from Lead-Tainted Imports.’’ Recalls of children’s products containing lead or lead paint have received an

enormous amount of attention during recent times. It is very encouraging for me

to see that our lawmakers are dedicating themselves to working with the Commission to define real solutions to resource and authority issues that may be at the root

of these kinds of, and other, product safety problems finding their way into the

stream of commerce in this country.

As I have indicated to this House subcommittee and to the Senate, I am gratified

by the very clear signals given by both the House and the Senate Authorizers and

Appropriators that they understand the very difficult position that the Consumer

Product Safety Commission (CPSC) finds itself in. For the first time since I came

to the Commission, over twelve years ago, I have the sense that there is a realization of the need for both a substantial and sustained increase in our funding level
35

as well as the need for real and important changes to our statutes which could give

us new authorities and clearer direction in achieving our mission.

In March of this year, in a written statement to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, I spoke about the problems associated with any

perception of our modern, sophisticated marketplace of today effectively regulating

itself for product safety. ‘‘Simply stated, competition and voluntary actions of today’s

businessmen do not always suffice to safeguard the public interest. Competition

does not and will not inevitably take the form of a rivalry to produce the safest

product. The role of the CPSC in today’s consumer product marketplace remains

compelling, substantial and relevant.’’

As if on cue, we now sit here less than 6 months later facing the growing alarm

about possibly unsafe consumer products, some produced in violation of current,

longstanding regulations, cheaply manufactured in foreign facilities and now flooding our marketplace and providing a risk of harm to those consumers who purchase

them. I think it is extremely important that you have engaged the importer community in the discussion of this problem. I will be very interested in their response

as I believe that they are a key link in protecting consumers.

Everyone wants to know who is to blame and what steps we can now take to address this problem. The short and easy answer to the first question is that we are

all to blame - the Administration, the Congress, the Regulators, the manufacturers,

importers and retailers, and anyone else who may have been active or inactive participants in enabling the policy decisions and priorities that have led us to this

point. And certainly, those who stood by and quietly acquiesced while the Commission was being reduced to a weakened regulator, largely relying on the regulated

to regulate themselves, must examine and correct the role that they played in putting the Commission in its current state. The only blameless ones are the

unsuspecting consumers who unwittingly place their confidence in a system designed to protect them from the unreasonable risk of harm from the products that

they find in their marketplace.

The second question does not have as short or easy an answer.

RESOURCES, RESOURCES, RESOURCES

The key to an effective regulatory and enforcement body is sufficient resources to

carry out its responsibilities and mission. The CPSC is a staff intensive organization. I have always expressed that at the heart of CPSC’s operation is its staff, without question, our greatest and most important asset.

Over the last few years, because we have achieved our budget required staff reductions through non-targeted means such as attrition, early-outs and buy-outs, we

have lost some very key staffers. We did not want to have to do a reduction-in-force

(RIF) to accomplish the staff reductions and, having a number of older employees,

we felt it was likely we would have enough employees willing to take advantage of

incentives to be able to avoid a RIF, which was in fact the case.

Over time we hope to be able to train replacements, but the experience that we

have lost will take years to recover. Moreover, the lack of sufficient resources has

severely limited our ability to do succession planning and severely limited our ability to have depth of personnel behind our key positions. In addition, dwindling resources and staff reductions have had some negative impact on our agency’s ability

to attract high level qualified candidates for our critical vacancies as well as our

ability to retain some of our own top level employees.

The result is that the Commission is at a crossroads. Any additional reductions

in staff or resources will ultimately place the Commission in a position where it will

no longer have any effective force in consumer protection. The first step that must

be taken is to reject the administration’s staffing and budget proposal for fiscal year

2008 which requires an additional reduction of 19 FTEs. Fortunately, Congress,

both the House and the Senate, have done just that. This Congress has sent clear

signals that it understands that the Commission needs more funding to increase its

staff and to be able to do work on rulemakings and other projects that have been

shelved or slowed down because of lack of resources. It is crucial that we have a

period of stability, to move away from what has been a pattern of trying to see how

we can manage with less and to begin a process of determining what more we need

to have in order to ensure that we do our job more effectively.

However, I must point out that it would not serve the Commission or the public

well to just indiscriminately throw resources at the Commission in response to the

public alarm surrounding some highly publicized recalls. It has taken years for the

Commission to get to its present position and it will take years to correct. I support

an incremental approach to increasing our budget and staff. Since we require a

yearly increase of about three to four percent to keep current with increases in sala-
36

ries, rents and other operating costs, yearly increases in the range of 10 to 15 percent would, in my mind, provide the Commission with a good growth pattern. This

growth pattern would also allow the Commission to do a yearly assessment of where

the areas of needs most exist at the Commission therefore allowing the Commission

to address its needs in the light of the current consumer product safety problems.

IMPORT PRODUCT SAFETY

Again, in March of this year, I informed the Senate Committee on Commerce,

Science and Transportation about my concerns with the growing numbers of possibly harmful imported consumer products coming into our country. ‘‘In the future,

the problems associated with increasing numbers of possibly dangerous imported

products will present the Commission with more and more of a challenge. Increasing numbers of U.S. companies are either importing finished products or component

parts made in other countries or establishing their own production plants outside

of the U.S. In most cases, domestic companies are not going to have the same degree

of control over these products as they would have if their products were being made

in this country. This inability to have constant hands-on supervision can result in

products entering this country that do not meet U.S. safety standards.’’

This summer has most definitely been the summer of the recalled toy made in

China. There have been several highly publicized recalls of children’s products made

in China for importation and sale by well established and long trusted domestic toy

manufacturers. Thus far in 2007, CPSC has recalled a record number of hazardous

imported products from China including a wide variety of toys and children’s jewelry. The safety issues associated with this increase in imports have created new

challenges for our Commission. The Commission is currently looking at ways to address the developing issues surrounding imported consumer product safety. We are

involved in some activities such as dialogue and initiatives with foreign governments and the private sector, including domestic and foreign manufacturers.

For example, last week the Commission signed a joint statement in which our

product safety counterparts in the Chinese government proposed to stop the use of

lead paint in the manufacture of toys they export to the U.S. However, we must

be cautious in our dependence on foreign governments to make sure that products

exported from their countries comply with our U.S. safety standards. Other countries expect, as we do, that the receiving countries’ regulators (or the marketplace)

will find and address problems with products within their own borders. While our

agency’s attempts to go to the source before the problem products arrive on our

shores are necessary and admirable, our own statute makes it clear (as does the legislative history) that it is not the Commission’s concern whether products made in

the U.S. for export meet the mandatory or voluntary product safety standards of

other countries. It may be a bit unreasonable for us to realistically expect more from

other countries than that which we expect of ourselves. We should consider whether

this policy is still appropriate today. If we export our safety standards along with

our products, we take an important step in harmonizing standards in what is increasingly a global marketplace.

In addition, to engaging in activities intended to elicit cooperation from manufacturers and foreign governments, the Commission must advocate for additional resources to increase surveillance and enforcement activities at the borders and in the

marketplace. I note here that in a recent Time Magazine article it stated that the

Food and Drug Administration has 1,317 field investigators and inspects just 0.7%

of all imports under its jurisdiction. CPSC has perhaps a total of 15 people (out of

a total field investigative staff of less than 90) to visit those same ports of entry

to inspect for the more than 15,000 product types under our jurisdiction. I think

those numbers speak volumes about why products under our jurisdiction that violate our mandatory safety standards keep finding their way into the marketplace.

We at the Commission are also working with interested Congressional members

in both the House and Senate to modernize our governing statutes to give us more

leverage through the regulatory process and our enforcement activities. This subcommittee, in particular, has been tremendously engaged in our issues from the

very beginning of this Congress and must be given credit for providing the impetus

for recommendations for legislative action submitted by members of the Commission

to the House, the Senate and the Administration.

However, I think that it is very important that in whatever we do collectively—

through efforts at the Administration level, Congress and the Commission—to address import product safety, we must send a clear, unequivocal message to manufacturers, importers and retailers who bring and offer for sale in this country products

which present a substantial product hazard or that do not comply with a U.S. product safety standard. That message should be that, ‘‘your actions are unacceptable
37

and you will be held accountable.’’ The Commission must have the sufficient resources, the adequate authority and the internal willingness to deliver that message

with no hesitation.

STATUTORY AND OTHER MODERNIZATION

Some of the highly publicized recalls have involved children’s products that contain lead or lead containing paint. Toys or other articles intended for use by children

that bear ‘‘lead containing paint’’ are banned hazardous products. It is a prohibited

act to introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce a banned hazardous substance. Any person who violates this law could be subject to both criminal

and civil sanctions. Prior to 2007, we had been averaging four recalls a year for children’s products with ‘‘lead containing paint.’’ This year we have already had 15.

This regulation banning children’s products that have ‘‘lead containing paint’’ has

been on the books for 30 years and there is absolutely no excuse for a violation of

this regulation. Violators should be held accountable to the maximum extent for

their non-compliance.

As far as children’s products such as jewelry or vinyl baby’s bibs containing accessible lead are concerned, I wish that the Commission had the authority to find it

unacceptable for any amount of lead to be in a children’s product. However, our

statute requires us to assess the accessibility of the lead and this is the key measure

under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA). The Commission did issue a

guideline document back in January of 1998, which went so far as to urge manufacturers ‘‘to eliminate lead in consumer products.’’ In response to that guidance, in

August of 1998, the Toy Manufacturers of America pledged to eliminate lead from

their products. Yet here we are, nearly 10 years later, facing the same problems.

We know that exposure to lead can elevate blood lead levels and that such exposure could bring about developmental problems in children. I am absolutely certain

that parents would agree that if we could require the elimination of lead in children’s products, we should. I understand that some members of Congress are interested in this issue and I hope that through their efforts we can address this problem

and get it resolved in favor of thoroughly protecting our children from unnecessary

exposure to products containing lead.

Testing of products on the market to determine compliance with safety standards

is also an important part of our responsibilities. I can’t tell you how troubling the

picture of our toy testing facility in the New York Times article was to me. We have

been trying to obtain funds to modernize our lab since before I arrived at CPSC in

1995, yet we have never received any significant funding for that goal. We have

been working with GSA on a modernization plan since at least 1999. The Lab Modernization Feasibility Study, completed jointly with GSA in 2005, formed the basis

for a capital project submitted to OMB by GSA as part of their FY 2007 Budget.

However, other national priorities precluded the project from being funded. There

certainly has been a level of frustration associated with the process. We have been

forced to accept a band-aid approach to fixing the lab, when what we really need

is a major modernization commitment.

I have seen other testing labs, such as those at Underwriters Laboratories, which

are much more sophisticated, spacious and up-to-date than our lab. Given that we

are the Federal agency designated to protect consumers from product hazards and

that our laboratory testing plays a key role in making hazard determinations, I

think the state of our lab should concern everyone. However, whenever I go to our

lab I am constantly amazed at the ingenuity of our lab staff in overcoming space

and resource limitations. We often talk about the agency making do with what it

has and nowhere can that be seen more strikingly than at the lab. I would like to

see a real investment made in upgrading our lab so that we can do more testing

in our own facility rather than having to contract the work out and so that tests

don’t stack up because of a lack of adequate space or other resources, which prevent

us from doing simultaneous testing on various products.

We are currently looking at different ‘‘real estate’’ solutions with GSA that would

give us a better physical plant. However, these solutions may or may not allow us

to function at the same capability we currently have and they would not include any

modernization of equipment. It was estimated back in 2005, that the cost to truly

modernize our lab, if we were to stay on the current site, would be somewhere

around thirty million dollars. This would expand our capabilities plus give us new

equipment and a physical plant that is both energy efficient and an effective use

of space. A modern facility would also put us in a better position to deal with emerging technologies, such as nanotechnology. It is difficult for us to even contemplate

how we would assess potential product-related nanotechnology hazards when we

struggle to provide the basic lab capabilities to meet our current needs.
38

Even before several recent highly publicized recalls, members of both the House

and the Senate had indicated an interest in reinvigorating the Commission through

the reauthorization process. I have strongly supported increasing our staff and facilities resources and various changes to our statutes over the years. I have submitted to both the House and the Senate proposals for consideration during this process

of looking at reauthorization of the Commission. Acting Chairman Nord has also put

forth her proposals, many of which I agree with, some of which (in one form or another) I have advocated for years. Thus, for the first time in a long time, there is

bi-partisan support on the Commission to make major changes to the Commission’s

statutes. Some of the suggested changes could help the Commission’s enforcement

efforts with respect to the type of problems we have been seeing with the safety of

imported products.

Last week, Senator Mark Pryor introduced legislation with Commerce Committee

Chairman Senator Daniel Inouye that will severely test the real will of Congress

to provide the Commission with the necessary tools it needs to be an effective force

in protecting consumers from product safety hazards. Many of the provisions of the

legislative package come from the recommendations submitted by Acting Chairman

Nord and myself. The CPSC Reform Act of 2007 authorizes additional funding to

increase staff levels to 500 employees by 2013, improve our antiquated testing facilities, engage in nanotechnology research and increase our staff’s presence at U.S.

ports of entry. The legislative package also strengthens the agency’s enforcement

powers by increasing civil and criminal penalties, requiring third party certification

on all children’s products, banning the use of lead in children’s products, requiring

labeling of children’s products with tracking information to facilitate recalls, making

it unlawful to sell recalled products and by streamlining the product safety rulemaking process. There are other provisions as well and, as I said, most of which

were endorsed by me or Acting Chairman Nord.

This House subcommittee has also addressed some of these issues and, I understand, is working on its own comprehensive reauthorization bill. I am gratified by

the attention that Congress is paying to the Commission and I am hopeful that we

see significant results from all of our efforts.

I know that the American public, especially parents and their children, will be

thankful.

Mr. RUSH. Thank you so much, Mr. Commissioner. The Chair intends to reconvene this subcommittee immediately, immediately, I

might add, emphasize, after the last vote takes place on the floor.

The subcommittee stands in recess.

[Recess]

Mr. RUSH. The committee will reconvene. The Chair will recognize himself for 5 minutes of questioning, and the Chair wants to

ask Chairman Nord the following question.

Chairman Nord, I have actually four questions and I have 5 minutes and I want to kind of keep these questions and answers as

succinct as possible. And during the year 2007, this current year,

the CPSC has issued approximately 30 recalls for lead content in

approximately seven million pieces of children’s jewelry, overwhelmingly manufactured in China.

Pertaining to the joint agreement that you signed with the Chinese last week, this agreement only covers lead paint on toys. Why

doesn’t it also cover lead content? What exactly do you expect to

get out of the agreement with the Chinese? Can you provide to the

subcommittee copies of the ‘‘work plans’’ that detail the initiatives

that is encompassed in this agreement? And how will you know if

these efforts with the Chinese are really bearing fruit?

Ms. NORD. OK. With respect to the agreement with the Chinese,

first of all, understand that there was an overarching general

agreement that the U.S. Government and the government of China

reached, whereby the Chinese Government agreed to implement a

plan to take immediate steps to eliminate lead paint from products
39

destined to the United States, and they did that because we asked

them to do that. And we have put in place a number of processes

or we will put in place a number of processes to monitor how they

comply with that. But sir, the lead paint agreement is not the extent of our agreement with China. Please understand that this effort started in 2004 and it has been ongoing. We identified four

areas where we were concerned about imports and those areas

were lighters, fireworks, electrical products and toys.

So what we did was reach agreement with the Chinese on a

number of very specific things in each of those four product categories, in addition to lead paint. Now, the question of how do we

know whether they will be complying with the agreements that

they made with us, sir, that is like the critical question here, because if they don’t comply, then what we have done isn’t particularly meaningful. But right now the Chinese Government has indicated that they want to work with us to solve this problem and believe me, our agency is going to take advantage of that. We have

put in place a system whereby we are going to be closely monitoring the implementation of the specifics in each of the various work

plans, and if we see divergence from what they agreed to, then we

will be going back to them and calling them on it. Part of what we

also did was set up a process for having very close, actually monthly, consultations with them so that we could bring to their attention issues that we see if things are not going the way we would

like to see them go.

Mr. RUSH. I wanted you to specifically address the work plans.

Ms. NORD. Yes.

Mr. RUSH. All right. Will you extend to the subcommittee the details or the copies of the work plan?

Ms. NORD. Well, of course I will and in fact, I have got a fairly

extensive summary of the work plans here and I would be more

than happy to submit that as part of my formal statement to you.

Mr. RUSH. From your testimony you seem to rely solely on the

‘‘goodwill of the Chinese Government.’’ Presently, the Chinese

standards for lead is much greater, much more stringent than the

American standards. However, the issue is one not of the standards, not of the willingness, but the enforcement of the standards

and the enforcement of the regulations. How can you assure the

American public and the members of this subcommittee that you

and the CPSC will engage the Chinese Government and demand

that they enforce, not only the elements of the agreement, but also

that they will live up to their own standards, in terms of lead content?

Ms. NORD. The Chinese, as I understand, the internal Chinese

standards with respect to lead paint are not necessarily more stringent than the U.S., but Mr. Chairman, they are different from the

United States. They are much akin to what the European Union

has, in that they go to the whole question of accessibility of the

lead to the person using the product, whereas ours just have a flatout ban.

But be that as it may, obviously enforcement of any standard is

the key here. What the Chinese and the U.S. Government have

agreed to do, or what the Chinese Government has agreed to do is

insist on increased testing and inspections of the facilities where
40

the products are being made. They have also agreed to qualify

paint suppliers to the U.S. market, so that those paint suppliers

are going to have to register with the Chinese Government, and if

we find products, then the Chinese Government will have an administrative way to deal with that.

As I mentioned, the Chinese standard is much closer to the European standard than it is to the U.S. standard, so they agreed to

try to put in place a system which will distinguish between products that are being exported to the United States, as opposed to

those products that are destined for export to Europe, so that we

don’t end up getting our various standards, products meeting various standards going to the wrong place. And then, finally, we have

agreed to have regular status discussions to assure that the program is indeed being implemented. Part of that involves, of course,

doing checks here in the United States and I will tell you that we

have underway right now what we refer to as a blitz, looking at

incoming product and examining it very, very closely to make sure

that the leaded paint is not on those products.

Mr. RUSH. Chairman Nord, I am really kind of confused and you

can help me. In your opening statement, you seem to put a lot of

emphasis on devaluing the need for inspectors. OK. But now, in response to the questions, you are switching now and saying that we

really want to concentrate on inspectors. Which one is it? Do we

need more inspectors or do we need less inspectors? Give us a clear

picture of what it is that you are intending to do in terms of implementing this agreement?

Ms. NORD. Surely. I think that inspecting, doing our spot-checks,

our blitzes, if you will, are important to make sure that the Chinese are complying with the lead paint agreement. But stepping

back, sir, with respect to the question of how do you do effective

inspections, I think it is very, very important for the committee to

have a context here. At the end of the day, the very best thing we

could have for the American public is to make sure that the product is manufactured in the first place and we have got underway

a program, which I described in my written statement. It is a fourpart program. We have to work with the Chinese manufacturers in

China. We have to work with the Chinese Government and that is

the point of these agreements.

Mr. RUSH. Chairman Nord, do you foresee a time in the immediate future where there will be American inspectors, who are authorized by the CPSC or some other Governmental entity, to go to

China at the manufacturing level, at the factory, and be able to inspect the production of the manufacturing of these toys, and other

products, to ensure the American public that lead is not in, is not

a part of the paint? Can you assure us of that at this point in time?

Ms. NORD. Sir, that is not what the CPSC is doing. We have

never done that. If that is what the Congress wishes us to do, then

you are talking about a very, very different agency. You are talking

about an agency that is larger than what we are right now in orders of magnitude. You are talking about an FDA, USDA-type

agency and if indeed that is something that you wish to see accomplished, then that is fine. We will work with you to accomplish

that. But our agency has never had personnel overseas. We don’t

have that capacity. If you are talking about CPSC inspectors in for-
41

eign ports, sir, that would be a very, very significant departure

from the operations of this agency, as they have existed up to this

point.

Mr. RUSH. My time is up. I recognize now the ranking member,

Mr. Stearns.

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I have just basically two questions for the chairlady. I think we all are trying to

understand an ounce of prevention prevents a pound of cure here.

And in this case, the two questions I have are based upon what has

happened, the toy recalls this past summer. The companies themselves, as I understand it, quickly recognized the potential problem.

You folks got involved. The Canadian Government was also involved. I understand they detected some of these problems. We

have hearings today. And to put that in perspective, that Mattel

makes 800 million toys this year and that is just one toy manufacturer. So with that kind of volume from Mattel, not to mention the

other ones, is it more effective to have the manufacturers ensure

the products are tested or the CPSC?

Ms. NORD. Well, the CPSC has never done pre-market testing of

products entering the marketplace. In fact, I think, in the very,

very early days of the agency, there was a provision like that and

Congress specifically removed it because it was really unworkable.

Mr. STEARNS. Right now that is not your mission?

Ms. NORD. That is not what we do, but——

Mr. STEARNS. But you will promulgate standards?

Ms. NORD. Absolutely.

Mr. STEARNS. Now, the ASTM standard, the industry-wide standard, regarding the use and abuse of toxic substances, when the industry develops the standards, do you believe that that standard

is sufficient to conform with a national standard? In your mind is

the ASTM standard satisfactory?

Ms. NORD. No. What happens is that the CPSC, in the case of

toys, has issued a toy standard which sets out certain requirements. The ASTM standard has been layered on top of the CPSC

standard to give added protection.

Mr. STEARNS. Yes. And so in your opinion, then, the standard is

satisfactory? It is your standard plus, and do you think it is being

implemented across the board, adequately?

Ms. NORD. Well, that is what our job is, is to make sure that that

happens.

Mr. STEARNS. And do you think it is being done? Maybe another

question would be, looking at your employees, you have about 400.

Ms. NORD. Yes.

Mr. STEARNS. When this agency was actually put in place, I

guess, in 1972, you had more employees in 1972.

Ms. NORD. Yes.

Mr. STEARNS. In 1981 you had a thousand employees, but it is

cut down to a little more than 600 employees 2 years ago and now

you are at 400, with a budget of $62 million. So the question is,

do you have enough people to enforce the mission of the Consumer

Product Safety Commission, in your opinion?

Ms. NORD. I would always like more.

Mr. STEARNS. So you don’t have enough people is what you are

saying?
42

Ms. NORD. I would prefer to have more people.

Mr. STEARNS. OK. The other question I have is, how serious a

problem is this now? On the basis of lead in the paint and these

magnets and the lead in the jewelry, how many children have actually been affected by this? Do you have any statistics to show? We

all know what the standard is, but I am trying to understand how

significant the problem is in terms of actual fatalities or injuries

or sickness. Can you give us some kind of broad perspective on

this?

Ms. NORD. Surely.

Mr. STEARNS. I say this in light of the fact that there was lead

in houses before 1978 and there is lead in the ground. And I just

wondered, should the American people, the families, the mothers

and fathers of children be alarmed, yes, but is this a problem that

historically is very serious or is it something that we are still monitoring?

Ms. NORD. With respect to the lead in the toys, we are not aware

of any injuries flowing from the products that have been recalled.

However, saying that, we also recognize that lead exposure is cumulative, so we don’t want children being exposed to lead. However, Congressman, as I said in my opening statement, and I would

like to reemphasize here in the strongest possible terms, the most

effective, the best way to address lead poisoning in children is to

look at old deteriorating paint in houses and lead contaminated

dust. That is where the bulk of the problem is. Now, the CPSC

deals with consumer products and when we find consumer products

like the children’s jewelry, we act and the children’s jewelry is a

good example of where this agency stepped up to a problem and

took very, very aggressive action, is taking aggressive action to

deal with it.

Mr. STEARNS. Commissioner Moore, I just have a question for

you, if I could. You stated that the Commission has been weakened, I think, in some of your testimony, if I am not correct. And

has any violator avoided punishment, any reduction in the Commission’s authority, in your opinion?

Mr. MOORE. I can’t say specifically that I can identify a particular violator, but the fact that there is this possibility and it does

happen over time, that is a risk that we prefer not to take, in

terms of trying to protect the consumers’ interest.

Mr. RUSH. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky, for 5 minutes.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As one who has

been working with a constituent of mine for a long time to deal

with yo-yo balls, I just want to say that aggressive is about the last

word I would use for the CPSC. The question I have, Commissioner

Nord, the Wall Street Journal this month had an article, safety

agency and Mattel clash over disclosures, and it listed multiple

times when Mattel has defied the Commission’s reporting rules,

and that was a quote; failing to disclose hundreds of consumer complaints about the hazards their toys pose to children, including

magnets and fire hazards and motorized cars. So what can we do

to make sure that no one feels free to flout the law continuously?
43

And if Mattel feels free to flout the law, then why should we think

that China is going to comply with this agreement?

Ms. NORD. Well, I read that article as well, with a great deal of

interest and I have to say I scratched my head. I think that if that

is correct report of what the Mattel CEO said, that is an incredibly

reckless thing to say. I can also assure you that we have an ongoing investigation open into this matter and if a company feels that

they can flout the law or if they think that we are not going to take

action, they are sadly mistaken.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Well, how would we know that, if hundreds of

customer complaints have been sent? What evidence would consumers see at the CPSC to convince them that you really aren’t

going to let that happen? Has the 24-hour reporting requirement

been met by Mattel, by other manufacturers?

Ms. NORD. Again, when we do a recall, that is in and of itself

an example of the fact that we are serious about our job. If the

company does not report to us in a timely manner, then we bring

an enforcement action against them and if you look at——

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And has that been done?

Ms. NORD. Oh, absolutely.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Absent Mattel?

Ms. NORD. It has been done to Mattel in the past.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. How many times?

Ms. NORD. Gosh, Mattel paid a fine, I believe, in 2006 or 2005.

I don’t recall the year where they paid a considerable fine for doing

exactly——

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. If you could provide to me, and the rest of the

committee, examples of Mattel, what happened.

Ms. NORD. Indeed. Why don’t I give you a whole list of all our

enforcement actions, really.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. OK. And you said in your testimony, since

China has a weaker standard for lead point than the United

States, it is really quite extraordinary that the Chinese agreed to

enforce the stricter American standards. Then is the report in the

New York Times on September 11, it says, on the books, China’s

paint standards are stricter than those in the United States, it has

90 parts of lead per million. By comparison, American regulations

allow up to 600 parts per million.

Ms. NORD. Yes, I think that the standard is a different standard

and it is my understanding that the Chinese standard, it is 90

parts per million, but it goes to the accessibility. Is the person exposed to the lead? Our standard is a bright line per se standard,

so we don’t look at, with respect to lead paint, whether there has

been exposure. We just look to see if the lead paint is there and

if it is, it is a violation. So the standards are different.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. But you say ours are stronger? The difference

between 90 and 600, I understand that you do this kind of accessibility issue. But you know, there is a constituent of mine, a

Marilyn Furer, who actually went to the trouble of doing her own

testing on bibs that she had bought for her grandchildren and reported this excessive amount. Is that how we rely on getting this

information? Who is supposed report?

Ms. NORD. Well, under the law, the company has an obligation

to report to us if they have reason to think that one of their prod-
44

ucts contains a defect that will cause substantial harm, and that

is section 15(b) and that is a section that we vigorously enforce.

Also the agency goes into the marketplace and does investigations

in order to try to find violators as well.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I have been interested to know that you have,

let us see, we have—978 as the number of the former CPSC staff.

It is now down to 401. The budget is half of what it was three decades ago, in inflation adjusted terms. Its toy testing department, I

understand, consists of one man, Bob, who drops toys on the floor

in his office.

Mr. RUSH. Will the gentlelady please bring her——

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Well, if I could just finish this question, I

would appreciate it.

Mr. RUSH. Sure, sure.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So, what if Bob takes a day off?

Ms. NORD. May I answer that question?

Mr. RUSH. Sure.

Ms. NORD. The toy testing that goes on in the CPSC laboratory

is not limited to one person who drops toys. That has been widely——

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. How many?

Ms. NORD. There is an agency staff at our laboratory and I guess

it is, at this point, 34 people, perhaps, in our laboratory and many

of them have different responsibilities with respect to lead testing

of toys. We have a number of people who do lead testing of toys.

With respect to testing for electrical issues, we have a number of

other people that do testing for that.

With respect to Bob, as I mentioned to Congressman Stearns,

one of main parts of our toy standard is labeling to assure that it

doesn’t have small parts. The way you determine whether the

small parts exist is to do a drop test to see if the product breaks

apart. Bob does drop tests. If the agency laboratory director tells

me he needs other people to do drop tests, then we will take that

request under advisement and try to fulfill it. But he has not done

that and frankly, I would like our resources to be focusing on testing for lead and testing for other substances and that is where we

have——

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Well, if I could——

Mr. RUSH. The gentlelady’s time is up. The chairman recognizes

now the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton.

Mr. BARTON. I thank the chairman. I would be happy to yield a

little of my time to Ms. Schakowsky, if she has got one more question.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Is that all right, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. RUSH. Yes.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. If I could get a breakdown, in writing, of the

toy testing department and who does what.

Ms. NORD. I would be happy to supply that to you. Surely.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you.

Mr. BARTON. Is it the CPSC’s view that the Chinese Government

is as cooperative as it could be on this issue?

Ms. NORD. We are aware that the Chinese Government now

thinks it is in their best interests, economic and otherwise, that

they address this problem and we were very pleased that they were
45

willing to come to the table and negotiate a set of pretty specific

agreements. Congressman, the proof is in the pudding. What we

need to do on a going forward basis now is hold their feet to the

fire. We negotiated the agreement last week. Our next meeting

with them is scheduled for early October and we have got meetings

scheduled month after month after month with them. And what we

are going to be doing is saying to them, OK, you agreed to do this.

Let us see the results. And frankly, if we don’t get results, then we

will know something, but we have got to try to it. They are part

of the key to the solution here, so we really need to——

Mr. BARTON. Well, how do you guarantee compliance if you don’t

have something close to full inspection? The Chinese are past masters at taking the heat off and good intentions, but not really following through. So what is the way that the administration and

the Congress can work together to be sure that they comply with

whatever the agreement is that they have agreed to?

Ms. NORD. Well, again, the Chinese manufacturer of the product,

the exporter, and the American importer have the obligation to assure that the product that comes into this country is safe. The Chinese Government has said that they will step up and increase inspections, require licensing, a number of thing like that to assure

that the Chinese——

Mr. BARTON. But they wouldn’t let our staffs, Chairman Dingell

and Chairman Stupak, send an oversight committee group to

China in August, with minority support and participation and they

gave us the run around, that something with the visas were improper for what they wanted to do.

Ms. NORD. That is what I understand.

Mr. BARTON. That doesn’t show me too much good faith. I used

to be the Oversight Subcommittee chairman and we had problems

with the Chinese, in terms of FDA drug issues. You had to schedule an inspection 6 months in advance and by the time the inspectors got there, everything looked like it was ready for a chief of

state visit or something. So how do we ensure that they really do

follow through?

Ms. NORD. I think that the very best way that our agency and

the Congress can ensure that is to amend our statutes to require

that product sellers certify that the products that they sell comply

with U.S. safety standards, because what that does——

Mr. BARTON. So you want a change in Federal law?

Ms. NORD. Yes.

Mr. BARTON. OK. What about the U.S. manufacturers that license their products? Chairman Dingell, in his opening statement,

was somewhat less than positive about Mattel. How have they reacted to this latest rash of recalls and problems?

Ms. NORD. Well, the toy industry seems to be very interested in

addressing this and they are stepping up to the plate. The toy industry, as an industry, is now, as I understand it, putting in place

a process that would require, in licensing, license testing facilities

to make sure that the tests were done properly. I have also noted

that Disney and some other large leaders in the industry have indicated that they will be doing third-party independent testing of

their products as well.
46

But I think you put your fingers on an important issue here, sir,

in that we have got to address this from a number of different perspectives. It is very, very important that U.S. companies that sell

products here, insist on compliance from their Chinese exporters.

And the examples I just gave you are at least two examples of

where they are doing that. We, as a government, need to be talking

to the Chinese Government to make sure they understand their obligations and then we need to be able to police the marketplace.

Mr. BARTON. And now my time has expired, but my last question

and I don’t know if this is literally true, but I read, in some press

report, that your organization, the CPSC, only has one inspector to

inspect toy imports. Is that true?

Ms. NORD. No, the press that you may have read is that we have

one toy tester or one toy safety inspector and that is not correct.

That references the same individual that I was just discussing with

Congresswoman Schakowsky. We have an individual whose responsibility it is to do the testing for small parts and labeling requirements. There are other people that do testing. But with respect to

inspections, we have a field staff that goes out into the marketplace.

Mr. BARTON. I believe that this committee and the Congress

would come together and scrounge a few more dollars to compliment and beef up. We are putting thousands of people on the

border between the United States and Mexico. We ought to be able

to put a reasonable increased number of people to make sure that

the toys our children play with are what they are supposed to be.

Ms. NORD. Right now we have, oh, between 85 and 95 field investigators and a number of them do go to the ports on a regular

basis. Congressman, the CPSC has never had people stationed at

the ports full time. We have just never done that. And obviously,

we would like to be spending more time concentrating on what is

coming in from outside the United States, but having a person at

the port is not going to make a dent on this issue. The issue is

huge. There are just thousands and thousands of containers of consumer products coming into this country from overseas.

Mr. BARTON. Well, let us be creative and think of a way to use

the resources and complements so that we target—if you ship a

piece of clothing, sportswear for adults, into the U.S. market and

the seams aren’t straight, it is really no big deal. It is a quality

problem, but nobody is going to die from it. If you ship toys that

have contaminated lead product and five children put them in their

mouths and get lead poisoning; in one child it is so severe that it

hurts them mentally or perhaps they have an impairment that is

life threatening, that is a little bit different. I understand the need

to be competitive in world markets, but I do think we can put more

resources into protecting the safety of our children and I think, I

am in the minority, but I think I am in the majority on the committee and in the Congress in saying we will work to do that. You

help us come up with the plan.

Ms. NORD. I would welcome that and I think you are absolutely

right, we need to be creative. Part of this is——

Mr. BARTON. My time is expired.

Mr. RUSH. I just want to say, Mr. Ranking Member, I have been

really——
47

Mr. BARTON. You were very generous for letting me have that

time.

Mr. RUSH. And we will have a second round, but right now your

time has expired.

Mr. BARTON. I understand.

Mr. RUSH. And we need to move on to the full committee chairman, Congressman Dingell, for questions. Congressman Dingell is

recognized. Chairman Dingell.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and I want to commend my good friend and colleague, Mr. Barton, for his very helpful questions.

Chairman Nord, welcome to the committee. Your agency, in its

budget this year, requested a 2 percent increase in net funds and

a reduction in full-time equivalents amongst the employees, from

420 to 401. Would you tell us, please, if that is true?

Ms. NORD. I believe so, yes.

Mr. DINGELL. OK. What was your agency’s request for funds and

personnel to the Office of Management and Budget? How many

people did you ask?

Ms. NORD. I cannot tell you that off the top of my head. I would

need to respond in writing.

Mr. DINGELL. All right. If you don’t know it, we will wait. I want

it to be known that we are submitting to you a letter, on which I

will expect a prompt response. And Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that that letter be inserted into the record, as well

as the response, when received.

We need to know what your request was for funds and personnel.

Now, Madam Chairman, would you tell us how many you are going

to need to meet the agreement which you have recently concluded

with the Chinese General Administration for Quality and Supervision, et cetera?

Ms. NORD. I am not asking for any additional staff to do that.

Mr. DINGELL. I understand that. What do you need to do that

job? Obviously, you have seen a reduction from 420 to 401. That

is a total of 19 personnel lost. How are you going to get the personnel that you are going to need to see to it that this is properly enforced and to address your business at the border so we don’t have

any more lead painted toys and things like that coming in from

China?

Ms. NORD. From the standpoint of the administration of the

agreements, within the CPSC, we have created an office of international programs, which we are increasing the staff of by at least

one individual. The responsibility of that office is to monitor this

program. We will be working very closely with Customs and Border

Protection to make sure that any——

Mr. DINGELL. This is fine, but it is not answering. I am asking

how many you need and this is not answering my question. Now,

please inform me of what cooperative agreements you have with

other agencies to put personnel at the borders to see to it that your

regulations, with regard to safety of products entering this country,

are properly enforced? Do you have any, for example, with Customs, with Food and Drug, with Immigration or with any other

agency that is charged with these responsibilities?

Ms. NORD. We have a longstanding memorandum of——
48

Mr. DINGELL. Would you submit those agreements to the committee?

Ms. NORD. Of course. I would be happy to, sir.

Mr. DINGELL. How many people do you have at the borders who

are responsible and seeing to it that goods that come into this

country are safe and meet the standards of your agency? How

many?

Ms. NORD. As I indicated, the Commission has never had——

Mr. DINGELL. You don’t have any?

Ms. NORD. No.

Mr. DINGELL. OK.

Ms. NORD. We have inspectors that go to the border.

Mr. DINGELL. I am beginning to understand why it is that you

are having these difficulties in seeing to it that the Chinese don’t

bring in lead painted toys and other things of questionable safety.

Now is it your understanding that the Chinese regulations, with

regard to consumer safety and exports and things of that kind, are

adequate to protect American consumers? Yes or no.

Ms. NORD. I don’t know.

Mr. DINGELL. You don’t know?

Ms. NORD. I am sorry.

Mr. DINGELL. Very well. Would you please inquire and come back

and give us a report as to whether or not those laws are adequate

to protect American consumers? Would you also tell us, then, when

you make that submission to us, what it is that you propose to do

to ensure that we get the necessary assured safety for our consumers, with regard to imports from China?

Ms. NORD. I will be happy to.

Mr. DINGELL. Would you submit that to us?

Ms. NORD. Of course.

Mr. DINGELL. Now, I would note that you have said that the Chinese are going to make sure there is no lead in the paint, through

inspections of U.S. destined toys and a certification for paint suppliers. What is going to happen to ensure that that takes place?

And what concrete steps have the Chinese taken to ensure that

this promise will be kept?

Ms. NORD. They made the promise last week.

Mr. DINGELL. They did, but promises are wonderful. We got a

fistful of promises from the Chinese on safety and they don’t seem

to do anything. It reminds of the song we used to sing when I was

in the Army: ‘‘I am always signing the payroll, but I never get a

goddamned cent.’’ So what are the Chinese going to do to ensure

that this is essentially a self-enforced agreement?

Ms. NORD. They have indicated that they will increase testing

and inspections. They have indicated that they will be licensing

paint suppliers who handle products destined for the United States

and we will be going back to them to ask them how they intend

to do that.

Mr. DINGELL. All right. Now, what steps are you, at the Commission, taking to ensure that the Chinese are going to honor this

agreement in a full and effective and proper fashion? And what are

you doing to ensure that you will have A, the resources, and B, the

regulations and personnel that you need to do that? I will ask that

you submit this to the committee, for purposes of the record.
49

Ms. NORD. OK.

Mr. DINGELL. And that will be included in the letter, which you

will be shortly submitting to us. Now, I am informed that CPSC

has prevented approximately 83 shipments of noncompliant toys

from entering the United States’ stream of commerce with them.

Would you give us a statement of what those 83 rejections were

and why? Would you also submit to the committee what percentage

of the shipments sent to the United States by China were? And

would you also please submit to us why it was that these were rejected and whether or not they constitute all of the shipments that

should have, in fact, been rejected?

Ms. NORD. I would be delighted to.

Mr. DINGELL. All right. And Madam Chairman, does CPSC have

data about the number of toy shipments, either of compliant or

noncompliant products which are stopped at U.S. ports of entry, so

far in 2007, by CPSC?

Ms. NORD. I am sure if we do, I will be happy to submit it.

Mr. DINGELL. Would you please submit that to the committee?

Ms. NORD. Yes.

Mr. DINGELL. Now, does CPSC have performance goals for scrutinizing the number of shipments at the borders and for halting

those at the border, for 2000 and beyond, if and when necessary?

Do you have any rules, regulations or anything of that sort, with

regard to assuring that these things are done?

Ms. NORD. Our rules require compliance with U.S.——

Mr. DINGELL. Would you submit that then, please, for the record,

to the committee? Mr. Chairman, I note that I am 2 minutes and

44 seconds over. I thank you for your courtesy to me. And I thank

you, Madam Chairman.

Mr. RUSH. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska,

Mr. Terry.

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Following up on the ranking member and full committee chairman’s comments on how we

can assure that the product that is being put on shelves in America

meet your criteria, the safety criteria. I think we have to start with

China and we have to make sure that the product that is being

produced there, manufactured there, meets the standards at that

exact point in time when that product is finished. As I understand,

just in trying to educate myself for this hearing, that some manufacturers or companies like Mattel—I am not sure they are the

exact manufacturer or if some entity manufacturers it for them.

But they do their own inspections there on site. I don’t know the

frequency of which, but we will ask. I will ask. And the other companies choose to hire outside entities, private sector companies. I

think they are all European-based, like Norske Veritas, Intertech,

and SGS, to do the testing for them. Do you have an opinion, from

your experience with CPSC, about whether these three companies,

independent companies that do the testing and verifications and

certifications, are more reliable than companies that do their own

inspections?

Ms. NORD. I would hesitate to say that a company that does its

own inspection is not going to do it in a reliable way. I don’t know

that to be true and I think that paints a blanket or makes a blanket statement that I am not willing to make. However, having said
50

that, I do believe that third-party independent testing is the best

way to assure that the testing is done credibly, reliably and competently, so I am a big fan of that. Also, especially with respect to

smaller companies that don’t have the resources to do testing, independent third-party testing is a very good tool. And please understand that I said independent. I did not say governmental. I don’t

think that the United States or the government of China should be

doing testing that would then be what we would rely on.

Mr. TERRY. Are you aware of those three firms that I read off,

Norske Veritas, Intertech, and SGS?

Ms. NORD. Yes, of course.

Mr. TERRY. What is your opinion of the companies?

Ms. NORD. They all do very credible jobs.

Mr. TERRY. Those are private sector companies. Like I said, they

are European-based. Am I correct in that understanding? That is

all right. That is kind of trivia, anyway.

Ms. NORD. Yes.

Mr. TERRY. You are well aware of the work of these companies?

Ms. NORD. Absolutely.

Mr. TERRY. I would tend to agree with your observation, and no

offense to companies that do their own inspections, but there seems

to be, for me, a little bit more credibility when an independent company does the testing and then the certification. What would you

think of adopting rules or maybe even Congress adopting legislation that would require the independent third-party testing?

Ms. NORD. I think independent third-party testing should be

done. In my proposal, I have asked for certification, a requirement

that companies certify.

Mr. TERRY. Yes, testing and certification. The certification is a

key point. Thank you.

Ms. NORD. And what I had in mind there was an independent

testing regiment. I know that Congressman Ferguson, Congressman Towns, some members of the Senate, have introduced legislation along those lines and again, I think any way that we can encourage companies to test and verify the results of those tests is

a very good thing.

Mr. TERRY. All right. Thank you very much. I will yield back my

20 seconds.

Ms. NORD. Thank you.

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas,

Mr. Gonzalez.

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

Nord, my impression from your testimony in the past and today is

that you are working with what you have. Unfortunately, I don’t

think it really is adequate and I am talking about the model itself.

And one very telling statement you made was, in responding to

some questions about expanding your responsibilities and meeting

them, you said you would be looking at a very, very different agency. That is for Congress to determine, actually. I don’t think that

is what you are going to be able to create and I think you have to

do the best you can with what you have. I want to ask, rather,

some practical questions regarding the agreement that you reached

with AQSIQ, which is your counterpart or compliment in China. It
51

is still going to be up, basically, to the Chinese to conduct the inspections and make determines as to compliance. It is a yes or no.

Ms. NORD. Yes.

Mr. GONZALEZ. OK. So there is no way for us, because there is

no mechanism in place, within this agreement, that allows for a

representative of the United States to be part of that inspection

compliance and so on.

Ms. NORD. The agreement doesn’t contemplate that U.S. employees would be inspecting Chinese manufacturers, no. What the

agreement does, though, is it tries to get at it in a number of ways.

For example, if we have concerns about a particular type of product, we would be notifying the Chinese. They would then be coming

back to us with what they intend to do about it and then, obviously, as a part of the conversation——

Mr. GONZALEZ. We are not part of that process. We don’t grade

their papers. It is one of those things. It just has to be good faith.

And in this respect, maybe blind faith. But regardless, that is what

we are going to have here. What is the consequence if they fail?

Let us say you identify a product, you put them on notice, they go

through their process and we have something coming into the

United States that harms a consumer. Now, they clearly have

failed. Now, we don’t know if it was intentional or otherwise, negligence, whatever. What is the consequence to them?

Ms. NORD. The consequence to them is what has been happening

in the marketplace. People don’t buy their products. They are very

concerned about that and frankly, at the end of the day, economics

counts for everything.

Mr. GONZALEZ. So it is just going to be market forces. There is

no mechanism there that there is any penalties. I think that, basically, everything is just based on good faith and good intentions.

My experience has always been, if you don’t have consequences,

you probably don’t have responsible behavior. And that is human

nature, whether it is in the United States or in China. But again,

I commend you for doing as much as you can with the limited resources that you have.

But Commissioner Moore, in his testimony—I will read it.

For example, last week the Commission signed a joint statement, in which our

product safety counterparts in the Chinese Government propose to stop the use of

lead paint in the manufacture of toys they export to the United States. However,

we must be cautious in our dependence on foreign governments to make sure that

products exported from their countries comply with our United States safety standards.

So I will ask you, Commissioner Moore, what is the alternative

to the agreement that was reached by CPSC with its equivalent in

China, if you are saying that can only go so far, and I agree with

you, but I am just saying OK. Well, what would be the alternative

under the present configuration of the Commission and your resources?

Mr. MOORE. We would have to focus on enforcing our standards

with the companies based on the United States. Those who order

the products, those who import the products, we have to rely on

them not to bring products into our country. Not so much the Chinese, but you rely on them.
52

Mr. GONZALEZ. Well, in theory I am going to agree with you. I

am just not sure how we do that in practice and I think we are

going to learn more from Mr. Eckert and maybe explore what is the

responsibility of the United States-based toy manufacturer/distributor to the consumer, and that is going to be a really interesting topic, I promise you. Well, I am over my time and I yield back.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas,

Mr. Burgess, for a round of questions.

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairwoman Nord, can

you expand a little bit on the difference between voluntary and

mandatory recalls and what that means to you and your agency?

Ms. NORD. Surely. The vast majority of our recalls are what we

call voluntary recalls and when I say voluntary, what that means

is that we haven’t gone in and ordered that a recall take place. Instead, the company has worked with us and the two, the agency

and the company, jointly agree that a recall will take place and it

does.

Mr. BURGESS. And over what period of time will that happen?

Ms. NORD. Well, about half of our recalls are what we refer to

as fast-track recalls and with fast-tracks, basically, we try to get

the recall accomplished within 20 days of being informed that there

is an issue. And that is rather extraordinary. No other Government

agency is able to act that quickly to effect a recall. Twenty days

is a very short period of time, but——

Mr. BURGESS. I would agree, 20 days is extraordinarily fast for

any Government agency, in my short tenure here.

Ms. NORD. But the point is, is to get the recall out there to get

the consumer informed of what is happening and then try to get

the product out of consumers’ hands. So it is important that we act

quickly.

Mr. BURGESS. But if you go to a mandatory, how long will that

take to accomplish the same goal?

Ms. NORD. The last time we did that, it was several years.

Mr. BURGESS. Well, now, in a voluntary recall, do people generally comply? If you are notified, and I assume I am correct on

this, the manufacturer is under an obligation to come to you and

say, we have discovered a problem.

Ms. NORD. Yes.

Mr. BURGESS. And you say, you better get that thing back from

the public. Does that work? Do people come forward and confess

the sin, admit the problem and then get on about fixing it, or do

people tend to hide and obscure it?

Ms. NORD. I think our recall process works very well. People do

take their responsibilities seriously. They come forward and we

work together to effect a recall. If for some reason a company,

though, is recalcitrant, is not willing to help us work through a solution to this, then we do have some tools in place that we can

bring to bear to achieve a result. I think that our last tool of resort

is to go into a judicial proceeding to order a recall. That just takes

a lot of time.

Mr. BURGESS. Can you think of any examples of where it hasn’t

worked, where there has actually been a bad actor who has refused

to participate in the process?
53

Ms. NORD. Yes, the last time we did a mandatory recall was in

the Daisy air rifle case. That was back in 2001 and I think it extended for 2 years.

Mr. BURGESS. OK. Commissioner Moore, in your testimony you

state that you need an additional 10 to 15 percent in funding every

year to make up for the shortfall. Currently you get 3 to 4 percent,

but because of the increase in the cost of living and the cost of

doing business, that 3 to 4 percent is essentially consumed in the

increased expenditure for doing business every year. But I notice

in this year’s appropriation bill that was passed out of Financial

Services, the increase was about 6 percent. Did you talk with the

Subcommittee on Financial Services? Did you converse with Subcommittee Chairman Serrano on what you felt the budgetary requirements of your agency would be?

Mr. MOORE. I am afraid not. That is not a part of my role at the

Commission.

Mr. BURGESS. OK. So do you all then develop a budget internally

that is voted on by the commissioners? How do we in Congress get

that number from you? Do we just make this up every year?

Mr. MOORE. The budget comes through the Commission’s budget

comes through the chairman’s office. Yes, it is the Commission and

we see it after it is done, but we don’t really—and we can have

some input in the process, but we don’t directly control the amount

of the—what the numbers are.

Mr. BURGESS. Did you vote for the budget, in favor of the budget

that passed for this year, for example?

Mr. MOORE. Yes.

Mr. BURGESS. When you say you have an opportunity for input,

did you recommend that, instead of a 6 percent increase, that this

year we might want to, with perhaps a more favorable climate in

the subcommittee, appropriations?

Mr. MOORE. I have asked for more, yes.

Mr. BURGESS. And give us kind of an idea of the dollar figure

that you would have liked to have seen for this year.

Mr. MOORE. At least——

Mr. BURGESS. I guess, at some point, what I am saying is—and

I am not trying to pick on you, but at some point——

Mr. MOORE. Yes.

Mr. BURGESS. And I don’t sit on the Committee on Appropriations, but I understand very completely the difference between an

authorizer and an appropriator. When you go out to the NIH, the

buildings are named for appropriators. There is not a single one

named for an authorizer. So I understand what the difference is

and I am sensitive to that.

Mr. MOORE. Yes.

Mr. BURGESS. But we, as the authorizers, need you to help us

identify what is the funding level and if you say you need an increase of 10 to 15 percent a year but you have been living with 4

percent a year for a while, I got to believe that there is going to

have to be an initial plus-up that is perhaps in excess of 10 to 15

percent. And I don’t like to spend money any more than the next

person, but if this Federal agency is going to function properly,

then we are obviously going to need to fund it at a level where it

can function, otherwise, what is the point?
54

Mr. RUSH. The Chair would like to inform the gentleman that his

time is up. The witness will be allowed to answer his final question.

Mr. BURGESS. I thank the chairman.

Mr. MOORE. Well, we try to get the most effective number. So for

instance, right now we certainly favor the increases that are being

talked about over here. I think it is somewhere around $68 million

or $69 million.

Mr. BURGESS. It is $68 million.

Mr. MOORE. OK, $68 million. And then the Senate is talking

about $70 million. Certainly that would help us to be more effective

in terms of increasing our staff and reaching the needs of consumer

safety protection at a higher level, and that is the point. We have

to adjust to it. If the money is not there, then we have to make

that adjustment. We have to cut back. And that is not always the

best service presented to consumer safety interest, but we have to

deal with it. That is the best we can do.

Mr. RUSH. The gentlelady from Oregon is recognized.

Ms. HOOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Chairman Nord

and Commission Moore, for being in front of our committee today.

I have a series of very short questions and I would love short answers. What percent of the toys that you have recalled this year

have been due to dangerous lead content? OK. While you are getting that answer, what other the toys and children’s products have

been recalled?

Ms. NORD. Thirty-two percent of our total recalls have been because of lead. What was the second piece?

Ms. HOOLEY. And what is the other reason for toys and children’s

products being recalled?

Ms. NORD. Oh, many. Suffocations, small parts violations, choking hazards, frankly, are the biggest. The most dangerous product

with respect to children, in terms of fatalities, is balls, children

choking on balls.

Ms. HOOLEY. A couple people have mentioned Bob in your testing

lab that tests for toys and you said you have got 34 other people

testing in the laboratory. I am assuming that is testing for all products not just toys.

Ms. NORD. Yes.

Ms. HOOLEY. And so Bob really is the only toy tester?

Ms. NORD. No. No, that is not correct.

Ms. HOOLEY. He is the only designated toy tester. They test——

Ms. NORD. No.

Ms. HOOLEY. You have 34 people testing on toys?

Ms. NORD. No, what I said was Bob is not the only designated

toy tester.

Ms. HOOLEY. OK. But you said you had 34 people in the lab.

Ms. NORD. In the laboratory.

Ms. HOOLEY. And they test for everything?

Ms. NORD. Yes.

Ms. HOOLEY. OK. You have labs that are fairly old and you have

got 34 people working in the labs.

Ms. NORD. Yes.

Ms. HOOLEY. We have hundreds of millions of consumer products. Is that adequate?
55

Ms. NORD. Our laboratory desperately needs to be modernized

and we have had a number of conversations with this committee

and our appropriators about that problem. We need to modernize

our laboratory.

Ms. HOOLEY. Chairman Nord, in your talks with the Chinese officials, in terms of banning lead in toys, what exactly did they agree

to?

Ms. NORD. I am sorry?

Ms. HOOLEY. What exactly did the Chinese agree to in your talks

with lead in toys, banning lead in toys?

Ms. NORD. The general agreement that we reached, they agreed

to implement a plan that would immediately eliminate lead from

products, children’s toys destined for the United States.

Ms. HOOLEY. We talked a little bit and it has been brought up

by other people, realistically, if you are given the resources, how

quickly could the CPSC expand? How long does it take to hire and

train an employee?

Ms. NORD. It takes an awful long time and I am afraid I can’t,

sitting here, tell you an average amount of time, but it takes several months, because once we go through the hiring process, which

is highly regulated, we have to also go through a security clearance

process.

Ms. HOOLEY. Do you have any idea of how many employees you

think it would take to fulfill the mission of the CPSC? How many

employees would it take?

Ms. NORD. Well, we put a budget in. The Appropriations Committee has upped it and told us to hire up to 420, so that is what

we are going to be doing, assuming that the appropriations bill

passes.

Ms. HOOLEY. Do you think that will fulfill your mission?

Ms. NORD. That will be better than 400.

Ms. HOOLEY. Have you ever requested additional resources or authority?

Ms. NORD. I have only gone through this process once and yes

indeed, I have got standing before the committee a long comprehensive list of proposals of things I would like to see.

Ms. HOOLEY. How long has the CPSC been in direct contact with

the Chinese Government regarding unsafe products being exported

to the United States?

Ms. NORD. We signed a memorandum of understanding in 2004.

In 2005, we had the first U.S.-Chinese safety summit in Beijing.

We have been in contact with them, in regular contact since then.

That contact has really intensified at the beginning of 2007 and it

culminated in the second U.S.-China safety summit last week.

Ms. HOOLEY. So 3 years?

Ms. NORD. Yes.

Ms. HOOLEY. OK. And 3 years before you got an agreement with

them, too, is that right?

Ms. NORD. We signed a memorandum of understanding in 2004.

Ms. HOOLEY. OK. It has been reported that the Chinese Government has 210,000 people and 1,800 labs dedicated to product safety. In your estimation, are the lab and employee figures accurate?

Ms. NORD. I have no reason to think that they are inaccurate.

That is what the Chinese told us.
56

Ms. HOOLEY. Have you visited any of their labs?

Ms. NORD. I have been to their headquarters. I have not visited

an AQSIQ lab. I have visited other laboratories in China.

Ms. HOOLEY. Can you speak to the quality of their facilities and

their testing methodology?

Ms. NORD. I really can’t.

Ms. HOOLEY. OK. All right. I am looking forward to getting your

answers from the different requests that committee members have

made. Thank you.

Mr. RUSH. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Tennessee,

Mrs. Blackburn.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Ms. Nord and

Mr. Moore, I thank you for patience and your endurance this morning. When you get down to Ms. Hooley and you are getting kind

of toward the end of the line on these questions that are coming

at you. Ms. Nord, I want to be certain that have a good understanding of basically what you have presented to us. You have a

problem or your work basically should be constituting pre-market,

which is your offshore work, and post-market, which would be onshore work. Pre-market would be as they are tested as they are

manufactured and then tested and then products are labeled that

they are safe for transport to the U.S.

And then your post-market is what you are dealing with once a

product makes it into our product stream, into the market stream

and a problem arises. And if I am understanding you correctly,

what you have said is, pretty much, the current structure of the

CPSC doesn’t meet the current needs; that you need to do some

changing with your structure; that just putting more people in is

not going to necessarily solve the problem. And then I think I

heard you say that—we talked about the three companies that primarily do much of the private sector testing and you mentioned the

testing and certification and then you alluded to having penalties

that go with that so that there is a stated consequence for companies that continually violate the law.

So very quickly, just to be certain I have understood, in trying

to define the problem and put the laser on the problem and get this

so that we don’t have bad products, we don’t have 43 recalls in a

summer, that we, as a committee, have a good understanding of

basically where you are and then begin to look at how we best fix

this for you.

Ms. NORD. OK.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. So am I right? Is my understanding pretty

much right? Would you contest any of that or agree with that?

Ms. NORD. Well, I think you, as you set it out, pre-market and

post-market, I think that is a very apt description of the process.

Now, with respect to pre-market, please understand that the Commission’s authorities and existing regulations are not as comprehensive as perhaps the committee thinks.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Correct. I understand that and that is why I

said your current structure doesn’t necessarily accommodate your

current needs.

Ms. NORD. But one of the things that I think would address this

issue, both on a pre- and a post-market basis, is requiring that

product sellers certify that they are meeting U.S. safety standards.
57

That requires them to pre-market test and it gives us an ability to

do a better sense of inspection because we would have the documentation.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Right. They would test, they would certify and

then tie a penalty to that. OK. Now let me ask you something. Voluntary product recalls. How often does that happen with a company, that they just have a voluntary product recall and have you

ever had to fine somebody for initiating a voluntary recall without

working with you?

Ms. NORD. Companies are supposed to work with us.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK.

Ms. NORD. I am not aware that we have ever fined anyone for

doing that on their own.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. All right. Now let me ask you this. Mattel is

going to make nearly 800 million toys this year and other manufacturers, large and small, are going to make toys that are coming

into the market. So is it the most effective thing, is it to have these

manufacturers test their products for safety and then report this

to the CPSC? Or do you need to develop something new, where you

all would be the one that would be testing and then certifying

these? Is it better to leave that with the private sector?

Ms. NORD. I believe that if you were to require our agency to do

the actual testing, again, you would be creating a very different

agency than the one that exists now. If we have a requirement that

the company certifies that they meet U.S. safety standards, that

will force them to do pre-market testing, and I believe that independent third-party testing is the best way to go. The other thing

that is very important here is who is doing the testing and we need

to make sure that the laboratories that do the testing are certified

to a standard that we would set, so that you have got real accredited laboratories doing high-quality testing. If you have that and

then you have a certification process, I think that really goes a long

way to addressing this problem.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Excellent. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RUSH. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey.

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Nord, the situation at the Consumer Product Safety Commission that you find

yourself in reminds me of the beloved children’s story, The Little

Engine That Could. But in this case, the CPSC is unfortunately the

little agency that can’t. The CPSC can’t ensure that children are

safe from harmful substances, like lead in toys. The agency’s failures are not the result of poor performance by CPSC’s dedicated

employees. They are dedicated. They are diligent. They are hard

working. But the Bush administration has starved the agency of

the resources it needs to perform its important work. That little engine in the children’s book kept chugging, I think I can, I think I

can, I think I can. But the Bush administration has put the CPSC

in an impossible situation. The challenge is just too steep for an

undersized, under-resourced agency. And as a result, American

consumers are put at risks and parents are left to wonder whether

the toys they buy for their children are toxic. The parents play toy

box roulette with each toy, wondering whether or not it has lead
58

in it. Let me begin by asking, when was the last regulation that

your agency promulgated?

Ms. NORD. Last week.

Mr. MARKEY. Last week?

Ms. NORD. Yes. We have got a vote out there for another one as

soon as the commissioner votes. I have already voted.

Mr. MARKEY. Excellent. So your budget is small. The Bush administration doesn’t really want to increase the agency’s budget in

a significant way, historically. But on the other hand, you can promulgate regulations. You don’t have a lot of money, but you have

a lot of power. You can promulgate regulations. So inspecting such

a tiny percentage of toys overseas leaves children dangerously vulnerable to injury or death from toxic toys and other products. Now,

this is a hand-held analyzer made by a company in my congressional district, Thermo Scientific, which, in just a few seconds, has

the capacity to analyze whether or not a toy has lead, which can

endanger children in our country.

Ms. NORD. Yes.

Mr. MARKEY. How many of these types of devices does the CPSC

own?

Ms. NORD. We have an open procurement right now to buy a

number of them.

Mr. MARKEY. And how many are you attempting to buy?

Ms. NORD. I think, at this point, I am not sure. Can I get back

to you?

Mr. MARKEY. Are you talking about a hundred or you talking

about two?

Ms. NORD. No, we are not talking about a hundred. These things

cost like $25,000. We could never afford that.

Mr. MARKEY. Not under the Bush administration you can’t.

Ms. NORD. No.

Mr. MARKEY. So if you get two of these guns, China is a big country. This is a big country. Two analyzer guns to determine whether

or not there is lead in toys really isn’t a lot that your agency will

have.

Ms. NORD. No, of course it isn’t.

Mr. MARKEY. But in turn, you could pass a regulation and you

could mandate that every company in the United States that imports toys has to buy analyzer guns and has to deploy them.

Ms. NORD. This is from your district.

Mr. MARKEY. Not this one particularly, any analyzer gun.

Ms. NORD. OK.

Mr. MARKEY. Anything that advances the ability to serve as a deterrent, a detector. I don’t care which one you mandate, although

this seems to be a very good product. I just wonder, would you consider promulgating a regulation that every company has to purchase these kinds of technologies so that you can just zap in a second the little toy duck and determine whether or not it is dangerous for children?

Ms. NORD. We would not have that authority under out statute

and indeed, Congress has specifically said we can’t do that.

Mr. MARKEY. You can’t do what?

Ms. NORD. Specify that kind of a procurement. The Congress has

said that our standards have to be cast in performance terms rath-
59

er than in that specific a way. So what we can do is say that you

can’t have lead. What I would like us to have the authority to do

is say a company needs to certify that there is no lead. Right now

that authority doesn’t exist for us. And then the company needs to

figure out how they are going to go about certifying to the fact that

there is no lead in their products and that is where——

Mr. MARKEY. Are you presently testing by scrapping?

Ms. NORD. I assume so, yes.

Mr. MARKEY. You assume so or you don’t know?

Ms. NORD. Yes, we are doing x-ray fluorescents and scrapping.

Mr. MARKEY. I think you should learn a lot more about what

your agency is doing and exactly how you are testing, otherwise I

think we are going to wind up in a situation where it is heads, the

Bush White House wins, and tails, the children of America lose.

There is no regulation and at the same time, there is no funding.

And so inside of the regulatory black hole play all of the children

of America and I just don’t think it is something that should be allowed to continue and I would recommend very strongly that you

begin a regulatory process to put, as specifically as possible, the

protections for the children of our country. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. The Chair wants to inform the members

of the subcommittee that we will engage in an additional round of

questioning, one additional question per member, for those who

have a question. Then, at the conclusion of this round, we will recess because there will be four votes on the floor. And at the conclusion of those four votes, we will return, reconvene and we will

have testimony from Mr. Eckert from the Mattel toy company.

Commissioner Moore, you have told this subcommittee that you

are concerned that the law allows U.S. companies to export products that are not compliant with U.S. safety standards and I share

that concern. It is like recycling the recalls. And what should we

do about it? Do you have any recommendation for legislative reforms in that particular area?

Mr. MOORE. I think we might want to give some consideration

to requiring them to at least inform the CPSC of their intentions

to ship these products abroad and then we can determine whether

that is permissible in a particular case.

Mr. RUSH. Are you aware of a current practice now? Is that current problem that we have in terms of recall?

Mr. MOORE. A problem?

Mr. RUSH. Yes.

Mr. MOORE. Yes, it is a problem.

Mr. RUSH. It is a problem?

Mr. MOORE. Yes, it is a problem, and in fact, some companies do

tell us that they are exporting. Some of them do.

Mr. RUSH. They are exporting defective and dangerous——

Mr. MOORE. No, they don’t tell us that. But if the products turn

out to be defective, we try to prevent it as best we can. I don’t

think we have sufficient authority at this point.

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from

Texas for one additional question.

Mr. BURGESS. OK, one question. It is going to have five parts.

Mr. RUSH. One question and one part.
60

Mr. BURGESS. I would like to make the observation, Chairman

Nord, that I agree with you completely that it is the consumer ultimately who will punish any manufacturer or any importer who

brings something into this country that ultimately is proved as unsafe, and I know. I talk to people in my district every day who feel

just as I do, that no longer can they trust the safety of products

when it says made in the People’s Republic of China, and they are

not purchasing those products.

So I hope the manufacturers and importers are listening to that

message and hearing that message from the consumers. On a very

local level back in my district, there has been a news story about

some sandals, flip-flops that have been sold in one of the big chains

down there, that have caused a really significant dermatitis in the

people that have worn them and it is obvious, just in the configuration of the strap itself, where the contact has occurred. Are you

aware of this? Has the manufacturer contacted you with this information and have you issued the voluntary recall for this product?

Ms. NORD. Yes, we are aware of it. We actually are in the process

now of testing that. Unfortunately, we haven’t been able to get the

actual consumer sample that caused the problem. That would be

very useful if we could see the actual product involved. But we do

have testing underway and I would like to be able to come back

to you with what our tests show.

Mr. BURGESS. OK. Well, this is one of those examples where

things should proceed expeditiously. And I all I knew was what I

saw on the news report, but it looks pretty dreadful and they seem

to have a variety of feet that were affected and if it is that pervasive with one retailer, it would just seem to me that it would behoove us to act quickly and get this product off the shelves until

we find out the relative safety or the commission of non-safety of

this product.

Ms. NORD. OK.

Mr. BURGESS. I thank the chairman for his indulgence and I will

yield back.

Mr. RUSH. You have remarks?

Ms. NORD. Well, I wanted to just expand or answer the question

that you had asked Commissioner Moore, if I might, because I

think it is important, it is a terribly important issue and I think

it deserves if I could give an answer as well.

Mr. RUSH. Sure.

Ms. NORD. The Consumer Product Safety Act addresses the export of consumer products and the Commission put in place a number of years ago, gosh, in the late 1970s or early 1980s, a policy

statement and regulations setting on how we deal with exports. It

has in there a blanket statement that says that if a company manufactures a product and it is distributed in the United States and

it does not meet U.S. safety standards, it may not be exported out

of the United States.

So there is that blanket policy statement that the Commission

adopted. Now, with respect to products that are manufactured in

the United States for export that do not meet U.S. safety standards, there is a requirement that the companies notify the CPSC

of their intent to do that and then we notify the country that is

destined to get the product and we do that on a regular basis.
61

So if, for example, Mr. Chairman, you have got a U.S. company

that might be manufacturing a toy for export to the European

Union, which has a different toy standard than we do, by definition, it wouldn’t meet our safety standard. They would notify us we

would notify the EU and the export would take place. We get those

notifications at least once a week and we do have a process in place

that notifies the country in question. I might add, Mr. Chairman,

we are the only country that I know of that does that with other

countries. We do not get similar kinds of notices from other countries.

Mr. RUSH. The subcommittee submitted a letter to the CPSC——

Ms. NORD. I am aware of that.

Mr. RUSH. You are aware of the letter regarding this particular

issue?

Ms. NORD. It just arrived yesterday.

Mr. RUSH. Yes. Would you respond to us by Tuesday, if you can?

Ms. NORD. We will give it our very best efforts.

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois,

Ms. Schakowsky.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Let me just clarify that. If a product is recalled in the United States, recalled for being defective and it is

supposed to be either destroyed or it can be exported if it is recalled, no?

Ms. NORD. No, the statute says that if it is distributed in the

United States and it doesn’t meet a U.S. safety standard, it cannot

be exported. With respect to recalls, what we do when we negotiate

the recall is put in place a disposal plan. On occasion you will have

the company, and we will agree to allow them to export it for disposal purposes, not for resale.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Only for disposal if it is recalled. OK. I wanted

to ask about preemption and understand a little better what States

can do.

Ms. NORD. Yes.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. The CPSC guideline is 600 parts per million

on jewelry.

Ms. NORD. Yes.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Illinois passed a law that just prohibits the

sale of jewelry that doesn’t meet that standard. Do you believe that

the Illinois law should be preempted?

Ms. NORD. No, the Illinois law is not inconsistent with the Federal laws.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. What if Illinois set a lower standard, that is,

there were fewer parts per million that were allowed?

Ms. NORD. I am sorry.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. If Illinois said, we are not going to allow anything that is 500 parts per million in jewelry.

Ms. NORD. OK, in jewelry. Well, at this point, we only have an

enforcement policy, so it would not be preempted. If we were to go

ahead and do a ban and issue a regulation, then anything that was

inconsistent with our regulation would be preempted unless the

State came in and asked for us to waive the preemptive effect and

there is a process in our statute that allows that.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So on the one hand you are saying, though,

that the Commission doesn’t have a lot of resources to do a lot of
62

things and yet, when States move ahead, it is possible that they

would be preempted. California and Vermont are considering more

stringent standards.

Ms. NORD. Actually, I would really disagree with, I guess, the

underlying sense of that question, because we view the States as

very, very critical partners here. And in fact, we have got State employees on our payroll that we pay to go out and do inspections and

really be our feet on the ground. We have got several Illinois State

employees who receive money from the CPSC.

Mr. RUSH. The gentlelady’s time is up.

Ms. NORD. So we look to the States to be——

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Markey is recognized.

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the chairman very much and I love your

innovation, this whole concept of final jeopardy. One question is

just absolutely innovative, it is a breakthrough concept and I love

it. Let me again reiterate that the workers at the agency, they do

a great job. They work very hard. They are under tremendous constraints that come down from the Bush White House, and I appreciate all the work of all of you who are at CPSC. Let me ask you

this, Commissioner Moore. Should the Commission be cutting staff

in the midst of this children’s products crisis?

Mr. MOORE. Absolutely not.

Mr. MARKEY. Absolutely not. And how many new staff would you

like to see, Commissioner Moore?

Mr. MOORE. I would like to see us have 500 or more staffers.

Mr. MARKEY. Five hundred or more staffers. And how many

would you dedicate to this issue of children’s toys?

Mr. MOORE. That is a difficult one to answer. I would have to

get back with you on that one.

Mr. MARKEY. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it.

Mr. RUSH. Thank you and I want to thank the witnesses. You

have been more than generous with your time and we certainly will

be communicating with you again. The subcommittee now is in recess. We have four votes on the floor and we will reconvene with

the president of Mattel as soon as we have completed our voting.

This subcommittee will reconvene promptly at the conclusion of the

four votes on the floor. Thank you.

[Recess]

Mr. RUSH. Call to order. We want to welcome the second panel

of this hearing. We want to welcome Mr. Robert Eckert, who is the

CEO of Mattel, Incorporated. Mr. Eckert, would you please be seated at the witness table. Mr. Eckert, first of all, on behalf of the subcommittee, we want to thank you for the generous use of your time.

You have been here for quite a while. I think I saw you when you

first came into the room and that was hours ago and you are still

here and so we really appreciate it. We will ask that you give us

an opening statement, if you have an opening statement, and we

ask that you confine it to 5 minutes, please. So you can begin at

your convenience.
63

STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. ECKERT, CHAIRMAN AND CEO,

MATTEL, INC.

Mr. ECKERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to appear before the committee today. My name is Bob Eckert and I am

the chairman and CEO of Mattel. I am the person responsible for

making sure all our systems and all our people are dedicated to

safe toys for our kids to enjoy without worry or concern.

These recalls should never have happened, especially at Mattel.

Our standards were ignored and our rules were broken. We were

let down and we let you down. My job is to find out what happened

and make sure it never happens again. We have worked tirelessly

for the past 7 weeks to address these recalls. We are still investigating and we are still testing toys. If there is a needle in the proverbial haystack, we aim to find it.

Mr. Chairman, I know your staff has also been working hard to

investigate product safety and I am aware that they didn’t get access, the access that they wanted, when they were in China. I can

assure that, going forward, Mattel will do everything in its power

to make information and people available to you. My written testimony discusses in detail the sequence of events. We know which

manufacturers violated their contracts with us. We know which

paints were contaminated and we know when they were used and

on what toys. We have already fired several manufacturers that

purposefully violated our rules and we continue to investigate others.

I want to use this afternoon to tell the committee how we plan

to ensure that our rules are followed, our standards are met and

our toys are safe. First, Mattel has instituted a three-stage lead

paint safety check. All products, not just those sourced in Asia, are

subject to lead paint rules throughout the production cycle, before,

during and after any paint application. Prior to painting, every

batch of paint must be purchased only from a certified paint supplier and retested before it is used. Second, we have increased the

number of auditors who are now in every major manufacturer,

every day, to monitor compliance with our standards, and Mattel

employees will conduct surprise inspections as well. Third, once the

product is manufactured, each batch must pass a lead test prior to

reaching store shelves, for an extra layer of redundancy.

But we are not stopping there. We have created a new organization, reporting directly to me, that will combine all of Mattel’s principal safety compliance and reporting functions. We believe this action will focus even more attention on safety and quality as well

as standards and processes. For the past 7 weeks, I have been focused on steering the Mattel organization through these issues.

Now, because I want to be able to personally assure our customers

that our processes are right and our systems are working, I will

travel back to China this month to inspect the implementation of

the new procedures, to discuss our action plans with local managers, and to make clear my expectation for the safety of Mattel’s

toys.

I am confident the steps we have taken so far will strengthen our

procedures, but I won’t rely on Mattel internal audits alone. This

is one of the matters that I have discussed with Congresswoman

Harman. We are putting in place third-party audits of our product
64

safety and quality systems, led by an outside expert who will review Mattel’s compliance with its safety protocols and report back

to me with the findings. We expect tough reviews and we are ready

for them.

Mattel has taken extraordinary steps to notify parents about

these recalls, including extensive advertising, Web outreach and

media interviews. But we recognize that not everyone reads the

morning paper or tunes into the nightly news, so we are working

with State attorneys general and public health officials and we will

reach out to other government and community organizations to

communicate with even more people. I have said many times in the

past that Mattel doesn’t compete on safety. I can assure this committee that we will share with other toy companies what we have

learned to help improve industry practices overall, and to ensure

that children play with safe toys regardless of who made them or

where they are made.

Mr. Chairman, recent questions about the safety of Mattel toys

have been a personal and bitter disappointment to me, as well as

to the men and women at Mattel who take great pride in their

work. I would like to conclude by reiterating my personal apology.

Parents expect the toys carrying the Mattel brand are safe. For

decades they have trusted this company to make certain that they

are, and we intend to earn back that trust, not just with words, but

with out deeds. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Eckert follows:]

STATEMENT OF RONERT ECKERT

Thank you for your invitation to appear before the subcommittee to address

Mattel’s recent lead-paint related recalls and for the opportunity to reinforce our

commitment to efforts that will result in effective improvements in toy safety.

While I am the Chairman and CEO of Mattel, I am also a parent of four children.

And like you, I and the more than 30,000 other employees at Mattel know that

nothing is more important than the safety of our children. Mattel has worked hard

through the years to earn the trust of parents worldwide, and we know full well

that we have disappointed those parents by the recalls you have seen over the past

several weeks. For that, we are very sorry. I am proud to say, however, that Mattel

has faced up to these issues and to our responsibilities. We have been open and

forthright about them, and we have moved vigorously to take steps to prevent these

problems from re-occurring.

In my testimony, I would like to start by providing you some important background facts regarding Mattel and our production of toys before the recent recalls.

I will then turn to a description of what we now know about the specific circumstances that led to each of the recalls. Finally, I will address the steps that

Mattel has taken to prevent this kind of problem in the future.

MATTEL OPERATIONS

Founded in 1945, Mattel designs, manufactures, and markets a broad variety of

toy products. Our toys are enjoyed by children in over 150 countries. We manufacture toys in both company-operated facilities and through third-party contract vendors. Mattel has been manufacturing products and using contract vendors in China

successfully and without significant manufacturing related safety issues for more

than 20 years.

Mattel and its vendors manufacture almost 800 million products a year. Approximately fifty (50) percent of all the toys we sell are manufactured at our own plants,

a higher proportion than other large toy makers. When Mattel does contract with

vendors to manufacture toys, our contracts require that the vendors comply with

Mattel’s quality and safety operating procedures and Global Manufacturing Principles (GMP), which reflect the company’s commitment to responsible practices in

areas such as employee health and safety, environmental management and respect

for the cultural, ethnic and philosophical differences of the countries where Mattel
65

operates. The contracts and accompanying documents also require that vendors

comply with all applicable safety standards, and Mattel specifies, for each toy, the

standard that applies. As to each standard, Mattel generally specifies the most

stringent requirement that applies anywhere in the world. The contracts and accompanying documents also specify the tests that must be performed to ensure compliance. In China, Mattel, through its subsidiary Mattel Asia Pacific Sourcing (MAPS), has

contracts with approximately 37 principal vendors making our toys. Additional vendors are involved in the production of paper products, like board games and cards,

cosmetics, inflatables, and our American Girl and Corolle dolls and accessories.

Mattel’s policies provide that approval to be a vendor for MAPS requires both a production facilities review and an audit under Mattel’s GMP.

MATTEL’S PRE-AUGUST 2007 SAFETY PROCEDURES

We believe that, prior to August 2007, Mattel already had some of the most rigorous safety standards and procedures in the toy industry. With respect to paints,

vendors could purchase coatings from one of MAPS’ qualified paint suppliers, all of

which had implemented pigment traceable control programs to ensure that pigments met heavy elements requirements, including for lead, before being released

to production and could be traced to specific containers of paint on the factory floor.

The qualified suppliers were required to test pigments before delivery and, with

each delivery of paint, provide traceability records to the vendors linking the pigment in that paint to pigment certificates. In addition, each container of paint had

to have a label with a date code and batch/lot number. The vendor was contractually

obligated to match each incoming shipment with a corresponding pigment certificate

and sticker each container with traceability information. Records demonstrating

compliance with these procedures had to be maintained and kept available for periodic audit by MAPS auditors, which occurred approximately monthly.

If vendors needed to buy paint from other suppliers, they could only do so if they

complied with additional rules. Incoming shipments of paint from the supplier had

to be quarantined. Samples from the shipment had to be submitted to a MAPS-approved lab for a heavy elements test. Again, paints that passed the test had to have

a label affixed with batch number, test number, and other required information. As

with approved suppliers, records demonstrating compliance with these procedures

had to be maintained and made available for periodic audit by MAPS auditors.

If a vendor used a subcontractor to assist with any of its production, our contracts

required that the vendor identify that subcontractor to MAPS. Vendors also were

required to identify all facility locations. Vendors were required to supply all paint,

obtained as described above, to be used by any subcontractor on Mattel products.

The above procedures were designed to protect the integrity of the paints to be

used on Mattel products. In addition, there were a number of checks built into the

system prior to August 2007 to verify that finished toys did not have paint with lead

in amounts above applicable standards. Under the procedures imposed by our agreements with vendors, at the commencement of production, before any product could

be shipped, samples had to be tested for compliance with all facets of Mattel’s product requirements, including the standards for lead and other heavy elements. Product could be shipped only after a certificate of compliance was issued.

In addition to all this testing, a majority of Mattel’s direct import customers required periodic testing of products before export. In those circumstances, the direct

importer determined the nature or scope of the tests, including tests for heavy elements. The testing for direct importers was sometimes done by MAPS and sometimes done by independent labs. In addition, recertification testing was required for

products made for direct import if production continued for more than one year. Finally, after certification, vendors were not permitted to change manufacturing locations, materials, components or material sources without approval from MAPS and

recertification.

THE RECALLS

Mattel’s safety standards and procedures had functioned successfully for many

years prior to this summer’s recalls. Clearly, however, something new arose that we

had to address. When Mattel discovered toys with noncomplying paint, we initiated

an exhaustive investigation to get to the root cause. What that ongoing investigation

has revealed so far is that a few vendors, either deliberately or out of carelessness,

circumvented our long-established safety standards and procedures. As a result,

MAPS has terminated its business relationships with some of the entities involved

and is continuing to investigate others. Let me provide you the details of what we

have discovered so far.
66

THE AUGUST 2, 2007, RECALL

The August 2, 2007, recall had its genesis in a direct importer’s pre-shipment test

for lead in paint on a sample of product bound for France. Specifically, Intertek, an

independent laboratory, performed the pre-shipment lead test for Auchan, a French

direct importer. On June—8, 2007, Intertek reported noncompliant paint on a sample of toys manufactured for MAPS by Lee Der Industrial Company, Ltd. Mattel

Product Integrity employees in Asia stopped shipment of the item and contacted the

vendor, Lee Der, requesting that it immediately remedy the problem and provide

another sample of the corrected production for testing. On or about June 29, 2007,

Mattel Product Integrity employees in China were notified of an Intertek lead test

result on another sample of the same toy previously tested on June 8 for Auchan.

The product passed the lead test. At that point, Mattel Product Integrity employees

in Asia had reason to believe that Lee Der had solved any lead paint issue that it

had.

Independent of the test failure in China, but during the same time period, on

June 27, 2007, a consumer reported to Mattel’s call center in the U.S. a home test

kit finding of lead paint on a product also manufactured by Lee Der, a result which

Mattel was subsequently unable to replicate when testing several samples of the

same product. On June 28, 2007, Mattel Product Integrity employees in China took

additional samples of Lee Der’s products and sent them to MAPS’ laboratory in

China for testing.

On July 3, 2007, a third lead test report for Auchan, performed by the same independent laboratory, Intertek, found noncomplying lead levels in paint on another

sample of the originally-tested toy in a different assortment made by Lee Der. Shipment of that product was held and, on July 5, MAPS picked up samples of 23 additional Lee Der products to test. On July 6, 2007, MAPS’ laboratory in China reported results of its testing of the five samples of Lee Der toys that MAPS had

taken on June 28. Nonconforming levels of lead were found in the paint on portions

of three of five samples of the toys made by Lee Der. That same day, July 6, immediately following receipt of these results, MAPS notified Lee Der that MAPS would

accept no more toys made by Lee Der. On July 9, MAPS’ laboratories reported that

9 of the 23 additional samples of Lee Der toys taken on July 5 contained some paint

with nonconforming lead levels.

In light of these additional test results, Mattel’s employees in Asia notified senior

management at Mattel of an issue with Lee Der products for the first time on July

12, 2007. Mattel management ordered an immediate freeze of all shipments of suspect Lee Der products on July 13, 2007, and expanded the freeze to apply to all Lee

Der products on July 17, 2007. Mattel also launched an investigation to identify

both the root cause and potential scope of the lead paint problem, including what

toys might be affected, what dates of production might be affected, and whether any

of the affected toys may have been shipped and, if so, to what locations. Mattel

traced the nonconforming lead levels to yellow pigment in paint used on portions

of certain toys manufactured by Lee Der at a previously undisclosed plant located

in Foshan City, China.

Mattel filed an Initial Report with the Consumer Product Safety Commission

(CPSC) on July 20, 2007, and a Full Report on July—26, 2007, indicating Mattel’s

desire to institute a fast track recall. Mattel recalled all products that we believed

potentially could contain some paint with impermissibly high lead levels. Thus, the

recall covered 83 different stock keeping units (SKUs) made by Lee Der between

April 19, 2007 (the date when Lee Der took delivery of the paint containing lead

from its supplier) and July 6, 2007 (the date when Mattel stopped taking delivery

of Lee Der’s products).

Lee Der’s use of an unregistered facility to produce Mattel product was a violation

of its manufacturing and procurement agreement with MAPS, as was its failure to

test every batch of paint received from its paint supplier for use on Mattel product.

THE AUGUST 14, 2007, RECALL

On July 30, 2007, just prior to the announcement of the August 2 recall, a test

conducted by Mattel on paint on a different toy, the Sarge car, made by a different

vendor, failed the lead test. The test was part of Mattel’s routine recertification testing for direct importers described above. Mattel immediately began an investigation

to verify the result, locate potentially affected product, and determine the cause and

scope of the problem. In light of the test result on the Sarge car and the lead test

results on the Lee Der-made toys, on August—1, 2007, Mattel decided to detain

from distribution all finished products in Asia, whether made by Mattel or our vendors, until test samples proved the toys to be in compliance with lead standards.
67

On August 6, 2007, Mattel concluded that the excess lead on the Sarge car was

due to yellow pigment used by an undisclosed subcontractor on the olive-green top.

That same day, Mattel filed an Initial Report with the CPSC. The next day, August

7, Mattel filed a Full Report with the CPSC asking for a fast track recall of the

toy. The Sarge car was recalled on August 14, 2007.

The olive-green top of the Sarge car that contained lead paint was painted by

Hon—Li Da Plastic Cement Products Co., Ltd. located in Shenzhen City, China.

Hon Li Da was a subcontractor of Early Light Industrial Company, Ltd. in Hong

Kong. Early Light incorporated the top painted by Hon Li Da in the finished Sarge

car made in its manufacturing facility located in Pinghu, China. Early Light had

not identified its subcontractor, Hon Li Da, though it was required to do so by its

agreement with MAPS. It is not clear at this time whether Early Light supplied

Hon Li Da with certified paint, whether it supplied an insufficient quantity of certified paint, or whether Hon Li Da sold the certified paint it was provided by Early

Light and bought and used other paint containing lead.

THE SEPTEMBER 4, 2007, RECALL

When Mattel detained all finished product in Asia on August 1, we began to test

for lead in paint on samples of each toy. This exhaustive testing program resulted

in identifying certain parts of some additional toys with paint containing lead in excess of the applicable standard. Specifically, Mattel obtained some test results indicating that a few parts of certain Barbie accessory sets (7 SKUs), a Geo Trax vehicle

(2 SKUs), and the Fisher-Price 6-in–1 Big World Bongos Band (1 SKU) also had

paint on some portions of the toys with lead levels in excess of the applicable standard.

The nonconforming paint on portions of certain plastic Barbie accessories was first

detected on or about August 9 and 11, 2007. The CPSC was notified of the results

of Mattel’s testing and investigation by letters delivered on August 10 and—17,

2007. A Full Report was filed with the CPSC on August 27, 2007, again requesting

a fast track recall. As in the prior two recalls, Mattel was over-inclusive in the toys

we included in the recall. In fact, the recall included some Barbie accessories that,

when sample tested, complied with the applicable lead standard.

The affected Barbie accessory products were painted by one or both of two related

subcontractors, Dong Lian Fa Metals Plastic Produce Factory and Yip Sing. Dong

Lian’s factory is located in Huizhou City, China. Yip Sing’s factory is located in

Shenzhen City, China. The lead paint affected parts were incorporated into finished

product manufactured by MAPS’ vendor, Holder Plastic, at its factory in Shenzhen,

China. Holder failed to identify its subcontractors to MAPS as it was required to

do. Holder appears to have supplied Dong Lian Fa and Yip Sing with approved

paint, and it is not yet known why paint containing lead was applied to the toys.

The nonconforming paint lead levels on the Geo Trax vehicle’s small yellow ladder

and headlights were discovered on or about August 16, 2007. The CPSC was notified

on August 20, 2007, of the Geo Trax test result, and a Full Report was filed on August—27,—2007, asking for a fast track recall. Mattel’s recall of approximately

89,000 Geo Trax included a significant number of compliant toys because the toys

with noncompliant ladders and head lights painted by Apex Manufacturing Co.,

Ltd.’s subcontractor, Boyi Plastic Products Factory, between July 31, 2006, and September 4, 2006, had been mixed with pieces of compliant production in Apex’s inventory. Mattel has recalled all 89,000 finished products that were made from the

mixed inventory.

Certain of the Geo Trax products included in the recall were painted by Boyi in

Dongguan City, China. These toys were intermingled with other finished products

manufactured by MAPS’ vendor, Apex, in Dongguan City, China. Apex violated its

agreement with MAPS by failing to identify its subcontractor, Boyi. Apex claims

that it provided compliant paint to Boyi, but that has not been confirmed.

Nonconforming paint lead levels on portions of some 6-in–1 Big World Bongos

Band were found initially on or about August 20 and confirmed in retests on August

27, 2007. Even though the noncomplying paint is located on the underside of the

Bongos’ plastic skin, Mattel decided to recall the toys by notifying the CPSC on August 27, 2007, and by filing a Full Report on August 28, 2007, also requesting fast

track treatment. Our current understanding, based on our ongoing investigation, is

that the affected 6-in-1—Big World Bongos Band were painted at the request of a

subcontractor, Wo Fong Packaging Co., Ltd., located in Dongguan City, China. The

components made at the request of Wo Fong were incorporated into finished product

manufactured by MAPS’ vendor, Shun On Toys Co., Ltd., at its factory in Dongguan

City, China. Shun On violated its agreement with MAPS by failing to identify its
68

subcontractor, Wo Fong, and by failing to provide Wo Fong with the paint to be used

on a Mattel product.

Mattel’s exhaustive testing program to identify any lead paint on any part of our

toys continues to this day. I am pleased to report that, thus far, this testing has

revealed no other products, beyond those subject to the September 4, 2007, recall,

that should be recalled for lead in paint in excess of the applicable standard.

MATTEL’S FOLLOW-THROUGH ON THE RECALLS

All of these recent recalls were initiated by Mattel as voluntary recalls. In addition, in order to expedite the recalls, Mattel requested that each recall be implemented pursuant to the CPSC’s ‘‘fast track’’ program. Mattel and the CPSC have

worked together closely and cooperatively to plan the recalls and to make sure that

the recalls are being clearly communicated to parents. Thus, in agreement with the

CPSC, Mattel staffed its call center with adequate numbers of properly trained operators, developed a CPSC-approved script, prepared a CPSC-approved portion of

the company’s Web site addressing the recall, explored means by which consumers

could be contacted directly by mail using Mattel’s consumer data base, prepared and

sent to retailers a CPSC-approved notice for retail stores, prepared CPSC-approved

posters to be displayed in retail stores, and finalized the terms of the recall. Mattel

also gave retailers advance notice of the recall, as permitted by the CPSC, so that

they could remove recalled products from their stores even as preparations for the

implementation of the recall were being finalized.

With the CPSC’s assistance, permission and approval, Mattel also:

Issued a joint press release with the CPSC;

Set up a toll-free, multi-lingual, interactive voice response phone line that assists

consumers in determining whether their product is subject to the recall and that

allows registration for the recall;

Placed a notice on the Mattel web site that includes a web tool, in more than 20

different languages, that aids consumers in determining whether their product is

subject to the recall and that allows for on-line registration for participation in the

recall;

Produced and placed prominently on our website two specially-made videos in

which I addressed these issues directly with parents;

Mailed letters to individual consumers whose contact information was in the

Mattel Consumer Relations database by virtue of their having called Mattel previously about any toy that is subject to the current recalls; and

Formally notified retailers of the recalls by letter.

In order to get the news out to as many consumers as quickly as possible, Mattel

also took the initiative and ran full-page newspaper ads in major newspapers on August 14 and September 5, 2007. Among the newspapers that carried the ads on one

or both of those dates were USA Today, the New York Times, the Los Angeles

Times, the Chicago Tribune, and the Washington Post. We gave satellite interviews

to numerous television programs, which appeared on global, national and local

broadcasts. We also did many print and on-line interviews. In addition, Mattel

placed ads on various web sites, especially those that we believed were likely to be

visited by parents. These websites included Yahoo!, Disney, Nickelodeon, and the

Cartoon Network. This combination of the CPSC’s prescribed measures and Mattel’s

further independent efforts resulted in intense media coverage of the recalls.

With respect to the procedures for returns of recalled products, retailers may return all recalled products in their inventory to Mattel for full credit. Consumers are

provided a postage prepaid ‘‘mailing label’’ to use to send recalled product back to

Mattel. In most cases, when Mattel receives recalled product from consumers, we

issue vouchers redeemable for Mattel products in an amount that is intended to be

equal to or greater than the retail price actually paid plus tax. In some cases, we

issue replacement parts rather than a voucher. If any consumer has a proof of purchase at a higher price than the voucher amount, Mattel will issue a voucher for

the higher price.

MATTEL’S ENHANCED PROCEDURES TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE

Mattel has acted quickly to implement new procedures designed to provide enhanced protections against potential future violations of our manufacturing standards and procedures. For example, after the August 2 recall, we immediately supplemented our contractual requirements with a three-stage safety check related to the

paint used on our toys. The three-stage safety check applies to all plants that manufacture toys for Mattel, not just those located in Asia.
69

First, every batch of paint must be purchased only from a certified paint supplier.

Even though the supplier is already certified, samples of the paint must still be tested before use to ensure compliance with lead standards. Those sample tests must

be performed either by Mattel’s own laboratories or by laboratories certified by

Mattel. Copies of the test results must be made available to Mattel.

Second, paint on samples of finished product from every production run must be

tested for lead by either Mattel’s own laboratories or by laboratories certified by

Mattel.

Third, we have increased the frequency of random, unannounced inspections of

vendors and subcontractors for compliance with these new procedures. In addition,

Mattel has been conducting unannounced inspections of every one of our vendors

and subcontractors worldwide.

Beyond this three-stage safety check, Mattel’s vendors must disclose to Mattel the

identity of any subcontractor that a vendor proposes to use before that subcontractor

is allowed to work on Mattel products, and any such subcontractor must be open

to audit by Mattel. Those subcontractors are not permitted to further subcontract

the work on Mattel’s products. Vendors must supply all paint to the subcontractors,

and the vendors and subcontractors must segregate all production for Mattel, including having dedicated storage for paint used on Mattel products. Mattel’s vendors

also must test the paints on a sample of all components produced by any subcontractor for lead before using the subcontractor’s components in a Mattel product.

Review of compliance with these additional requirements will also be part of the unannounced inspections of vendors and subcontractors.

Through the above steps, Mattel has now implemented a system of multiple and

redundant safety checks. We certify paint suppliers to ensure the paint they supply

is good paint. We require tests of the paint from the certified paint suppliers before

it is used, and if it fails, it doesn’t go on our product. We have increased random

inspections of vendors and subcontractors during production to make sure they are

testing paint. We require that vendors test samples of any components that they

get from subcontractors before they go into our products. We test samples of the finished products on a regular basis to verify that the process has worked. At the same

time, our direct importers are continuing to perform their own testing of our products.

OTHER MEASURES

In addition to these many safeguards, we are continuing to evaluate and, where

appropriate, adopt further measures to enhance the safety of our products and the

effectiveness of the recalls. We have made some recent announcements that will

have a direct impact on how we do business. For example, we have created a new

organization, reporting directly to me, that will combine, in one operation, all of

Mattel’s principal safety, compliance and reporting functions.

While Mattel is confident that the measures we have adopted will go far in preventing these lead-paint problems from re-occurring, we agree that others, including

Congress, the CPSC and foreign regulatory bodies and governments, can and should

play an important role in what we believe should be a joint and cooperative effort

with a shared objective—the safety and well-being of our children.

Mattel supports the Consumer Product Safety Act and the mission of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. We are committed to working with members of

Congress to strengthen the Commission. We believe that more resources are needed

for the organization to carry out its important duties most effectively. Mattel further

supports proposals that would ensure laboratories used for testing toys, wherever

produced, are fully qualified and are accredited by independent organizations.

These recent lead recalls have been a personal disappointment to me and, I am

sure, to all of the men, women and parents who take great pride in working at

Mattel. But, as I said at the start of my remarks, these events have also called for

us to act, and we have. As an industry leader often deeply involved in setting standards for our industry, we have adopted safety standards and procedures that we

hope will be a model for all toy companies.

I would like to conclude by reiterating my personal apology on behalf of Mattel

and to emphasize my commitment to parents. Parents expect that toys carrying the

Mattel brand are safe. I believe the steps we have taken and continue to take will

strengthen the safety of our products and earn their trust.

Thank you for the opportunity to address these important issues with you today.

I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
70

Mr. RUSH. Thank you for your opening statement. The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes for questioning.

Mr. Eckert, you and your company have apologized to the American public for the toys with the lead paint, and you have just recently done so in this hearing. I have a concern that in the past

Mattel has not been so forthcoming with the public. The CPSC has

twice, in 2000 and earlier this year, fined Mattel for failure to report serious safety defects in toys, including Power Wheels, Little

People Animal Farms, et cetera. Given this recent history, how is

the public to trust your assurances and how is it to read your

apologies?

Mr. ECKERT. I believe, sir, the timeliness with which we have executed the recalls this summer are a good example of our understanding of our obligations and our willingness to comply with

them. And if I might add, when we go backwards in time and look

at recalls like the 1998 recall of Power Wheels that occurred before

I was even with the company, and what we try and do is not dwell

on those issues but learn from them and apply them to our situation today. And I might add, not only do I believe our recalls were

timely this summer, and I would add that the CPSC worked very

hard to execute these recalls on very short notice. They did work

evenings, they did work on weekends and they did work over holidays to help us effect these fast-track recalls. We had initiated a

dialog with the Commission, prior to this summer’s recalls, to put

in place a new system that I believe will be gold standard for manufacturing companies to take out these disputes of timeliness and

to automate a system and to make sure the Consumer Product

Safety Commission gets the information when they need it.

Mr. RUSH. On the issue of time and timeliness, can you comment

on the recent reports in the press earlier this month that stated

that Mattel will disclose problems ‘‘on its own time table,’’ and that

the CPSC’s enforcement practices are ‘‘unreasonable.’’ Should Congress interpret this as saying that your company is above the law?

Mr. ECKERT. That is not what I said.

Mr. RUSH. That is not what you said.

Mr. ECKERT. It is not in quotes. That is not how I feel. And

again, I believe our actions demonstrate the contrary. I am sure

you have faced situations, as have other Members of Congress,

where you might say something in a media report and it comes

back being something entirely different than what you might have

said.

Mr. RUSH. I don’t want to comment on that. Well, what did you

mean when you made those statements?

Mr. ECKERT. I didn’t make those statements in the body of that

interview.

Mr. RUSH. You didn’t make those.

Mr. RUSH. Right.

Mr. ECKERT. What I tried to communicate was what I understand our requirements to be. First of all, I absolutely understand

the prompt notification requirement, that is, 24 hours to notify the

agency when you have a reasonable conclusion that a defect may

pose, could pose a serious hazard. What hasn’t received as much

attention is the provision in the regulations which gives companies

10 business days or more to determine if they have a reportable in-
71

cident. For example, is the product in distribution, what product is

it and where is it? We do use time, from when we first hear of a

problem, to make sure we know what products are involved. We go

to the root cause of the situation so that we recall the right products on the right days.

Mr. RUSH. Right. I have just a few more seconds and have a couple of other questions. Mattel announced three recalls in August

and September. Are there any more coming?

Mr. ECKERT. I certainly hope not, but I have learned never to say

never. And I said in my remarks, we are looking for the needle in

the haystack and if there is another needle in the haystack, we will

find it, if we at all can, and we will report it in a timely fashion

and we will have another recall. The fact is the system worked, because we recalled these products.

Mr. RUSH. Can you personally assure parents that the Mattel

toys that they might be considering buying for this upcoming

Christmas season for their children, can you assure them that they

will be safe?

Mr. ECKERT. My No. 1 goal is to make sure that this holiday season’s toys are the safest ever.

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now recognizes the ranking member, Mr.

Stearns.

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Eckert, let me just

start from the beginning. How many products do you make every

year? How many toys do you make? What is the volume?

Mr. ECKERT. We make roughly 800 million toys a year.

Mr. STEARNS. And what percentage of those products have been

recalled?

Mr. ECKERT. Due to lead paint, we have recalled about one and

a half million products here in the United States. It is about onehalf of 1 percent.

Mr. STEARNS. OK, one-half of 1 percent.

Mr. ECKERT. It is one-half of 1 percent.

Mr. STEARNS. Yes. It is a very small percentage. And the idea is

that most of these recalls came from a certain area. And where was

that? They were manufactured in——

Mr. ECKERT. They were manufactured in the southern part of

China.

Mr. STEARNS. And this is not in the United States, the recalls,

they were products that were manufactured in the southern part

of China?

Mr. ECKERT. That is correct.

Mr. STEARNS. OK. And how many plants were involved?

Mr. ECKERT. There were several different plants, five different,

what we call primary vendor plants out of the roughly 37 or so vendors that we use in China, and then several subcontractors of

theirs.

Mr. STEARNS. And it is your intent now to have subcontractors

in there working for you, testing, on a statistical basis, these toys

in the future to prevent this from happening again?

Mr. ECKERT. No, sir. Again, the rules are very clear to prevent

this from happening again. One, you can only use certified paint

from one of our eight certified suppliers that have pigment tracing

and have documentation on every can of paint. Two, you must
72

retest the paint before you use it, to make sure it is good. Three,

we now have auditors in every one of these primary vendors every

day of the week to watch what they are doing. And four, for even

more redundancy, we are testing every batch of finished toys, samples from every batch before they go to store shelves.

Mr. STEARNS. Now, do you own these plants? Do you have 100

percent ownership of these plants?

Mr. ECKERT. We do not. We own some plants. Of the toys we

make in China, about half of them come from Mattel plants and

half come from what we call vendor plants.

Mr. STEARNS. The ones that were recalled, those plants, how

many of those plants did you own?

Mr. ECKERT. None.

Mr. STEARNS. None. So all of these are from plants you do not

own?

Mr. ECKERT. That is correct.

Mr. STEARNS. Do you have a 10 percent interest, a 50 percent interest?

Mr. ECKERT. We have no interest. But with some of these plants,

we have had long relations.

Mr. STEARNS. But how could you be sure that you are going to

be able to control the product in a company in southern China that

you have no ownership in, that is owned by ‘‘the communist government?’’ How can you assure us that you are going to have any

control on any plant that you don’t own and you can’t assure access

to?

Mr. ECKERT. Well, we do have access to all of those plants and

we are in those primary vendors every day and I think our redundant level of tests provides assurance.

Mr. STEARNS. But don’t you think it would be better that you

own these? You say you own some plants in China.

Mr. ECKERT. That is correct.

Mr. STEARNS. OK. So wouldn’t it be advisable for you to own the

plants where these problems were?

Mr. ECKERT. I am not sure it is a question of who owns the

plants, it is: Are people following the rules?

Mr. STEARNS. But the plants you own, you have had no trouble

with.

Mr. ECKERT. That is correct, but again——

Mr. STEARNS. So why not take the next logical step and say, why

don’t we transfer this to plants we own, rather than plants we have

no ownership in?

Mr. ECKERT. We are putting the same redundancies in the plants

that we do own. Again, I am not sure this is——

Mr. STEARNS. So ownership is not a relevancy?

Mr. ECKERT. I think what is important here is that our people

follow the rules and what got us into these recalls this summer is

that a handful of people violated our rules. They circumvented the

rules.

Mr. STEARNS. I know, but you didn’t own the plants, you had no

huge authority there, whereas, in the plants you own, you did. So

you are saying you are going to continue to manufacture there and

hope these subcontractors get in there and you have no ownership

in these plants, so I am not sure the guarantee is there. Let me
73

move along here. Why don’t you manufacture these toys in United

States?

Mr. ECKERT. We manufacture in markets outside of China. First,

we are one of the few toy companies that owns toy facilities, toymaking facilities, and we manufacture in other markets, including

Malaysia, Thailand, Mexico, Indonesia.

Mr. STEARNS. Are you manufacturing in China because it is inexpensive?

Mr. ECKERT. We have been manufacturing there since, I believe,

1983.

Mr. STEARNS. Yes.

Mr. ECKERT. It is a good combination of quality, cost and——

Mr. STEARNS. Inexpensive labor is primarily the reason, wouldn’t

be?

Mr. ECKERT. Not necessarily. We also have worked in China for

decades and had very high quality toys.

Mr. STEARNS. You see a lot of Toyota or BMW come back in the

United States and they go into parts of the United States where

the standard of living is not as high as New York City, Westchester

County, Greenwich, Connecticut. Is it possible that a lot of these

companies where you manufacture in southern China, you could

come back in the United States and in some of the regions of this

country we could create jobs for Americans?

Mr. ECKERT. We are always looking at where we manufacture

toys and we will continue to look. Since I have been at Mattel for

the last 7 years, we have rotated plants and made changes several

times and we will continue to do that.

Mr. STEARNS. The last question, Mr. Chairman. How much of

this failure in this detection of the lead in paint is due to fraud or

to process failure?

Mr. ECKERT. It is hard for me to answer. The investigation is

still ongoing. My sense is that some people made honest mistakes

and some carelessness. For example, when a vendor outsources to

a subcontractor a part, the requirement is the vendor takes the

paint that follows our rules and it goes to the subcontractor with

the part. I believe there may have been instances where the paint

went to the wrong place or not enough paint went to the right

place. That may be an issue. I also believe there were clear cases

of people intentionally circumventing the system and those are the

people we no longer do business with.

Mr. STEARNS. And I submit, Mr. Chairman, that a lot of fraud

did occur and without ownership of this, the possibility of fraud

could occur, so I think that is a relevant point.

Mr. RUSH. His time is up. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Burgess, for 5 minutes of questioning.

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Eckert, I

thank you also for staying with us all day. It has been a pretty long

hearing. You may have heard me. It has been so many hours ago,

now you may have forgotten. When you do a product recall, what

do you do with all of the stuff that you get back? Does the stuff

come back to you?

Mr. ECKERT. Yes. Not everything comes back, unfortunately,

which is why we work so hard with the CPSC, why we have taken

out advertising to announce the recalls, which, again, I believe is
74

unprecedented in our industry. We have been on television with

media interviews. We took out full-page ads in newspapers. We

bought advertising on Internet sites, like Google and Yahoo, to

make sure people were aware of it. When we do get toys back, we

quarantine them. We do not release them. We do not export them.

We do not ship them out of the country. In the case of this summer, this is the first time we have had lead paint on toys, so this

is new to us. We are working with environmental consultants to try

to devise a plan to dispose of them. I know one of the things we

are looking at is can they be used in cogeneration, complementing

ingredients in cogeneration or something like that. But we do not

allow those products to leave our control.

Mr. BURGESS. Very well. So they are not going to end up in a

landfill or just burned in a regular furnace?

Mr. ECKERT. No, they are not.

Mr. BURGESS. What do we do to make sure that if you had a

product in the pipeline over in China, obviously, now that pipeline

is stopped, how do we be sure that someone doesn’t, before that

product even gets to this country and gets under your command

and control, how are we sure that it is not diverted and perhaps

shows up on an eBay site? With the interconnectivity that we have

with the Internet today, you can buy things from other countries.

Are we doing anything to monitor that? Or if someone in this country said, I better dump my Tommy the Tank, or whatever it is,

quickly and sell that on eBay, is anyone——

Mr. ECKERT. That is a concern. I don’t know the answer. I talked

to a Senator just last week about that. It is a big concern of mine.

If someone were to take a toy that is not safe for children and donate it to the Salvation Army or one of those things, that to me

is wrong and I don’t know the answer to how to prevent that, but

I believe we should work and figure out a way to do that.

Mr. BURGESS. Now, Chairwoman Nord, when she was here, I

think testified that the current standard, acceptable standard for

lead in paint had to be less than 0.06 percent.

Mr. ECKERT. Yes.

Mr. BURGESS. I believe that is the figure that was quoted. How

high were the levels in some of the paint that you tested that was

ultimately found to be at risk?

Mr. ECKERT. It varied tremendously. For example, I saw media

reports today of the toy that we identified in the letter to the chairman and to the staff, that had 11 percent lead. On that particular

toy, the range was from 0.26 percent to 11 percent, depending on

which product was sampled. But that was the single highest number we got.

Mr. BURGESS. Now, would the whole toy have been painted with

that?

Mr. ECKERT. Not at all. No, what happens in this particular, it

was a stamp on the underside of a membrane, so not exactly accessible in normal use and it is just that small portion of the toy. In

fact, in all of these toys, it is not the big toy that is affected, it is

some component. And when I cite percentages, it is percentage of

lead on the paint on that small component. The average has been

or a typical number has been closer to 1 percent. It is still too high.
75

Mr. BURGESS. Are you aware of any testing that has been done

on children who have been, say, in a household or an area where

they may have been exposed? Has there been any clinical documentation that, in fact, this resulted in a higher than expected lead

level in children who may have been in an environment where

these toys were?

Mr. ECKERT. No. In fact, I have read media reports throughout

this ordeal, that have suggested, from people who are experts

and—I am not a toxicologist and the like, that say this really isn’t

a concern from a public health standpoint. That being said, that is

not my job.

Mr. BURGESS. No. Right.

Mr. ECKERT. My job is to get these toys back. They don’t meet

our standards. It is not a question of how much. I want the toys

back.

Mr. BURGESS. Yes, it would be interesting to see what our water

in these pitchers has as a concentration of lead, Mr. Chairman. I

tried to get Ed Markey to aim that little gun at my pitcher, but

he wouldn’t do it. Ranking Member Stearns asked a very good

question. Why even manufacture overseas, because it would seem

to me, with all of the counterfeiting that goes on nowadays and we

sit everywhere, from pharmaceuticals to Brittany Spears CDs.

Don’t you put your trademark at risk somewhat by moving your

production facilities overseas?

Mr. ECKERT. We do manufacture in several markets. Almost half

of the toys we sell every year are not sold in the United States, so

we are a company that has operations in both sales and marketing

and manufacturing overseas.

Mr. BURGESS. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think Ranking Member

Stearns also recognized that we are up to the Christmas selling

season, everything after July 17. I know, in the old days, if I hadn’t

taken my Christmas lights down by July 17, I was early for the

next year and not late for the last year. So everything that happens

after July 17, now we are getting ready for the next Christmas season. It just seems to me, with the volume of toys that you expect

to sell over the Christmas season in this country, There has got to

be people who are looking for a made in America label on a product

that they can believe. And you heard my testimony earlier. I, for

one, the only way I feel that I have the control bringing an unsafe

product into my home is to not buy a product that is manufactured

in a country where the standards are so lax, and I have got to believe that other people feel the same way. In fact, I have heard

from a number of my constituents during the town halls that we

did during August recess, that that was the case. So are you looking at all to move manufacturing back into this country? As Mr.

Stearns suggested, there are lots of areas where this could be considered and putting that made in America label, a little American

flag on the toy, I got to believe that would help recover the branding process that you talked about.

Mr. RUSH. The gentleman’s time is up. The witness will be allowed to answer this question.

Mr. ECKERT. As I said earlier, we continue to look regularly at

where we make toys and what is made where and what is made
76

in our facilities and what is made in outside facilities all over the

world. We will continue to do that.

Mr. RUSH. The Chair will allow one additional question from

each member who requested it. The Chair has one additional question here. Mr. Eckert, I have heard the word certification kind of

bantered around the room. What do you mean by certification and

what kind of assurances will your certification provide, and what

is the process for the certification to take place?

Mr. ECKERT. If you are referring to the laboratories, that hasn’t

been an issue. The issue isn’t the test or the procedures. The issue

is products failed the test. My belief is all toys, representative samples of all toys should be tested in accredited labs. Outside parties

can accredit the labs, which the Toy Industry Association has recently proposed, have outside parties accredit the labs and the

sampling protocols and I think that will add a level of assurance

to consumers.

Mr. RUSH. So are you suggesting, then, that each toy that Mattel

places on the shelves in the stores, that there will be something to

inform the buying consumer that this product has been certified as

safe?

Mr. ECKERT. There may be something. I don’t know. I think the

industry needs to look at that and others need to look at that. But

I do feel that I would like to see the entire toy industry step up

to the level of testing that we are doing.

Mr. RUSH. The Chair recognizes the ranking member for an additional question.

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Eckert, I am just

going to give you a chance to reply. During the opening statements,

members on that side indicated that staff was over there in China

and they were prevented from going into your plants and the indication was that there was obstruction, there was intentional hiding

of the ability to have access to your plants, and I thought I would

give you an opportunity to respond to some of the opening statements where they made this claim against Mattel. Were you here?

Did you listen?

Mr. ECKERT. Yes.

Mr. STEARNS. And I thought you might want to take an opportunity to give your side of the picture.

Mr. ECKERT. Well, as I said, I am aware of situations where the

staff didn’t feel like they had adequate access. We tried very hard

to provide them access to our facilities, to our testing labs. We have

flown people in from California to here, our lead investigator, to

interview with the staff, but I am not here to quibble about that.

I am also aware that they didn’t feel like they got everything they

needed. And so Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, I am here

to assure you, you will get everything you need. I will try my very

hardest to accommodate that.

Mr. STEARNS. Well, that is good to hear, Mr. Chairman. I know

my staff was in China, too, so I thought I would give you that opportunity. Thank you.

Mr. ECKERT. Thank you.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Burgess.

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Probably not a question, but I guess I will just conclude with a statement, Mr. Chair-
77

man. I know I can’t help but feel, as we sit here and certainly not

that I think that Mattel would necessarily be involved, but I can’t

help but feel that we are just on the verge of the cusp of yet one

more round of bad headlines from somewhere in this process and

I just think it is so incumbent upon each one of us. We have heard

from the people from the Consumer Product Safety Commission

today and certainly this committee takes its job very seriously. I

know the Senate is working on things as well. I just don’t think

there is enough we can do to restore that consumer confidence. Mr.

Eckert, I will just tell you, my party used to be in the majority here

and a lot of us feel that one of the reasons we are no longer is because our brand suffered and it is a real challenge to get your

brand back after your brand has been tarnished. So I appreciate

the job that you are up against and the work that you have taken

on and certainly wish you every success in that. I would just end

with, don’t overlook the manufacturing capability that exists right

here. And Mr. Barton, I think, pointed it out well. Texas has got

a great workforce ready to go make those toys for you and have

them on the shelves by this Christmas and we will even let you put

a little Texas flag on them and I think they will sell like hot cakes.

I will yield back my time.

Mr. ECKERT. Thank you.

Mr. RUSH. Again, the Chair wants to thank the witness for his

generous use of his time. We thank you for bearing with us today,

as we have conducted this hearing. I want the committee members

to be reminded that the record will remain open for 30 days in

order to accept official statements for this hearing. I want to also

state that Chairman Dingell is detained in a meeting at the Capitol

and will submit written questions to Mattel, for the record, and

will appreciate a prompt response. This concludes panel No. 2 and

the committee, without objection, will be recessed until tomorrow

morning at 10 o’clock.

[Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10:00 a.m., Thursday, September 20, 2007.]

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111

(113)

PROTECTING CHILDREN FROM LEADTAINTED IMPORTS

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE

AND CONSUMER PROTECTION,

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:15 a.m., in room

2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bobby L. Rush

(chairman) presiding.

Members present: Representatives Schakowsky, Gonzalez,

Hooley, Matheson, Stearns, Pitts and Burgess.

Staff present: Judith Bailey, Consuela Washington, Christian

field, Andrew Woelfling; Valerie Baron, Will Carty, Shannon

Weinberg, Brian McCullough, and Chad Grant.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Mr. RUSH. The subcommittee hearing will come to order.

We want to thank our witnesses for appearing before us today

on this second panel for this hearing subject titled ‘‘Protecting Children from Lead-Tainted Imports.’’ I want to take a moment to welcome again our witnesses and to invite them to come to the witness

table. Our witnesses are for this second panel Dana Best, who is

a fellow at the American Academy of Pediatrics. Dr. Best is on the

faculty of George Washington University School of Medicine and attends pediatrics at Children’s National Medical Center in Washington, DC, Dr. Best, please join us at the table. Thank you so very

much for being here.

Our next witness will be Ms. Olivia D. Farrow. She is the assistant commissioner of the Division of Environmental Health for the

city of Baltimore. Ms. Farrow was instrumental in drafting regulations banning lead in children’s jewelry in Baltimore. Welcome, Ms.

Farrow.

The third witness is Mr. Michael Green. He is the executive director for the Center for Environmental Health in Oakland, California. The Center is a nonprofit organization that promotes alternatives to toxic chemicals commonly used by children and parents.

Welcome, Mr. Green.

Our next witness on the panel is Ms. Mary Teagarden of Global

Strategy, Thunderbird School of Global Management in Glendale,

Arizona. Professor Teagarden has expertise in the area of strategic
114

management of technology and innovation and strategic human resource management. Welcome, Ms. Teagarden.

And our final witness for today is Ms. Lori Wallach. She is the

director of Global Trade Watch located here in Washington, DC

Global Trade Watch is a division of Public Citizen and focuses on

issues surrounding globalization including jobs, wages, the environment, public health, safety, social justice and democratic accountability. That is a tall order, but thank you and welcome to the

hearing.

I will ask the witnesses if they have opening statements, please

take up the 5 minutes, no more than 5 minutes for your opening

statement, and we will begin from my left, your right, with our

first witness, Dr. Best.

STATEMENT OF DANA BEST, M.D., M.P.H., AMERICAN ACADEMY

OF PEDIATRICS

Dr. BEST. Good morning. My name is Dr. Dana Best and I am

proud to represent the American Academy of Pediatrics at this important hearing on lead in children’s products.

Because of its widespread use, lead has been concentrated in our

environment where it poses a serious threat to children’s health.

Lead cannot be identified easily even when present at high levels

in paint, dust or dirt, meaning that children can be exposed without our knowledge. It is an invisible poison.

Damage done by small amounts of lead may be hard to measure

and even harder to understand. Most children who accumulate lead

in their bodies do not have physical symptoms. Instead, they suffer

a wide array of negative effects including cognitive, mood or behavioral and physical harm.

There is no safe level of lead exposure. The vulnerability of children to lead poisoning during development of their brain and nervous system has been amply demonstrated and the literature is very

consistent. On average, children whose blood lead levels rise from

10 to 20 microgram per deciliter lose 2 to 3 IQ points. More recent

studies have shown an even greater impact on IQ of blood lead levels under 10 micrograms per deciliter, a loss of 4 to 7 IQ points at

that level. Furthermore, the effects of lead do not stop once the

children’s brain and nervous system mature or the blood lead level

falls.

Another important effect of lead exposure is on behavior with

higher rates of behavioral problems reported in teens and adults

exposed to lead during child during childhood. Children with elevated lead levels are more likely to have problems with attention

deficit and reading disabilities and to fail to graduate from high

school. Investigators have identified associations between lead exposure and increased aggression, commission of crime and antisocial or delinquent behaviors. Studies have suggested that several

nations that began reducing lead exposure aggressively in the

1970s experienced corresponding decreases in crime two to three

decades later. Other effects include abnormal balance, poor eyehand coordination, longer reaction times and sleep disturbances.

Lead is easily absorbed by ingestion or inhalation. The most common route of exposure of children is through ingestion, usually by

putting their hands or other objects in their mouth. Studies using
115

video to record hand in mouth or object in mouth behaviors recorded 20 or more activities an hour—20 or more times an hour

that a child puts their hand or an object in their mouth. If the dirt

on their hands or the dust on the floor contains lead, every one of

those activities delivers a dose. Since children absorb 5 to 50—that

is five-zero—percent of any lead that they ingest compared to

adults who only absorb 5 to 15 percent, they are at high risk of

lead poisoning every single time they are exposed.

Once lead enters the body, it remains there for years. Lead is

similar to calcium from the elemental perspective. This means that

our bodies ‘‘see’’ lead as calcium, absorb it into our blood as if it

were calcium, and then store it in our bone as if it were calcium.

These stores of lead can be released years later when bone changes

occur or demand on calcium stores are made.

In recent years, parents have found a new source of anxiety regarding lead exposure: children’s toys and other products, particularly those imported from China. Since July 2006, the Consumer

Product Safety Commission has issued at least 11 recalls affecting

more than 6.7 units of children’s jewelry due to lead content. Since

1998, CPSC has issued at least 29 recalls involving 157,962,000

pieces of toy jewelry due to high lead levels. Other products recalled because of lead contamination include game pieces, sidewalk

chalk and art kits. Consumers are acutely aware of recent recalls

of popular toys that contain lead paint, including Thomas the

Tank, Barbie, and Dora the Explorer. The risk of harm to children

from these toys is real. In 2006, a 4-year-old Minnesota boy died

after ingesting a small shoe charm that was later found to be 99

percent lead.

Mr. RUSH. Dr. Best, your time is up. Would you please conclude

your testimony?

Dr. BEST. In conclusion, the charm he ingested dissolved in his

stomach, releasing the lead into his bloodstream. To protect the

health of our Nation’s children, non-essential uses of lead, particularly in products to which children may be exposed, must be prohibited. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends the following: (1) The CPSC should require all products intended for use

by or in connection with children contain no more than trace

amounts of lead. (2) The Academy recommends trace amounts of

lead be no more than 40 parts per million, which is the upper

range of lead in uncontaminated soil. This standard would recognize that contamination with minute amounts of environmental

lead may occur but can be minimized through good manufacturing

practices. (3) Children’s products should be defined in such a way

as to ensure it will cover the wide range of products used by or for

children. This standard should cover toys intended for use by or

with children under the age of 12 years.

Mr. RUSH. Thank you.

Dr. BEST. Four: The limit on lead contact must apply to all components of the item or jewelry and other small parts that could be

swallowed, not just the surface. Legislation or regulations should

limit the overall lead content of an item rather than only limiting

the lead content of its components.
116

Mr. RUSH. I must apologize, Dr. Best, but we have to hear testimony from the others. Would you please have one concluding statement, please?

Dr. BEST. It is important to note that while limiting lead is an

important aspect of guaranteeing the safety of children’s products,

numerous other aspects of this issue should be considered.

Mr. RUSH. Thank you.

Dr. BEST. There are no known safe levels of lead.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Best follows:]
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130

Mr. RUSH. Thank you so very much. I apologize but we must

move on.

Ms. Farrow, please.

STATEMENT OF OLIVIA D. FARROW, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, BALTIMORE CITY HEALTH DEPARTMENT

Ms. FARROW. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RUSH. Before you begin, I just want to let all the witnesses

know that all your written statements will be for the record. Your

entire written statement will be in the record, so I want to remind

you of that. Thank you so much. Please begin.

Ms. FARROW. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member

Stearns and members of the committee. On behalf of the Baltimore

City Health Department, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to testify on the need for stricter Federal regulations to reduce exposure to lead hazards from lead-tainted imports. My name

is Olivia Farrow and I am the assistant commissioner for environmental health for the Baltimore City Health Department.

Lead poisoning is the most common environmental hazard facing

American children today. It is also one of the most preventable.

Children are frequently exposed to lead by ingesting lead dust from

deteriorating lead-based paint, exposure from lead in soil, drinking

water or lead-tainted consumer products such as food and jewelry.

While lead poisoning can affect children across socioeconomic spectrum, we have found that often exposure is concentrated in low-income urban areas. In March 2006, a 4-year-old child in Minneapolis died from lead intoxication after swallowing a piece of children’s

jewelry that was sold with a new a pair of shoes.

In response to this tragic event, the Baltimore City Health Department began testing samples of children’s jewelry sold within its

jurisdiction. Our tests found excessive levels of lead in children’s

jewelry in Baltimore. The products were being sold in stores that

operate throughout the country including Clair’s and Wal-Mart. To

respond under the authority of the Commissioner of Health, the

Baltimore City Health Department proposed and then promulgated

regulations on children’s jewelry on December 7, 2006. The city

regulation requires that the Health Department collect monthly

samples of children’s jewelry and test for lead content. In order to

give city retailers an opportunity to come into compliance, the regulation initially banned children’s jewelry containing more than

1,200 parts per million. Effective September 1, 2007, we further reduced the acceptable level of lead, banning all children’s jewelry

with metal components containing in excess of 600 parts per million. Once a product is found to contain an excessive amount of

lead, a violation notice is issued. The notice declares all items of

the same style and from the same manufacturer to be a nuisance

and orders the retailer to stop sale within 24 hours. An owner can

be charged with multiple misdemeanor offenses and fined should

he or she fail to comply with the notice.

The city began the mandatory monthly testing of children’s jewelry in February of this year. Out of the 7 months we have tested,

we have found excessive lead levels in 4 of those months. Our testing has revealed that the majority of the products found with ex-
131

cessive levels of lead are sold in discount stores that cater to a

lower income clientele. Furthermore, the majority of the samples of

jewelry that are found to be poisonous are ones that are sold for

a dollar or less. For example, in February 2007 the Health Department collected a necklace and bracelet set for testing. The set was

made in China and purchased at a locally owned children’s discount store for $1. Both the necklace and bracelet were found to

contain approximately 2.4 percent lead by weight. In March 2007,

three rings that were manufactured in India and sold in a city

vending machine operated by Cardinal Novelty tested approximately 5 percent lead by weight. Now, these exact three rings were

previously subject to a product recall in July 2004 by the Consumer

Product Safety Commission. Last month our Health Department

found that a Spiderman 3 ring which sold for $1 contained 12.8

percent lead by weight. This ring was sold at a Dollar Tree store

and was imported from China.

Our experience in Baltimore city has proven that many of these

imported products are not adequately regulated by the Federal

Government. The failure of the CPSC product recall system exemplifies the Federal Government’s failure to protect the public from

imported goods. As I previously stated, the CPSC recalled three

rings in July 2004 because of high lead content yet almost 3 years

later, Baltimore city finds these rings are still available for sale to

the public. Cardinal Novelty would have been free to continue to

redistribute this poisonous product had Baltimore city not enacted

his regulations.

A local jurisdiction’s authority can only extend so far. Federal

agencies need to aggressively take the lead in preventing the sale

of these contaminated products. Current Federal regulations are

obviously insufficient in protecting children from lead in imported

products.

I would like to conclude by stating that this country has made

tremendous progress in the fight to eliminate childhood lead poisoning but even one child poisoned is one too many and stricter

Federal regulations on products for children are urgently needed.

On behalf of Baltimore city’s Health Department and Mayor Sheila

Dixon, I thank you for the opportunity to offer comments today.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Farrow follows:]

STATEMENT OF OLIVIA FARROW

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Stearns and members of the committee, on behalf of the Baltimore City Health Department, I would like to thank you for this

opportunity to testify on the need for stricter Federal regulations to reduce exposure

to lead hazards from lead-tainted imports. My name is Olivia Farrow and I am the

Assistant Commissioner of the Environmental Health Division of the Baltimore City

Health Department.

Lead poisoning is the most common environmental hazard facing American children today. It is also one of the most preventable. Children are frequently exposed

to lead by ingesting lead dust from deteriorating lead-based paint. Exposure may

also come from dirt that contains lead, drinking water or lead-tainted consumer

products such as food and jewelry. While lead poisoning can affect children across

the socioeconomic spectrum, we have found that often exposure is concentrated in

low-income, urban areas.

On March 23, 2006, a 4-year old child in Minneapolis died from lead intoxication

after swallowing a piece of children’s jewelry that was sold with a new pair of shoes.

In response to this tragic event, the Baltimore City Health Department began testing samples of children’s jewelry sold within its jurisdiction. Our tests found exces-
132

sive levels of lead in children’s jewelry in Baltimore. The products were being sold

in stores that operate throughout the country, including Claire’s and Wal-Mart (Attached are the lab results).

To respond, under the authority of the Commissioner of Health, the Baltimore

City Health Department proposed and then promulgated regulations on children’s

jewelry on December 7, 2006. (Attached is the final regulation).

The city regulation requires that the Health Department collect monthly samples

of children’s jewelry and test for lead content. In order to give city retailers an opportunity to come into compliance, the regulation initially banned children’s jewelry

containing more than 1,200 parts per million. Effective September 1, 2007, we further reduced the acceptable level of lead, banning all children’s jewelry with metal

components containing in excess of 600 parts per million of total lead. Once a product is found to contain an excessive amount of lead, a violation notice is issued. The

notice declares all items of the same style and from the same manufacturer to be

a nuisance and orders the retailer to stop sale within 24 hours. An owner can be

charged with multiple misdemeanor offenses and fined should he or she fail to comply with the notice.

The city began the mandatory monthly testing of children’s jewelry in February

of this year. Out of the 7 months we have tested, we have found excessive lead levels in 4 of those months. Our testing has revealed that majority of the products

found with excessive levels of lead are sold in discount stores that cater to a lowerincome clientele. Furthermore, the majority of the samples of jewelry that are found

to be poisonous are ones that are sold for a dollar or less.

For an example, in February 2007, the Health Department collected a necklace

and bracelet set for testing. The set was made in China and purchased at a locally

owned children’s discount store for $1. Both the necklace and bracelet were found

to contain approximately 2.4 percent lead by weight.

In March 2007, three rings that were manufactured in India and sold in a city

vending machine operated by Cardinal Novelty tested approximately 5 percent lead

by weight. These rings were previously subject to a product recall in July 2004 by

the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).

Last month, our Health Department found that a Spiderman 3 ring, which sold

for $1, contained 12.8 percent lead by weight. This ring was sold at a Dollar Tree

and was imported from China.

Our experience in Baltimore city has proven that many of these imported products are not adequately regulated by the Federal Government. The failure of the

CSPSC product recall system exemplifies the Federal Government’s failure to protect the public from imported goods.

As I previously stated, the CPSC recalled three rings in July 2004 because of high

lead content. Yet, almost three years later, Baltimore city finds that these rings are

still available for sale to the public. Cardinal Novelty would have been free to continue to redistribute this poisonous product had Baltimore city not enacted its regulations.

A local jurisdiction’s authority can only extend so far. Federal agencies need to

aggressively take the lead in preventing the sale of these contaminated products.

Current Federal regulations are obviously insufficient in protecting children from

lead in imported products.

I would like to conclude by stating that this country has made tremendous

progress in the fight to eliminate childhood lead poisoning. But even one child

poisoned is one child too many. Stricter Federal regulation on products for children

is urgently needed.

On behalf of Baltimore city’s Health Department and Mayor Sheila Dixon, I thank

you for the opportunity to offer comments today.

Mr. RUSH. Thank you very much.

Mr. Green.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL GREEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding these

hearings and for this opportunity to testify.

For 10 years, the Center for Environmental Health has been protecting children from lead poisoning and other hazardous children’s

products. In this work, we primarily use a State law, California’s
133

Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, locally known as

Proposition 65. We use this law as an innovative tool to protect

children and families not only in California but throughout the

country, often protecting children from unnecessary exposures to

toxic chemicals. In some of our early work, we won legal agreements to eliminate lead threats to children in diaper creams, children’s medicines and even home water filters that were leaching

lead. We also won agreements with dozens of makers of playground

structures that were made of arsenic-treated wood, eliminating

threats to children from cancer-causing levels of arsenic. In just the

past 2 years, we discovered lead threats to children and have won

legal agreements eliminating these risks in imported candy, vinyl

lunchboxes, vinyl baby bibs and in vinyl metal and jewelry, among

many other products. These are all children’s products.

In the process of uncovering these hazards and working to get

these products off the market, we have discovered that the Consumer Product Safety Commission is paralyzed by a lack of the political will to protect children. This lack of political will has major

consequences. We have seen the CPSC issue misleading statements

about the safety of a high-lead Disney bracelet, like actually this

one, and then take no action for nearly 6 months. This Disney jewelry had painted pearls that had lead content that was 275 times

the legal limit for lead paint. Eventually they recalled the item

with little publicity. We have seen the CPSC act in direct contradiction of the Food and Drug Administration about lead hazards

in vinyl lunchboxes. The FDA said that it was reasonable to expect

that lead from lunchboxes would leach into kids’ food while CPSC

took no action because the food might be wrapped. We have obtained CPSC memos showing that the agency changed its test protocols so that its testing of lunchboxes would find less lead. They

changed their protocols. We find this absolutely shocking. One of

these memos is copied in my written statement and I would encourage you to look at that. And throughout all of these incidents,

the CPSC has relied on an outdated standard or ‘‘acceptable’’ lead

exposures that ignore the vast body of research over the last decade showing that even small lead exposures are problems for children. For example, the CPSC standard is 350 times higher, and

therefore 350 times less protective than the California standard

under Proposition 65.

The lead problem in children’s toys is a systemic problem. Retailers push manufactures for ever lower prices. Their priority is not

the safest product but the cheapest products possible, at least

sometimes. Congress needs to turn that priority around. The Center for Environmental Health recommends Congress take the following steps to ensure that toys are just toys and not exposures to

toxic chemicals.

First, as a supplement to our work in lead in jewelry, Congress

should enact a comprehensive ban on lead in toys. For toys, we recommend following the model of the Toxins in Packaging Act already adopted by 19 States. This law requires over a 4-year period

that the concentrations of four toxic metals, one of which is lead,

be reduced to less than 100 parts per million. Surely the toys that

our children play with, chew on and sometimes accidentally swal-
134

low deserve at least the same level of safety as packaging materials.

Second, such legislation must hold distributors, retailers and

manufacturers accountable for the safety of the products they sell

through mandatory pre-market testing and strong disincentives for

violators.

Third, Congress should ensure that CPSC and other Federal regulatory agencies are using testing and standards based on the most

up-to-date science.

Finally, we strongly urge that Congress ensure that CPSC is adequately resourced to manage the massive task of protecting children from hazardous products but we must also note that the current problem at CPSC is not only a resource problem. Our experience suggests that often the bias of current CPSC leadership is to

protect industry at the expense of the health of America’s children.

CPSC is using unrealistic testing procedures and outdated health

standards. This could be corrected with strong legislation. However, the evidence from CPSC’s own internal documents, which we

got through a FOIA request, that the agency modified its testing

procedures to reduce its estimates of lead exposure from children’s

lunchboxes, demonstrates an extreme willingness of the current

CPSC leadership to put industry’s convenience ahead of children’s

health. This problem results not from a lack of resources or statutory authority but from leadership decisions that have failed to

make children’s health the first and most important priority. Our

children’s health should not be a partisan political issue like that,

and I look forward to your questions. Thank you for this opportunity.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Green follows:]
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146

Mr. RUSH. Thank you very much.

Ms. Wallach.

STATEMENT OF LORI WALLACH, DIRECTOR, GLOBAL TRADE

WATCH

Ms. WALLACH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the

committee. On behalf of Public Citizen’s 200,000 members, thank

you for the opportunity to discuss some of the root causes of the

serious safety problems with various imports including toys.

I have four main points which are spelled out in my written testimony, which I will summarize. First, the imported product safety

crisis has a root cause in U.S. trade policy, trade pacts, and tax

and other incentives that have promoted the export of wide swaths

of the U.S. manufacturing base to nations with effectively no regulatory systems to ensure safety in production while the trade agreements simultaneously impose limits on import safety standards

and inspection rates. Our current trade agreements prioritize, ensuring the favorable investment climate for U.S. firms seeking to

relocate overseas and then facilitating access for the things coming

back over consumer safety. That more than 80 percent of U.S. toys

are now made in China is not an inevitability or random. As the

chart on page 4 of my testimony shows, the production of toys destined for the U.S. zoomed into production in China immediately

after Congress passed permanent normal trade relations for China

and China joined the WTO. Right there, zoom, and the WTO provided investment protections, under the Trade-Related Investment

Measures cut tariffs and literally facilitated the industry leaving.

Prior to that, 1993, zoom, NAFTA passes, immediately production

moves to Mexico. The choice of the U.S. toy industry to relocate

production to low-wage, under-regulated venues is one of those rare

cause-and-effect moments in the trade world where you can literally see trade agreements, action. In 1993, before NAFTA, was

the peak of U.S. employment in the toy sector, 43,000 workers.

Now it is down 75 percent. The hemorrhage starts directly after

the trade agreements pass. Point 1.

Point 2: The safety of imported products is directly linked to the

lack of safety regulations in some of the offshore venues where the

toys are now being produced. Add to that the laissez-faire attitude

of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and domestic safety

policies that are still premised on the notion that a lot of product

is made here and not overseas and the American public is left having to rely on foreign regulatory systems to ensure the safety of the

things that are in our homes. Sadly, recent experiences highlighted

that many foreign regulatory systems are simply not up to the

task. With 80 percent of U.S. toys now coming from China, whose

regulatory structure has been likened by U.S. producers operating

there as the wild, wild east, the imported toy safety problem is

probably more pervasive than the recent recalls show.

Point 3: Now, thankfully, Congress is seeking to address the

problem, but perversely, the same trade agreements that have created the incentives that have led to the shift of production to unsafe venues also impose limits on the safety standards that can be

imposed on imported products as well as the amount of inspection.

Most people are very surprised when they learn that the actual
147

trade between countries is only part of WTO, NAFTA and other

U.S. trade agreements. Those agreements set regulatory constraints with which all countries must conform their domestic laws.

The binding provision in this country shall ensure conformity of all

domestic laws, regulations and procedures with the trade agreement rules. The agreement in the WTO that applies to toy safety

is called the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreements. The name

says it all. Any domestic regulation that might keep out a product

because it is unsafe is presumed to be a technical barrier to trade.

If the U.S. does not conform its domestic laws to the WTO rules,

the U.S. is subject to challenge. Amongst the rules: imported and

foreign goods must be treated the same. That means that under

WTO rules, imports are not allowed to be inspected at a higher

rate. All domestic laws are judged in a panel of trade lawyers meeting in secret in Geneva as to whether they are least trade restrictive, not most safety protective, and whether or not they are an unjustified, unnecessary obstacle to trade, very subjective standards.

As well, the U.S. is required to allow free passage into our country

of toys made with equivalent standards. If we do not conform these

laws, we can be challenged and we face trade sanctions if we do

not change them. China, as a WTO member, could challenge U.S.

improvements to toy safety unless also changes are made to our

trade agreement as well as the important changes to domestic policy.

So in conclusion, my testimony lays out a list of 10 particular

changes to domestic law, particular changes needed to our trade

agreements to make sure Congress has the space to make the domestic changes, and the final point is, right now Congress is considering expanding this model, a NAFTA expansion to Peru and

Panama, and Public Citizen urges Members of Congress not to

make the problem worse by expanding our current failed, unsafe

trade model. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wallach follows:]
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166

Mr. RUSH. Thank you very much.

Ms. Teagarden.

STATEMENT OF MARY TEAGARDEN, PROFESSOR, GLOBAL

STRATEGY, THUNDERBIRD SCHOOL OF GLOBAL MANAGEMENT

Ms. TEAGARDEN. Good morning. Thank you for inviting me to

speak this morning. I am really humbled and honored to be here.

I am a professor of global strategy at Thunderbird Graduate School

of International Management. I am a grandmother of small boys

who play with toys and I have been studying offshore manufacturing in China and several other countries for over 30 years trying

to understand how to do it well. I spend 20 percent of my time on

the ground in China and it is from this perspective that I am offering my comments.

Protecting children from lead-tainted imports brings our attention to toys in China. I have several points to make regarding leadtainted imports. First, there are many factors contributing to leadtainted imports. Second, there are many actions that China can

take to help resolve the problem. Third, there are many actions

that importers can take to help resolve the problem. Fourth, government has a very important role to play in solving this problem.

Instead of simply blaming China, we must take a hard look at

what we can control. American big-box retailers and their unrelenting pressure on suppliers for ever-lower prices bear part of the responsibility in this problem. American importers focusing on cost

and investing in brand rather than quality, supply chain integrity

and product integrity bear part of the responsibility. American parents and grandparents demanding ever-lower-priced toys to respond to children’s requests bear part of the problem. And finally,

American government’s choice to chronically underfund watchdog

agencies like CPSC is part of the problem.

China can certainly do a lot more to control the problem of leadtainted products. However, we don’t control China. But we must do

our best to control us. There are many opportunities for control

within this complex commercial system. American companies have

played a major role in making China the workshop of the world.

These companies are behaving rationally. They are playing by the

rules of the game, focusing on profit and growth. Wal-Mart might

be the best example of this rational behavior. They are the biggest

big-box retailer and the world’s largest company. They squeeze

their suppliers to lower costs. Their suppliers in turn squeeze their

suppliers to lower costs. As a consequence, there is a risk of slippage, quality slippage, use of inferior products and less supervision

in the manufacturing process among suppliers. Extending responsibility for product compliance with U.S. laws to retailers would be

an important safeguard against lead-tainted imports.

In conversations I have had with Chinese officials, they estimate

that 50 percent of their exported products don’t comply with Chinese laws. We must insist that imports into the United States comply with U.S. laws. China is large and industrialization has grown

at a mind-bogging pace. This makes control harder. Lead-tainted

products are fundamentally a control problem. Companies must be

held accountable for compliance of products they sell in the United
167

States. Regulations governing imports are substantial and do an

adequate job addressing lead-tainted products but the system relies

on self-regulation and we have seen that self-regulation doesn’t

work. Punitive fines or import sanctions for importers that don’t report problems immediately would drive faster reporting and keep

lead-tainted products off or our shelves. The CPSC doesn’t have

enough people. A well-funded, adequately staffed and robust inspection system is part of the solution.

There are many actions China can take to help resolve the problem. We must encourage China to enforce their export regulations.

We must seek a government-to-government reporting hotline to

warn our Chinese counterparts about errant manufacturers. We

have to keep pressure on the Chinese Government to help make

positive progress on this issue. Working with them instead of

against them will bear fruit. We have to realize that if we block

imports from China, production will shift to other low-cost countries. The problem is not going to go away.

Companies can directly control the products through testing. We

should require importers to use independent testing where risk for

lead-tainted imports is high before the products are shipped to the

U.S. to prevent entry into our distribution streams.

Finally, Government must fund oversight agencies to enable an

appropriate level of inspection, given the proliferation of imported

goods sold in the United States. And the CPS should continue to

identify and sanction companies that import lead-tainted products.

I encourage the Commission to look at the entire system to understand where there are opportunities for improvement. Learning

from this assessment should be shared with industry to help everyone get better. Surely business and government working together

can solve this problem.

My grandsons, Mike and Evan, would thank you all for your efforts in making these things happen, and I thank you for the opportunity to provide my testimony on this important topic.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Teagarden follows:]
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179

Mr. RUSH. Thank you very much. I want to announce, there is

a vote that is occurring on the floor right now. We have 5 minutes

to get over and vote. There are three votes, so it probably involves

a half an hour, so we will recess for about a half an hour and return for questioning by the committee as soon as the vote is over

with, so please forgive us. We are going to stand in recess until the

completion of the vote. Thank you.

[Recess.]

Mr. RUSH. I will state to the witnesses that we thank you so

much for your patience. I am going to recognize myself for 5 minutes of questioning, and I will begin with Ms. Farrow.

Ms. Farrow, you state that the majority of children’s jewelry with

excessive lead is found in discount stores with lower-income clientele. Are any of these discount stores chain stores? Can you provide

us with a list of the stores where you have found this poisonous

jewelry?

Ms. FARROW. Yes, Mr. Chairman, many of them are chain stores.

I can provide the committee with a list today if you would like.

Mr. RUSH. Yes. With your oral testimony, can you provide us

with a——

Ms. FARROW. Of the products that we found positive, Clair’s,

Wal-Mart, the Children’s Place. Those are chains. Dollar Tree and

another Dollar Tree and then the vending machine rings, they were

found at a Foodarama. However, the distributor, Cardinal Distributing, vends product throughout the State of Maryland.

Mr. RUSH. Did your research locate any Dollar General stores or

do you know, Dollar General, do they own any of the other discount

stores?

Ms. FARROW. We have not found any at a Dollar General at this

time. We have been to Dollar Tree stores, which are a national

chain.

Mr. RUSH. Thank you very much. The Chicago Department of

Public Health has found imported Mexican candy in stores

throughout Chicago that had high lead content in the wrapper. Has

your city, the city of Baltimore, does it have similar problems?

Ms. FARROW. Yes, back in December 2005, we conducted a random survey of some of the stores in the Hispanic community and

we did find some products that were high. We referred it to the

FDA and they conducted testing and did find that some of the

candy and products were high lead.

Mr. RUSH. Is this the candy or the wrappers?

Ms. FARROW. Well, this was the candy itself.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Green, is there any reason that there should be

lead in vinyl baby bibs or vinyl lunchboxes?

Mr. GREEN. The short answer is absolutely not. So why is there

lead in vinyl? There is lead in vinyl for two reasons. One reason

may be, vinyl is a junk plastic. PVC and vinyl are the same thing.

It is a junk plastic and it has all these different chemicals and then

it needs something to hold all those chemicals together, and the

thing that holds it all together is usually a metal. More often than

not when it is manufactured, especially here in the U.S., that metal

is tin, organotin. Sometimes especially when standards are not as

high, they will use a more toxic metal, cadmium or lead. So the

first reason that it would be in there is as what is called a sta-
180

bilizer, to hold all of the different chemical constituents together

and you can do it with tin just as easily, so that is the first reason.

The only other reason there would be lead in vinyl besides some

kind of contamination that was unintentional is in the pigment. So

obviously we have gone through this lead paint story, culminating

in 1978 with the ban in lead paint. There is no problem with having pigments that don’t contain lead. So the two reasons there

would be lead in there are both very easily solved and are usually

solved. I also just want to say real quickly about the candy from

Mexico——

Mr. RUSH. That was going to be my next question to you.

Mr. GREEN. The Center for Environmental Health, and then

later joined by the California attorney general, brought suit against

a subsidiary of Hershey’s, a subsidiary of Mars and then a large

Mexican-owned company for this problem. We found that the two

principal sources of the lead were paint on the wrapper sometimes,

and then drying the chiles that are actually in the candy near a

generator that is burning leaded gasoline in Mexico. Then it basically lands on it, which is an easy thing to solve. You dry the

chiles, inside, or not with a generator with lead nearby, at least.

So I just wanted to sort of give that information.

Mr. RUSH. Is this problem more apparent in U.S. communities

with high Hispanic population? And my second part of this question is, is this something that the general American public and particularly Hispanic citizens should be concerned about as we head

into the Halloween season?

Mr. GREEN. Yes. One of the concerns that we got from Hershey’s

and Mars’ subsidiaries and this third large company was, well, if

we fix our problem and there continues to be smaller companies

still have these same problems, the drying of the chiles or the paint

on the wrappers, if we come to an agreement with you, Mr. Attorney General, and you, the Center for Environmental Health, what

is going save our brand from continuing to be criticized as this is

found, and so we came to an agreement. As part of the agreement,

they would help fund their smaller competitors to address these

problems, which is very creative. But I am skeptical about how well

it will—I think things will continue to slip through the cracks on

this issue unfortunately. That is the first thing. And then the second part of your question is, there is definitely a disproportionate

impact on Latino children from this problem.

Mr. RUSH. Thank you.

Mr. Stearns.

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Best, what is the naturally occurring levels of lead in the

body for adults and children, if there is a difference?

Dr. BEST. Naturally occurring is probably a misnomer. In an environment where we don’t have contamination, the natural level,

the normal level of lead would be zero.

Mr. STEARNS. What is it in the average adult?

Dr. BEST. In the United States?

Mr. STEARNS. Yes.

Dr. BEST. I can give you the median level of——

Mr. STEARNS. Yes, that is fine.
181

Dr. BEST. OK. This is a level for children. As a pediatrician,

those are the numbers that I think about. It is in the 1.2 to 2.0

microgram per deciliter level.

Mr. STEARNS. What is that in terms of parts per million like we

have here? We have someone advocating 100 parts per million.

Dr. BEST. Well, that is difference between biological and——

Mr. STEARNS. Can you give me a——

Dr. BEST. I might. I can tell you that it translates——

Mr. STEARNS. What I am trying to see, if I give a toy to a child

and it has 600 parts per million, is it possible that child already

has 600 parts per million in his system?

Dr. BEST. Yes, and that is one of the concerns we have is that

lead isn’t just a one-time acute event, it is an accumulation, so the

lead you got from your toy and the lead you got from the paint——

Mr. STEARNS. Can you just approximate in your mind an average

adult and an average child today, how much lead do they have in

their body, parts per million?

Dr. BEST. No, I can’t do it in parts per million because we don’t

measure it in that way. The parts per million translated into what

is in your bloodstream, it is like an apple and orange measurement.

Mr. STEARNS. You just can’t say parts in the bloodstream, it is

so much. You can’t do that then?

Dr. BEST. I can’t.

Mr. STEARNS. I understand that. I appreciate that. One other

question is, you look at all the adults, some of them are living to

95 and 100, and how did they escape this lead poisoning when

growing up with lead-based gasoline we had in this country for

many, many years, lead-based paint until 1978. We had lead pipes

in our plumbing and so we had all this lead that was omnipresent.

How did these people grow up and——

Dr. BEST. We didn’t escape it.

Mr. STEARNS. So you are saying you think——

Dr. BEST. I think I would have been a lot smarter.

Mr. STEARNS. Here you have got an M.D., a Master’s in public

health. I am not sure what——

Dr. BEST. Just think of what I could have done.

Mr. STEARNS. What is an FAAP?

Dr. BEST. I am a fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Mr. STEARNS. Well, you are pretty smart as it is. But you see,

my point is that we have eliminated the lead in the paint, we have

eliminated it out of the pipes, we have eliminated it out of the gasoline and now we are just talking about just 100 parts per million

so——

Dr. BEST. Well, the point that I think is important to bring out

is that as we have eliminated these kind of gross sources, meaning

gross as a large source of environmental lead, we have lowered the

lead level in our population, and that is a great thing because we

have less renal disease, we have lower blood pressure because of

that, we are smarter.

Mr. STEARNS. Maybe a longer life span?

Dr. BEST. Longer life span and because it is a gene-environmenteducation kind of mixture, it is hard to point out which of that contribution was lead. But we know that as we have decreased the

level of lead in our bodies, we have also found that even though
182

we keep lowering the level of lead to which we pay attention, it

still is harmful, even below what is now currently the level of concern.

Mr. STEARNS. OK. Let me move on. Mr. Green, I was on C-SPAN

talking about this the other day and a lot of people were calling

in, should I throw out all my toys that are in my closet that have

possibly lead or lead paint. What is the proper disposal that should

be done of these toys? Just quickly, and then I have a question for

Ms. Wallach. Go ahead.

Mr. GREEN. Well, first of all, no one has really looked at this so

that question needs to be solved, but if it is a high level, then the

right thing to do would be to take it to the local hazardous waste

facility that you would take paint that is in your garage or the

computer that is in your garage.

Mr. STEARNS. Your testimony described the CPSC leadership as

simply political appointees who are protecting industry. Do you

have any evidence of this or is this purely your opinion?

Mr. GREEN. It is my opinion and I have evidence.

Mr. STEARNS. Ms. Wallach, do you believe the United States

should ban all imports of toys from China? Why or why not? If so,

from what other countries should we not allow toys?

Ms. WALLACH. I think that we need to do two things. We either

need to keep out toys produced in countries that don’t have safe

regulatory regimes or we need to figure out a system to make sure

that the way things are being produced overseas are safe and they

don’t get into our market in the first place because recalls only get

a small part of it, and we could go either way. And in part, it is

going to rely on the decision of Congress, what your judgment is,

is the most efficacious. In the short term, should there be a ban

on all lead in toys coming from anywhere? Absolutely. If in fact

there are rules, for instance, new authority to have inspection overseas, which I think is going to be necessary in countries that don’t

have strong regulatory systems of their own, then you are going to

give that authority, you are going to try and get the act cleaned

up, you are going to have more inspection on the border, I hope.

But then if that doesn’t work, yes, we are going to have to consider

what products are the highest risk products that we shouldn’t be

importing and it would be a real tragedy if between improved government regulation, U.S. industry action and Chinese Government

action we couldn’t clean up the situation.

Mr. RUSH. Thank you.

The gentleman from Utah is recognized for questioning.

Mr. MATHESON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, Ms. Teagarden, I wanted to ask you, in your written testimony I think you mentioned you have spoken with officials in

China who estimate that 50 percent of their exported products do

not comply with existing Chinese law. I was wondering if you could

tell me who these folks in Chinese, these officials work for. Do you

know which agencies they work for that you talked to?

Ms. TEAGARDEN. The only reason that you get that kind of disclosure is with expectation of confidentiality, and with all due respect,

I couldn’t remember their names if I tried but——
183

Mr. MATHESON. Well, let me ask you this. Do you know what

types of products they are referring to when they estimate the 50

percent noncompliance?

Ms. TEAGARDEN. The discussion was wide-ranging. We looked at

a wide range of manufactured products, not specifically toys, a wide

range of products.

Mr. MATHESON. Do you know if they have taken any steps within

the country to reduce this rate of noncompliance?

Ms. TEAGARDEN. If you read the Chinese media, the Chinese

Government has been quite aggressive relative to historical behavior in trying to bring these issues into compliance.

Mr. MATHESON. Do you know of any particular steps they have

taken to reduce this noncompliance?

Ms. TEAGARDEN. They have arrested people. They have executed

people.

Mr. MATHESON. All right. Let me ask you this. I will try a new

line of questioning.

Ms. TEAGARDEN. The 35-cent solution.

Mr. MATHESON. In your testimony, you talk about a need for

more inspectors in the Consumer Product Safety Commission. I

think that there is general consensus that that is appropriate. Do

you think that the commission—do you have recommendations for

any expanded authority within the CPSC to address the toy safety

issue?

Ms. TEAGARDEN. I don’t have expertise there. What I would look

at is the provision of more people making sure that companies are

doing what they say they are doing.

Mr. MATHESON. I guess I would ask Mr. Green, do you have

thoughts about should there be expanded authority of the CPSC?

Do you have thoughts about that?

Mr. GREEN. I do think that we need to expand the authority of

the CPSC while also increasing their budget and while——

Mr. MATHESON. And how would you expand the authority? Do

you have thoughts on that?

Mr. GREEN. Well, a lot of it is about political will of using some

of the authority they already have but I have spoken about that.

I have some stuff in my written testimony about this. But the most

important thing is to give them some more specific authority on

lead, less ambiguous authority to deal with lead in a way that all

the other agencies are looking at it so right now they are saying

well unless it is in paint, we don’t have any authority over that.

Well, that doesn’t necessarily make sense if a child is chewing on

something, for example.

Mr. MATHESON. Right. That is helpful.

I want to ask a question of Ms. Farrow. In your testimony you

raised the issue about you found toy jewelry 3 years after it was

subject to the recall process.

Ms. FARROW. That is correct.

Mr. MATHESON. And you raised the issue about the adequacy of

the Federal Government regulating imported toy jewelry. Do you

have thoughts about what else the CPSC can do to assist local government agencies in improving the safety and the recall process?

Ms. FARROW. Well, I think if the CPSC would notify the local jurisdictions that a recall has occurred and then maybe seek our as-
184

sistance in making sure that the product is destroyed and permanently removed from trade.

Mr. MATHESON. And do you feel like we need to make improvements on that?

Ms. FARROW. Yes, clearly we have that example of this product

that was sitting in a backroom somewhere for 3 years and then

placed back out in the marketplace.

Mr. MATHESON. OK. Mr. Chairman, that is all the questions I

have. I will yield back. Thanks.

Mr. RUSH. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts, for 5 minutes of questioning.

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Best, we understand that children can ingest lead, they can

swallow chips of paint. Would licking a toy be enough to ingest or

absorb lead to affect increase in blood lead level?

Dr. BEST. It is a hypothetical question. I will give you a hypothetical yes. The issue that we almost universally encounter is lead

dust. It is on the floors and on children’s hands and on toys, so that

is an important issue about licking items. It would depend on how

bioavailable the lead is, whether the paint had been chipped or

harmed, if there was paint on the outside, if the item had been

chewed on before and had deteriorated in a way so that lead was

available.

Mr. PITTS. And what are the procedures for treating someone

with too much lead in their blood?

Dr. BEST. It depends. The first step is to make sure that continued exposure does not happen. That means you need to remove the

source of lead or the child from the source of lead, whichever is

more appropriate. If the child is living in a lead-painted house, we

remove the child from the house. If the child has swallowed a lead

charm, we remove the charm from the child. Then depending upon

the level of lead, we will make sure that they are nutritionally adequate so that they have a good source of calcium and iron and vitamin C in their diet so that they don’t continue to absorb more lead

from whatever other sources there are in their environment. And

then finally, if it is above a certain level, we will institute chelation, which is a medical procedure that reduces lead, although it

has its own consequences.

Mr. PITTS. Are you aware of any children that have become injured or sick by this summer’s recalled toys with lead paint?

Dr. BEST. No, I am not, but my pediatric practice is local.

Mr. PITTS. Ms. Farrow, roughly how many products made with

lead are in a typical person’s home today? How much lead is a person exposed to in their own home from products made with lead?

Ms. FARROW. Well, clearly in older homes that were built prior

to 1978, the primary exposure is from the lead paint in the home.

As far as products, I think at this point it might be hard to determine. We haven’t tested all the products, all the children’s toys.

They are not all being tested. Maybe Mr. Green might have a better idea.

Mr. PITTS. Go ahead.

Ms. FARROW. There are toys, vinyl products, potentially as we’ve

identified earlier, potential candies, other food products.
185

Mr. PITTS. And what can be done about those products, older

products that are still in circulation, or in the home?

Ms. FARROW. Well, I think it is a matter of getting the word out

to communities that products can potentially be poisonous but the

key is really identifying what those products might be and providing testing and scrutiny of all the products that are out there in

the marketplace.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Green, did you want to add something?

Mr. GREEN. Well, I was just going to say that more often than

not, these are cheaper products and frequently products made out

of vinyl, out of PVC, and so I think that parents—and we already

talked about how to dispose of them but parents, if they are concerned and they really want to go to the mat and do everything

they can, could basically take all products that are made for their

children to play with that are made out of PVC vinyl and get rid

of them.

Mr. PITTS. Now, Mr. Green, you said that you felt the CPSC

leadership were political appointees who are protecting industry,

that you thought you had evidence. Do you think the record recalled number of products this year is evidence of them protecting

industry?

Mr. GREEN. Thanks for that question. That is a good question.

So first of all, I didn’t say that they always do. I just said that

there have been situations where we have seen that, and then for

the previous question, in my written testimony there is some very

specific evidence including a document that we received from a

FOIA request, sort of the proverbial smoking gun related to the

lunchboxes about that. As far as the question about the increased

number of recalled items, I think that we also have to look that the

world has changed and so globalization is causing increasingly

large number of the products that are for sale in the U.S. to be

made in places that don’t have the sort of American regulatory and

enforcement provisions to ensure that there are not toxic materials

or dangerous aspects to products. And so I think that it would be

only natural as there is more international trade for us to have

more dangerous products in the U.S. because our standards are

currently higher—safety standards.

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RUSH. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Oregon, Ms.

Hooley, for 5 minutes.

Ms. HOOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Best, as you stated

in your testimony, there are no safe levels of lead for children. Does

this mean that you think the CPSC’s limit on lead paint to 600

parts per million is insufficient?

Dr. BEST. I do.

Ms. HOOLEY. And what would you have it in?

Dr. BEST. I want to sure I get my decimal point correct. Yes, 40

parts per million in any component of the item.

Ms. HOOLEY. Do you know how CPSC came up with that figure,

600 parts per million?

Dr. BEST. I believe that they divided a dose of lead that can be

attributed to a specific rise in blood lead, a dose of external lead

into your blood, and then divided that by enough lead to cause a
186

loss of 1 IQ point, and I actually I have that written down. It is

a fairly convoluted structure but we can show it to you.

Ms. HOOLEY. Thank you. Dr. Best and Mr. Green, a question for

both of you. Are you aware that there are water hoses, some with

or without warning labels, that if you actually put the water

through them, they are producing a high level of lead than you

would get from your faucet if you had lead in your pipes? And that

is the water sometimes we drink out of that hose or give our children a drink out of that hose or we water our fruits and vegetables.

Can you talk to me about that and how important that it and do

we need to do something about it?

Dr. BEST. Well, the good news is that vegetables don’t absorb

lead out of the water as well as humans do, for instance. So washing your vegetables or growing your garden using water from that

hose is less of a concern. I am not going to say it is no concern

but——

Ms. HOOLEY. But less of a concern.

Mr. BEST. The other news is that you really shouldn’t be drinking out of your hose because there is lots of other things besides

lead including some phthalates and other things that we know are

harmful.

Mr. GREEN. The Center for Environmental Health came to an

agreement with hose manufacturers, the largest hose manufacturers, the ones that were selling in California, and the agreement basically said that they had to comply with the California Toxics Act

and they have chosen to comply in one of two ways: Either to reduce the lead to such a low level, to an extremely low level or to

put a warning on it. Obviously we were trying to encourage them

to just eliminate the lead and the reason the lead is in there is because the hoses are made out of vinyl and so they are sourcing

vinyl sometimes that have lead in them and in my opinion is not

nearly as dangerous a health hazard as jewelry or bibs or

lunchboxes because it is not designed for a child to use it on a regular basis. However, when the sun sits on the hose and like in my

yard where I got one of those little handles at the end, the water

sits in there in the sun, the vinyl breaks down and the lead dust

that Dr. Best described goes into the water and then the kids play

in the yard and they get thirsty and they drink out of the hose.

That possibility does exist.

Ms. HOOLEY. I understand, for any of the panelists, that some

western European countries like Germany have dealt with the

issue of dangerous substances in products more effectively. Do any

of you have any knowledge of what is happening in other countries? You can volunteer, any one of you.

Mr. GREEN. At the risk of monopolizing the conversation, my

Treo would be illegal in the E.U. so they are making a different

Treo for the EU that doesn’t have the heavy metals that this one

has, as an example. I have an example here in my pocket so I am

sharing it with you.

Ms. WALLACH. And to that end, the Europeans have gone

through a process of finding a whole new regulatory system for

toxics. Its acronym is REACH, and gruesomely, the United States,

has been one of the countries that has threatened to drag that new

standard for raw toxics, not just in toys, to the WTO as an illegal
187

trade barrier. So there are a set of memos that came out of the

State Department during the period of Colin Powell as Secretary

of State that lay out orders basically of our all our embassies in

Europe as well as various memos describing how their improvement in the toxic exposure would be a violation of the World Trade

Organization’s Technical Barrier to Trade Agreement. We threatened in what is called a demarche, which is before you file the actual suit, we threatened a WTO suit and they weakened that

standard though they are starting to implement the weakened version so it is a rollback. It is a chilling effect already without a challenge and we are still apparently—the U.S. Trade Representative’s

office is still chewing on the idea of going after that because it is

a better standard. The Treo would be bad and there are a whole

set of products—now there are two scales of production, one for the

U.S. market and one for Europe, to meet these standards that are

higher safety.

Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, do I have time for one more question, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Gonzalez is recognized for 5 minutes.

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

My first observation, and I appreciate what Mr. Green said. He

said the world has changed and I am afraid we are still dealing

when it comes to safety of products with a design and a model that

is outdated but I am going to cover something that was discussed

yesterday as to what the CPSC is doing regarding the issue at

hand. The other observation I have is simply, I understand the interests of lead levels and maybe other sources but we are where

we are and I think that we don’t have to debate the fact that lead

is bad and the best test of that is whether a manufacturer or a retailer of a product containing lead, would they purchase it and

allow their children or their grandchild to use it. I think that is always the test, and I guarantee you, the answer to that would be

no.

But yesterday Chairman Nord indicated the following:

I am pleased to report that we reached an important agreement with AQSIQ,

which is the counterpart in China of the CPSC, under which China will immediately

implement a plan to eliminate the use of lead paint on Chinese manufactured toys

exported to the United States. They are going to make sure there is no lead in the

paint through inspections of U.S.-destined toys and a certification system for paint

suppliers.

When I asked her, is that realistic because we don’t have any

oversight, we have no inspectors, we are not going to have anyone

over there assisting the Chinese or maybe even looking over their

shoulder as to whether they are really complying with the terms

of this particular agreement? So very briefly, I would like the witnesses to tell me whether this is realistic. I am not criticizing

Chairman Nord. I think she inherited what she has inherited by

resources and through authority and she is going to do the best she

can under the circumstances. We are going to be introducing legislation that may address some of the shortcomings.

The second point, and I want, again, even though I am going to

cite the testimony of a couple of the witnesses, I want the other

witnesses to also chime in on what I believe is so important, and

that is the shared responsibility of different sectors in addressing
188

the problems, whether is lead or other unsafe products, and that

is the role of the manufacturer and their liability, the retailer and

their liability and of course just good consumer due diligence, and

I think some of the witnesses may have touched on that in their

testimony. But what I want to point out is the comment here, first

of all, I believe it is Mr. Green in his summary

Second, such legislation must hold distributors, retailers and manufacturers accountable for the safety of the products they sell through mandatory pre-market

testing and strong disincentives for violators.

I have got Ms. Teagarden, I believe

Direct responsibility for product quality would encourage retailers to focus beyond

relentless cost pressure to product quality. Extending responsibility for product

quality to retailers would be an important safeguard against lead-tainted imports.

So the first question is what Chairman Nord has put in place as

far as the international agreement, and secondly, where do we get

the manufacturer and the retailer to share some of that responsibility and why do you think that they are not doing that at the

present time? And we will start with Dr. Best.

Dr. BEST. As a medical professional, I must admit that that is

not my field of expertise but I can say that there is no reason for

lead to be in any product. It is used in a product because it is

cheaper than its alternative or because of lack of knowledge, so I

would hope that our standard is set very high no matter what the

source is.

Ms. FARROW. I would say that despite what China may or may

not do in the future, we still need to have some type of regulatory

framework here in the United States to actually inspect the product as it enters this country because even though China might say

they are stepping up, we have got to make sure that we can close

any kind of loophole that might be there. Clearly we have identified the problem. The product has been identified by CPSC and

they still allow the product to remain on the marketplace, in the

marketplace, and there has got to be a better mechanism for destroying, destructing the property that the toys, jewelry, other

products that are found to contain lead and I think we just need

to step up our enforcement on our border.

Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Green?

Mr. GREEN. In regard to the first question, it is my understanding that last week on the Senate side, one of the Senators said that

he had been told by a Chinese representative, oh, we have already

been doing what is in that new agreement for years. So that is

hearsay but it is at least a good source. And then so that implies

that it is not necessarily a very optimistic opportunity. It is not

necessarily, OK, we got a done deal here. Second thing about that

is that it is not just about China. In fact, the largest recall, the 150

million pieces of the very, very cheap jewelry that was in the

gumball machines, that that recall happened just a month after the

Center for Environmental Health, 2 months after we sued some of

the other jewelry manufacturers and sellers, those were all made

in India. So I think we can’t necessarily only say oh, the problem

is China. Actually the problem is us. We are responsible for protecting our kids. And then as far as the second half of your question, what can we do about whether retailers, what their role is,

so it shouldn’t be the place of a small nonprofit like the Center for
189

Environmental Health to have to bring litigation against these

large retailers. It should be the place of government to hold the retailers accountable because these very large retailers have the resources to check out what is happening, what they are selling, and

they should be held accountable for what they are selling.

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you.

Mr. RUSH. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr.

Burgess, for 5 minutes.

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Best, I actually very much appreciated your comments about

what you could have been had there not been lead in the gasoline.

I struggled with that question myself for the last 24 hours since I

read your testimony, and maybe I would have been smart enough

not to run for Congress. But nevertheless, you made a statement

somewhere along the line, there is no reason for any lead to be in

any product, and certainly a standard that perhaps we should

strive for. In fact, you have been very specific in your prepared testimony of what you outlined as a definition of a trace amount of

lead and how we should strive to make there were no more than

trace amounts of lead. You are here in the committee room. You

have got probably the most powerful subcommittee chairman in a

sitting committee in the Western world today in Mr. Rush. What

would you instruct Mr. Rush, how would you achieve this ideal?

The other recommendations you have down here, they don’t seem

as substantive as the first two, defining the trace amount and recommending that there be no more than a trace amount. So how if

you were going to guide our chairman as to how to craft the legislative product to end up with that ideal or even maybe to put it more

simply, if you could have your wish as an ideal legislative product,

how would you advise Chairman Rush to proceed?

Dr. BEST. That we set the internal and external standards for

products to be defined very broadly for children, that we not just

limit things to the younger children for whom the product is intended but that we remember that a 12-year-old probably has a 6-

year-old or a 3-year-old sibling and those siblings want nothing

more than to play with the 12-year-old’s toys. I would set the

standard high in terms of age and be very broad in terms of what

is a children’s product, meaning not just toys or jewelry that is intended for children, but car seats and easels and many, many other

products. One of the things that is wonderful about children is they

are very smart and they are exploring. They explore through their

mouths and their hands and they ingest lead that is absolutely not

intended to be ingested.

Mr. BURGESS. So you would make the criteria quite stringent but

again, as far as developing the product that would then cover

things made in this country, things made in other countries, the air

we breathe. Where is the greatest return on investment for Chairman Rush’s legislative work on this?

Dr. BEST. In terms of the greatest return on health, which I

think is what we are all looking for, is that I would make sure that

when we think about products now from a global market, that

every item that we allow into our country or allow to be sold in our

country be acceptable to my own child or my own grandchild. I

think that is the best standard of care that we can give. The chil-
190

dren in China don’t need any lead in their products any more than

the children here.

Mr. BURGESS. Let me ask you this, and I am certainly not an expert in this, and my only background knowledge is the knowledge

I have gleaned from reading journals like the Washington Post, but

it is my understanding that lead content in our city water—you list

a Washington address on our witness sheet—our tap water here in

Washington, DC—in fact, we have signs posted in the restrooms,

don’t drink the water, which is kind of a strange sign to see in the

bathroom but we have to be concerned about things like our city

water supplies?

Dr. BEST. Absolutely.

Mr. BURGESS. What is the level of lead in our city water here in

Washington, DC?

Dr. BEST. I don’t know what it is now. I know that we had a

problem with it starting in 2002. I think that——

Mr. BURGESS. I arrived in 2003 and I remember being advised

to get a water filter.

Dr. BEST. Right, and the problem there was similar in that the

regulatory and—the rules were there but they weren’t followed,

and that is the same problem we are having now is, the rules, they

are not the best rules that I think we should get but the existing

rules weren’t even followed. And so I can’t tell you what is in the

water in the city tap. I do know that the city also has said that

it has improved but I am not going to——

Mr. BURGESS. Yes, and that is part of what is bothering me intellectually about this. We could go to great trouble and expense to

clean up a problem overseas but if we haven’t even done it in our

own backyard—I thought it was a given that we had. I was a little

surprised to come here and find that it was a problem.

Dr. BEST. I think your point is well made. One of the concerns

that I have about an issue like this is that it brings to the attention of the public toys and lead. Well, that is good because we need

the public to be aware that this is a real risk. It is not pretend.

It is not rare. It is a real risk. We also need to think about the fact

that there is lead paint in houses still. There is a lot of lead paint

still out there and it is always in the poor neighborhoods where the

paint isn’t well maintained, the apartment building isn’t well maintained. There are many other environmental toxins that we need

to be aware of and we need to remember that every time we allow

our children to be exposed to those toxins, when they grow up to

be the adults that we are now, they might have been smarter.

Mr. BURGESS. Yes, they might have been smarter.

Mr. Green, what do we do with all the stuff we get back on those

recalls?

Mr. RUSH. Time is up.

Mr. BURGESS. Can Mr. Green answer that question?

Mr. RUSH. No. We will have a second round.

Mr. BURGESS. You are very kind. Mr. Chairman, did you get all

that stuff that the doctor gave you for crafting legislation?

Mr. RUSH. I certainly did.

Mr. BURGESS. I will yield back.
191

Mr. RUSH. The chairman recognizes himself for one additional

question and will allow the other members of the subcommittee to

have one additional question.

Professor Teagarden, you state in your written testimony that

‘‘knowing how to produce products that are lead-free is not the

problem. It is a question of constant process and material vigilance

throughout the supply chain.’’ Thus, would you recommend that

U.S. manufacturers require their own full-time audit personnel to

be present and their contractors, factories in China to monitor compliance with quality control and safety standards, and would this

be financially feasible for most companies?

Ms. TEAGARDEN. I believe that that is best practice. I believe that

the research shows that that ensures integrity in the system, and

yes, it would increase costs. Relative to toys, I would say so what.

The tradeoff is worth making.

Mr. RUSH. Thank you very much.

Mr. Burgess is recognized for one additional question.

Mr. BURGESS. Well, I will repose the question. Mr. Green, what

do we do with all the stuff that gets recalled? I asked that question

of CEO of Mattel yesterday. You can’t burn it, you can’t put it in

the landfill. I hope we are not reselling it on eBay. So what do you

do with it?

Mr. GREEN. Are you reselling yours on eBay? I am just kidding.

Mr. BURGESS. My children are older and I am too young for

grandchildren so I am kind of in that awkward in-between age, so

I am not buying toys right now.

Mr. GREEN. Well, the first thing is that yesterday the CEO from

Mattel talked about using it for co-generation. So first of all, that

would be a very bad thing to do because if it is vinyl, then it has

chlorine in it, and if it has chlorine in it and you burn it, it will

by definition create dioxin, which is one of the most toxics known

to science. So we shouldn’t be burning it, that is for sure, if it is

vinyl, and in addition, if it is metals, you can’t burn the metals

anyway so you are just getting rid of the rest of the stuff and you

may even, if it is not being burned well, just distributing the metals like the lead into the air. So we shouldn’t be burning it. That

is clear. In the county where my office is, Alameda County, and

where I live, they actually had set up drop-off points for people who

are concerned about this. So the stuff that has a lot of lead in it,

you may—and we talked about this a little bit earlier today, people

may think that the right thing to do is to do the same thing you

would do with the paint that you have in your garage that you are

not using, which is take it to the local hazardous waste drop-off

spot that is in every county.

Mr. BURGESS. Is there any way to leach the lead out of those

products so that they can at some point be reclaimed or used for

co-generation or some other process?

Mr. GREEN. Technically, there would be a way but it wouldn’t

make sense. It would be, one, too expensive, and two, it just

wouldn’t make sense by the nature of those materials.

Mr. RUSH. The gentlelady from Oregon is recognized for one additional question.

Ms. HOOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
192

Ms. Teagarden, in your testimony you find fault with the big-box

retailers applying pressure on suppliers for lower and lower prices.

What do you suggest be done about this? Anything?

Ms. TEAGARDEN. I think that is good business practice for them

to do that but meeting their profit obligations can be balanced with

the need to meet their obligations to consumers to sell products

that are lead-free to children.

Ms. HOOLEY. And how would you do that?

Ms. TEAGARDEN. I would make them responsible for the compliance—also responsible for the compliance of products they sell.

Mr. RUSH. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for one additional question.

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am just

going to follow up on Ms. Wallach and Ms. Teagarden on the question I had posed earlier and you were not able to respond, but I

think Ms. Teagarden answered the second part. One was on the

agreement with the Chinese Government and whether that is practical and effective and the other about retail liability, that aspect

of it and how would that be accomplished?

Ms. WALLACH. First of all, on the agreement, in 2005 China immediately implemented the previous agreement on lead in products, and we have seen with the current spate of problems, nothing

happened, so I think to answer your question yes or no, no, that

agreement is not going to fix the situation. The things that need

to happen I believe are third-party certification within the plants,

not the Chinese Government, to do the inspections. It is the same

reason we have Government inspectors of meat inside meat plants

instead of the company inspectors. It is a matter of conflict of interest. Number 2, higher fines for importers because the liability as

Ms. Teagarden has said the incentives need to be set up such that

actually you want a safe product or it is going to be a business mistake and cost you profitability. Number 3, we need to figure out

how we subject to liability in U.S. courts in the civil justice system

for injured consumer the producers, not just the importers so you

create actually an incentive for the producers as well because they

could be then losing a lot of money. And No. 4, we need to increase

inspection. We need to have authority given, which doesn’t exist

but does exist in the USDA statutes for imports of meat to allow

U.S. inspectors to go and ensure that those third-party certifications actually do meet U.S. law and have plant inspection overseas as well as greatly increased inspection at the border. The fifth

piece of it though is who pays for that, and in my testimony I describe how and why those companies, those U.S. toy producers who

have moved overseas to take benefit of cheap wages should be the

ones who have to fund the additional costs to the U.S. Government

to ensure that the products they bring back here are safe as well

as profitable to them. Thank you.

Ms. TEAGARDEN. And I concur with Ms. Wallach on that one. I

think she covered everything I would say.

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RUSH. Thank you very much. I want to again thank this

panel of witnesses for your time and for your testimony, and you

have really helped this subcommittee out a lot in terms of as we
193

proceed into the future. Thank you so very, very much for your

time.

We will now ask the following witnesses to come forward now for

panel two. Thank you to the witnesses who are the witness table

now for your generous use of your time. You have been quite patient with us as we have proceeded through today’s hearing.

I want to introduce the witnesses. Mr. Carter Keithley is the

president of the Toy Industry Association. TIA is the primary trade

association for toy manufacturers and importers, representing 85

percent of sales in North America. Mr. Allen Thompson is the vice

president for Global Supply Chain Management, Retail Industry

Leaders Association. RILA represents over 600 member retail companies including large chains such as Wal-Mart and Target. Mr.

Michael Gale is the executive director of the Fashion Jewelry Trade

Association. This association represents over 200 companies in the

costume jewelry industry. And next is Gary E. Knell, who is the

CEO and president of the Sesame Street Workshop. The Sesame

Workshop is a nonprofit media organization which produces the

popular Sesame Street television show on public television, and

lastly, Ms. Kathie Morgan is the vice president of Technical Committee Operations, ASTM International. ASTM International is one

of the largest voluntary standards development organizations in

the world.

Again, I want to welcome you. You will have 5 minutes for opening statements. We will begin with Mr. Keithley.

STATEMENT OF CARTER KEITHLEY, PRESIDENT, TOY

INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED

Mr. KEITHLEY. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the

subcommittee. I am very pleased to come before the subcommittee

this morning on behalf of the Toy Industry Association to talk

about toy safety. The TIA is in fact the leading toy industry association in the world. Our 500 member companies provide, as you

observed, Mr. Chairman, more than 85 percent of all toys sold in

the United States each year. TIA has been a leader in developing

and implementing toy safety measures for more than seven decades. We are very proud of our accomplishments in ensuring that

toys sold in America are the safest of any in the world. Our toy

safety standards have bee modeled for other nations and records

show that toy-related injuries in the United States are relatively

rare despite the sale of nearly 3 billion new toys every year.

The recent recalls of a few models of toy products in the U.S.,

however, have given our industry and opportunity to make further

progress in the continuous process of safety improvement. These

recalls demonstrated to us that we needed to apply some new safety assurance measures in the toy production process. It is important to point out that the recalls account for a tiny proportion of

the total of nearly 3 billion toys sold in the U.S. each year. So far

this year there had been lead paint-related recalls of 14 models of

toy products imported into the U.S. by 11 companies. Two of those

companies are among our 500 manufacturing members and it also

should be remembered that to their credit, these recalls were initiated by the manufacturers themselves when they identified the

problem. But because the recalls this year related to lead paint on
194

toys, something which has been prohibited by our safety standards

for decades, we believe it is important for us to strengthen new

measures to prevent such occurrences in the future.

Here are the fundamentals of the new initiatives that we are undertaking. First, we are developing standardized procedures that

will be used industry-wide to verify that products comply with U.S.

safety standards. Second, we are establishing criteria to certify that

testing laboratories are qualified to perform testing to U.S. standards using these industry-wide protocols, and third, we are encouraging the Federal Government to adopt a requirement that all toys

sold in the United States undergo inspection to assure that they

conform to our standards. We have modeled our initiatives in this

area after measures utilized in many American industries. We are

working with the American National Standards Institute to develop these procedures and we are communicating closely with the

CPSC throughout the process.

The safety system in the U.S. is a characteristically American

approach to solving problems. It is a robust pluralistic system that

employs the talents, expertise and speed of the consensus process,

working with industry, government and consumers to address safety issues. We are very proud to be working with ANSI in developing these measures because ANSI is the premier nonprofit organization whose mission is to enhance the American quality of life by

promoting, facilitating and safeguarding the integrity of consensus

driven safety standards in the United States. In contrast to a topdown government-driven approach to safety, our system involves

all stakeholders in a consensus process that allows tens of thousands of new products and new technology to come to market for

the enjoyment of our consumers. Clearly, there is an important role

for government to play as a watchdog and an enforcer of conformance with private-sector standards but history has proven the success of our reliance upon private-sector safety initiatives.

Finally, I would like to point out that our proposals are not specific to toys made in any particular area of the world. The new requirements will apply to toys made in any nation. For more than

30 years working with our suppliers in China, our industry has

produced billions and billions of high-quality toys that fully conform to our toy safety standards and we are confident that our suppliers in China will embrace these new safety requirements. We

enthusiastically applaud the new safety agreement signed last

week between the U.S. CPSC and AQSIQ and we welcome the

agreement by the Chinese authorities to take immediate action to

eliminate the use of lead paint on Chinese-manufactured toys. We

recognize and accept, however, that the ultimate responsibility resides with our industry to assure that toys imported into the U.S.

conform with our safety standards. We do not shrink from this responsibility and we pledge to you and to the American public that

we will do everything in our power to make sure that toys sold in

America are safe for our children to play with. I am honored to be

here representing the toy industry among my distinguished colleagues here on this panel, and I look forward to responding to

your questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Keithley follows:]
195

STATEMENT OF CARTER KEITHLEY

Good morning Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee.

I am very pleased to come before the subcommittee this morning on behalf of the

Toy Industry Association to talk about toy safety.

The TIA is the leading toy industry association in the world. Our 500 member

companies provide more than 85 percent of all toys sold in the United States each

year. TIA has been a leader in developing and implementing toy safety measures

for more than seven decades. We are very proud of our accomplishments in assuring

that the toys sold in America are the safest of any in the world. Our toy safety

standards have been the model for other nations, and records show that toy related

injuries in the U.S. are relatively rare, despite the sale of nearly three billion new

toys every year.

The recent recalls of a few models of toy products in the U.S., however, have given

our industry an opportunity to make further progress in the continuous process of

safety improvement. These recalls demonstrated to us that we needed to apply some

new safety assurance measures in the toy production process.

It is important to point out that we that the recalls account for a tiny portion of

the total of nearly three billion toys sold in the U.S. each year. So far this year there

have been lead paint related recalls of 14 models of toy products imported into the

U.S. by 11 companies. Two of those companies are among our 500 manufacturing

members. And it should also be remembered that, to their credit, these recalls were

initiated by the manufacturers themselves when they identified the problem.

But because the recalls this year related to lead paint on toys, something which

has been prohibited by our safety standards for decades, we believe it is important

for us to strengthen new measures to prevent such occurrences in the future. Here

are the fundamentals of the new initiatives that we are undertaking:

• First, we are developing standardized procedures that will be used industrywide to verify that products comply with U.S. safety standards;

• Second, we are establishing criteria to certify that testing laboratories are qualified to perform testing to U.S. standards using industry-wide protocols; and

• Third, we are encouraging the federal government to adopt a requirement that

all toys sold in the U.S. undergo inspection to assure that they conform to our

standards.

We have modeled our initiatives in this area after the measures utilized in many

American industries. We are working with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to develop these procedures, and we are communicating closely with the

Consumer Product Safety Commission throughout this process.

The safety system in the United States is a characteristically American approach

to solving problems and meeting needs. It is a robust, pluralistic system that employs the talents, expertise, and speed of the consensus process—working together

with industry, government and consumers—to address safety issues. We are very

proud to be working with ANSI in developing these new measures. ANSI is the premier non-profit organization whose mission is to enhance the American quality of

life by promoting, facilitating and safeguarding the integrity of consensus-driven

safety standards and conformity assessment systems in the United States.

In contrast to a top-down, government driven approach to safety, our system involves all stakeholders in a consensus-process that allows tens of thousands of new

products and new technology to come to market for the enjoyment of our consumers.

Clearly, there is an important role for government to play as a watchdog and an

enforcer of conformance with private sector standards, but history has proven the

success of our reliance upon private sector safety initiatives.

Finally, I would like to point out that our proposals are not specific to toys made

in any particular area of the world. The new requirements will apply to toys made

in any nation. For more than thirty years, working with our trusted suppliers in

China, our industry has produced billions of high quality toys that fully conform to

our toy safety standards. We are confident that our suppliers in China will embrace

these new safety requirements.

We enthusiastically applaud the new safety agreements signed last week between

the U.S. CPSC and the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection

and Quarantine in China. And we welcome the agreement by the Chinese authorities to take immediate action to eliminate the use of lead paint on Chinese manufactured toys exported to the United States. We recognize and accept, however, that

the ultimate responsibility resides with our industry to assure that toys imported

into the U.S. conform to our safety standards. We do not shrink from this responsibility, and we pledge to you and to the American public that we will do everything
196

in our power to make sure that toys sold in America are safe for our children to

play with.

I am honored to be here representing the toy industry among my distinguished

colleagues on this panel, and I look forward to responding to your questions.

Mr. RUSH. Thank you very much.

Mr. Thompson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF ALLEN THOMPSON, VICE PRESIDENT, GLOBAL

SUPPLY CHAIN POLICY, RETAIL INDUSTRY LEADERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the

subcommittee. Before I begin my prepared remarks, I want to

stress that retailers contribute to, not detract from, consumers’ access to safe and affordable products, and in my remarks this afternoon, I will describe the steps that retailers have taken and are

taking to protect consumers.

My name is Al Thompson and I am the vice president of Global

Supply Chain Policy of the Retail Industry Leaders Association, but

more importantly, I am the father of two young children, and so

the issue of toy safety is one that carries personal importance to

me. RILA represents the largest and fastest-growing companies in

the retail industry and provides millions of jobs and operates more

than 100,000 stores and distribution centers domestically and

abroad. As you consider how to protect consumers, particularly

children, from dangerous products. I want to outline some of the

public policies under consideration that RILA supports.

First, we support increased funding for the Consumer Product

Safety Commission, or CPSC, as well as mandatory recall authority

for the CPSC and a legal prohibition against knowingly selling a

recalled product. Second, we support Federal legislation to promulgate lead standards for all types of jewelry similar to those enacted

in the State of California as well as efforts to enhance product

traceability for children’s products. Third, we support the establishment of clear and predictable safety standards for toys and children’s products that are uniform nationwide. While no two RILA

members sell exactly the same merchandise, they are equally committed to the safety and integrity of their supplier operations as

well as the safety of products on their shelves.

In light of recent incidents, many of our members have enhanced

product testing. For example, some retailers now require testing for

all toys regardless of manufacturer. Others are implanting more

rigorous protocols to confirm the safety of their toys through multilayer testing and documentation. Our members have also reviewed

and strengthened their internal policies and procedures for product

testing, supplier compliance and the sanction for noncompliant suppliers and manufacturers. Furthermore, our members have joined

with other allies seeking better Government standards and guidelines for product safety with a particular focus on products manufactured for children.

While members have taken aggressive steps, RILA believes that

ensuring product safety is a shared responsibility. Retailers have

rigorous quality assurance requirements and enforcement mechanisms for their suppliers that manufacture goods for their stores.
197

RILA members require their suppliers and manufacturers to understand and adhere to U.S. Government standards and regulations for toys and other products. They require that their suppliers

operate factories in secure environments and rely on known and

approved subcontractors to produce safe quality products. They require suppliers to maintain and document production processes

that conform to safety standards beginning at the design phase and

continuing through the completion of a finished product. And finally, they require manufacturers to open their factories and production processes to periodic quality and safety inspections.

When a product is recalled, either at the insistence of government or a supplier, retailers take action. They immediately remove

the product or products from the stream of commerce and properly

dispose of them so they are not resold. They also notify purchasers

when possible that they should return the product for a refund or

replacement. These prompt actions are the result of protocols that

virtually every RILA member has in place to respond to recalls and

protect consumers. As soon as a product is recalled—as soon as a

product recall is initiated, RILA members implement existing recovery plans to remove the subject merchandise. Retailer inventory

systems produce an error message at the point of sale if such products reach checkout registers, and after implementing the recall,

our members review their suppliers’ testing protocols to minimize

the potential for future problems and take appropriate actions or

levy sanctions as needed.

A successful product safety regime requires a close partnership

between the private sector and U.S. Government as well as other

governments that may be responsible for ensuring the quality of

goods leaving their shoes. RILA stands ready to work with government policymakers to enact policies that strength consumer confidence and advance the production of safe, high-quality products

that are affordable and readily available for customers.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look forward to answering your questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]
198
199
200
201
202
203

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Gale.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL GALE, FASHION JEWELRY TRADE

ASSOCIATION

Mr. GALE. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you

for inviting the Fashion Jewelry Trade Association to discuss today

how to ensure that jewelry for children, indeed for all consumers,

adequately limits lead exposure. The FJTA represents 250 manufacturers and suppliers of children’s and adult jewelry to retailers.

Our members range from small family-owned businesses, some of

those doing less than $1 million annually, to large branded national firms supplying department stores, chain stores and specialty chains. Trade Press has estimated that the fashion jewelry

industry in 2005 was an $8.3 billion industry.

I would like to start off by describing what we mean by fashion

jewelry. Fashion jewelry is not trinket jewelry. It is not jewelry

sold through vending machines or given away as premiums. Our

members do not make those products. It is also not fine jewelry or

jewelry made primarily of precious or semiprecious metals or

gemstones. Fashion or costume jewelry is an everyday fashion

item. Fashion jewelry can be made from a variety of materials.

Most often the metal components of jewelry are made from a base

metal that is plated with copper and nickel or another metal and

then a finish coat of silver or gold. Glass, crystal, ceramic, plastic,

wood and other natural and synthetic components are frequently

used. Fashion jewelry can be embellished with paints, enamels and

other such materials.

FJTA and its members care deeply about all consumers and support a national preemptive standard for lead in jewelry components

based on the existing comprehensive California law. The law was

adopted in the aftermath of the Prop 65 lawsuit. The standards

were agreed to by the California attorney general, environmental

groups, industry and after exhaustive testing and detailed assessments of testing methodologies and discussions about the role of

lead in various components of jewelry. The California law known

as AB–1681 establishes specific limits on lead in the various components used in fashion jewelry for young children and different,

sometimes higher limits for materials used to fabricate jewelry intended for other consumers. The standards for metal used in children’s jewelry, for example, is 600 part per million. That limit is

based on longstanding toxicology and evidence about the risks of

lead exposure. In contrast, the lead limit for metal used in jewelry

not intended for children varies depending on whether the metal

is properly plated, and for the record, we have put in a chart which

is an overview of the California law on a material-by-material basis

applicable to jewelry materials intended for use in children’s jewelry and jewelry intended for adults.

There are two basic reasons the separate standards were adopted

for the different materials and for children’s versus other jewelry

in California. First, there is a recognized difference in risk between

adults and children. The generally agreed upon concept of accessibility has been a foundation of decisions about how to reduce or

limit children’s exposure to lead. In other words, whether because

lead is encapsulated in a material, for example, crystal and glass,
204

or access to lead is restricted through other barriers as in the case

when metal is properly plated, differences in the limits of allowable

lead are justified based on accepted science. Intensive testing and

analysis have shown that the levels adopted in AB–1681 are safe

for children’s and other jewelry and we also attach for the record

a copy of an analysis conducted by a toxicologist with extensive experience in the issue. Second, as we have seen, there are differences in the materials used for jewelry. A one-size-fits-all standard for lead was agreed to be inappropriate during the California

discussions. Lead imparts useful and desirable properties to metal

used in fashion jewelry. It allows for improved flow properties at

lower temperatures, facilitates casting, especially of intricate parts,

and of finishing.

The total elimination of lead in jewelry, particularly jewelry that

is not intended for young children, would impose difficulties and

cost on the industry and adversely affect quality and cost to consumers. Reducing the lead content in metal too much can result in

higher rejection rates for intricate cast pieces, a shorter life of

molds and other equipment, higher breakage because of increased

brittleness in the metal, and potentially higher consumer complaints because of poor quality, to name a few. The standards reflected in AB–1681 have been adopted as a model by our industry.

We are proactively supporting a common national standard, educating our members to expand awareness about the issue and we

have also reached out to the international fashion jewelry community, especially in China. We have been participating with the

CPSC in proceedings on children’s jewelry and supporting national

preemptive standards. We met recently with the CPSC staff to provide further background and information on our industry.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Gale, would you please bring your commentary to

a close?

Mr. GALE. I thank you very much, and if there are any questions

about what our industry has done, I will be glad to answer them.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gale follows:]
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Knell.

STATEMENT OF GARY E. KNELL, CEO AND PRESIDENT,

SESAME WORKSHOP

Mr. KNELL. Mr. Chairman, thank you and members of the committee so much for holding these hearings. It shows indeed that

you care about children, and I would like to submit our written testimony for the record.

Sesame Workshop was formed in 1969 as a nonprofit organization which was there to use the media to help children reach their

highest potential, and I am sure many of you know our characters

who happen to work for us—Big Bird, Elmo and Bert and Ernie

and other folks who have been known to walk the halls of Congress

at times as well. But Big Bird and Elmo are really indeed part of

our army of teachers who try to reach kids and teach kids about

letters and numbers, about health and hygiene, about trust and respect, so we wanted to come here today to express our concern as

licensors about the recent recalls and what we need to do about it

because several Sesame Street items were part of Mattel’s first recall.

First, the committee should know why Sesame Street licenses its

characters for toys, games, books, videos, et cetera. We do so for

two reasons. One is, that we extend the educational experience of

the television program to promote the most important experience

of learning for a young child and that is play through these types

of products, and second, these products do generate an important

source of royalty income for Sesame Workshop which pays for the

educational research and television production of what we do. A

program such as Talk, Listen, Connect which we just completed for

400,000 preschool children of active-duty military Guard and Reserves who are dealing with deployment, redeployment, unification,

this the kind of program that we do, and ironically, sort of the ultimate irony is that we had produced a lead prevention kid using the

Sesame Street characters called Lead Away which went out to

460,000 pediatricians’ offices and now that we are involved with

this, we are going to update this and get this out to another half

million in all 50 States, and we would love to work with the committee to figure out ways to expand that. We are in the teaching

business so when our characters are subject to an intentional or a

careless design or a manufacturing flaw that is in violation of our

contracts, we get hurt. Our reputation suffers and we need to regain any trust that we may have lost with parents.

So what steps need to be taken? In our view, it is a public-private response. We need privately to strengthen industry standards

and testing procedures. We know that Mattel will tighten them.

Chairman Eckerd of Mattel apologized to me personally for the recall and we do believe that Mattel is going to take steps. They happen to be in many ways the best in class in the toy business. They

have been very rarely subject to recalls. We need to make sure that

everyone in this industry is doing whatever is necessary to ensure

safety and tighten up those gaps that exist. As an extra protection,

Sesame Workshop is going to spend its own resources to hire thirdparty auditors to test at the manufacturing shipping and retail lev-
216

els so that we continually prove to parents that we stand for quality and learning.

And finally, we also support the committee’s move to strengthen

the public sector so that the Consumer Product Safety Commission

has a final safety net, so to speak, which will do things like requiring warranty cards with online easy access for parents, mandatory

safety testing. We need to move toward a goal of zero lead, to make

our chain of supply turn into a chain of safety, as it should be referred to. So we believe a swift response by all parties, private and

public, is appropriate.

We will be an enthusiastic supporter of legislation, Mr. Chairman, which you decide to propose here and hopefully enact, and as

parents, grandparents, uncles and aunts of many young children,

we must not settle for anything less. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Knell follows:]
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225

Mr. RUSH. Thank you.

Ms. Morgan for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF KATHIE MORGAN, VICE PRESIDENT,

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE OPERATIONS, ASTM INTERNATIONAL

Ms. MORGAN. Thank you, Chairman Rush and members of the

subcommittee, for the opportunity to participate today. I am Kathie

Morgan. I am vice president of technical committee operations for

ASTM International. In brief, ASTM is a nonprofit organization

with 34,000 members devoted to the development of international

standards in over 90 different industry sectors. ASTM utilizes a

consensus-based approach to develop standards that promote

health, safety and improve the quality of life. ASTM does not offer

testing and accreditation services nor do we license a certification

mark.

The U.S. system of standardization is one of the most dynamic

in the world. It significantly reduces or often eliminates the cost to

the Federal Government of developing its own standards. For consumers, it provides the technical underpinnings on which a broader

conformity assessment process can be based. And most importantly, it allows technical experts, consumer advocates and regulators to engage together and directly in the development process.

This process can result in new standards or revisions to existing

standards that reflect changing technology and emerging issues in

less time than regulatory action.

ASTM Committee F–15 on Consumer Products with a membership of 850 professionals has 50 subcommittees in different product

areas including toy safety. ASTM F–963, the specification for toy

safety, establishes safety requirements for toys used by children

under 14 years of age. All Federal regulations applicable to toys

are referenced in F–963, and in addition there are more than 100

separate tests, design specifications and other requirements. Section 4.3 of the standard addresses lead and other materials that

are toxic, corrosive or irritants. The requirements on lead restriction are from 16 C.F.R. 1303 referenced in section 4.3.5. The regulation prohibits the use of paint or similar surface coating materials in which the total lead content is in excess of 600 parts per

million. In addition, the lead content of the soluble material lead

which can migrate from the toy and therefore be ingested by the

child may not exceed 90 parts per million. The soluble level is determined by a method that is also detailed in F–963 that extracts

the soluble elements from the toy under a condition that would

simulate the situation in which the material stays 4 hours in the

alimentary tract after swallowing.

Earlier this year, the Consumer Product Safety Commission requested Committee F–15 to coordinate the development of a new

standard addressing lead in children’s vinyl products. A new subcommittee on F–15 was just established last month that will initially focus on the identification of lead content in vinyl children’s

products such as baby bibs and lunchboxes, although certainly the

scope could be broadened in the future. ASTM is currently soliciting participation for this activity and we will certainly ensure that

all the witnesses involved in this hearing are invited, if they are

not already involved.
226

The participation of consumers and safety advocates in the

standards process is paramount. To overcome funding obstacles,

ASTM provides travel assistance for consumers to attend meetings.

The annual administrative fee is waived for consumers, and electronic initiatives are in place that allow individuals to participate

remotely from their own computer desktop.

Much of the focus today is on toys imported from China. ASTM

has agreements with the Standardization Administration of the

People’s Republic of China, the Chinese National Institute of

Standardization and the Shanghai Institute of Standardization.

Through these agreements ASTM provides access to all ASTM

standards for these organizations. We sponsor joint training programs and we provide participating memberships to Chinese representatives on the ASTM technical committee. In return, the Chinese standards bodies promote the utilization of ASTM standards

in China and the development of Chinese national standards based

on the ASTM standards. We will continue efforts with China to

raise awareness and understanding of ASTM standards.

While we have had success working cooperatively to develop

standards like F–963, the global value chain is critical to meet

safety challenges of the future. ASTM will participate next week in

ANSI’S building consumer confidence conference. Long-term solutions include a conformity assessment system that begins with developing the most diligent standard possible followed by testing

and compliance processes that will cultivate consumer confidence.

ASTM will support to the maximum extent possible any standard

development needs that surface to compliment the initiatives announced by ANSI and the Toy Industry Association, but for our

part, our efforts will continue to focus on the elements critical to

the standard development mission ensuring an inclusive process,

providing an environment of structure, technology and tools for

stakeholders and a distribution system that ensures the standards

are in the hands of those who need them.

Thank you for the opportunity to participate and I look forward

to answering your questions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Morgan follows:]

TESTIMONY OF KATHARINE MORGAN

Thank you Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Stearns, and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to participate in this important hearing. I am Katharine Morgan, vice president of Technical Committee Operations with ASTM International.

ASTM International is a leading non-profit organization devoted to the development of international standards. For more than 100 years, ASTM has served society

as a leading venue for consumers, industry and regulators to work collaboratively

under a balanced and consensus-based process to craft standards that promote

health, safety and improve the overall quality of life.

Unlike other standards development organizations, ASTM focuses almost exclusively on standards development. We do not offer testing and accreditation services,

nor do we license a certification mark. As a result of our steadfast focus on standards development, ASTM standards are well known and valued for their technical

quality and relevance.

THE U.S. VOLUNTARY CONSENSUS STANDARDS SYSTEM

As this committee knows very well, the Consumer Product Safety Act and its subsequent amendments establishes a Federal policy directing the CPSC to defer to a

voluntary consumer product safety standard in lieu of promulgating its own require-
227

ments if important criteria are likely to be met through the use of the voluntary

standard. This criteria includes a CPSC determination as to whether the utilization

of a voluntary standard would eliminate or adequately reduce the risk of injury addressed and whether it is likely that there will be substantial compliance to the

standard by industry. The CPSC retains the ultimate authority to promulgate mandatory standards in the event such standards are not effective or substantial compliance is not widespread. Other important Federal laws exist such as the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) which direct all agencies to use

voluntary consensus standards and to participate in their development where it

makes sense to do so.

The United States has a very decentralized voluntary consensus standards system

that is driven by the needs of stakeholders. The government is a major participant.

But the process requires participation and cooperation of all stakeholders and a

commitment towards reaching a consensus. To guide the process, ASTM and many

standards development organizations are accredited by the American National

Standards Institute and adhere to procedures for due process, openness, balance

and transparency. If it is suggested that these procedures are not being met, there

are protective actions such as a right of appeal to preserve the integrity of the process.The U.S. system of standardization is the most dynamic system in the world. It

significantly reduces or often eliminates the cost to the Federal Government of developing its own standards. For consumers, it provides an important standards foundation which, when used in conjunction with an effective testing and compliance

program, can build consumer confidence in the products that are purchased. But

most importantly, the system allows stakeholders—technical experts, consumer advocates and regulators to engage directly in the development process. Led by the

private sector, new standards and revisions to existing standards can often be made

and incorporated into the marketplace much faster than by an agency rulemaking

or other regulatory action. This nimbleness of the system allows timely revisions to

standards to reflect changing technology and that establish requirements to address

changing hazard patterns or emerging issues. This also enables the government to

leverage both expertise and resources to rapidly elop effective standards that address emerging hazards.

ASTM STANDARDS AND TOY SAFETY

Of particular interest to today’s hearing, ASTM standards are widely used to

make toys safer for children to play with and to assist manufacturers in testing

components and products to determine levels of lead and other declarable substances.

ASTM Committee F15 on Consumer Products has played an important role in

consumer product safety standards for over 30 years. The committee has a broad

global membership of approximately 900 professionals, including staff of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), consumers, safety advocates, retailers,

researchers,—medical professionals, academics, test laboratories and representatives of the consumer products industry. Committee F15 encompasses 50 standardswriting subcommittees in different product areas and will form new subcommittees

as urgent safety issues and new hazards are identified that lend themselves to a

standards solution.

One of the most critical areas of focus for Committee F15 is toy safety. With thousands of new toys introduced to the marketplace each year, ASTM plays a vital role

in protecting the safety of children. An important contributor to that safety is ASTM

F 963, Consumer Safety Specification for Toy Safety, which establishes recognized

safety requirements for toys intended for use by children under the age of 14. ASTM

F 963 helps to protect children in countless ways as it relates to possible hazards

that may not be recognized readily by the public, but that may be encountered in

the normal use for which a toy is intended or after reasonably foreseeable abuse.

Federal toy safety regulations in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations are referenced in ASTM F 963. In addition, there are more than 100 separate tests, design

specifications and other requirements included. These tests and specifications include use-and-abuse tests, testing for accessible sharp points and edges, and measuring for small parts, wheel-pull resistance and projectiles. There are also tests for

flammability, toxicity, electrical and thermal requirements, and noise. Manufacturers design products to achieve conformance with such requirements.

ASTM F 963 AND LEAD IN TOYS

First drafted in 1971 (and later adopted under ASTM), ASTM F 963 has been enhanced over the years to address new product technology and changes in regulation.
228

Section 4.3 of F 963 addresses lead and other materials that are either toxic, corrosive or irritants. The requirements related to lead restriction are from 16 CFR 1303

which is referenced in F 963, Section 4.3.5. This requirement has been in the standard since mandated. There have not been any revisions to this section in recent

years. Accordingly, the existing ASTM standard and Federal regulations address the

key issue of lead in paint on toys.

ASTM F 963 AND MAGNET INGESTION

ASTM standards are required to be reviewed every five years at a minimum. F

963, due to its comprehensive nature and the dynamics of an evolving industry is

under constant evaluation to address changing needs from both a product and

emerging hazard standpoint. Recent revisions made to ASTM F 963 include the addition of safety requirements and test methods for yo-yo elastic tether toys; the addition of requirements related to cord, straps and elastics; and revisions to sections

that address packaging film, age requirements as they pertain to use and abuse

testing, and hemispheric shaped objects.

As this subcommittee knows all too well, there have been incidents in recent years

of children swallowing small magnets that were built into toys or that were part

of a building play set with small parts intended for older children. These incidents

of magnet ingestion drove a recent revision to ASTM F 963 requiring that magnets

and magnetic components be reliably contained within a toy or carry a warning describing the dangers posed by functional small ingestible magnets. The subcommittee is further developing the magnets section of F963 and is working on a web based

training program to educate the industry, retailers, testing laboratories and others

on the new requirements.

The revision of ASTM F 963 containing the initial provisions to address magnets

was approved March 15, 2007, nine months following the initial establishment of

the task group in June 2006. ASTM members involved in this effort recognized the

urgency of the need and diligently worked together to develop the new safety requirements. Nine months of development time, given the complexity of the task in

a full consensus environment, is evidence of the high priority that the various interest groups involved placed on finding a solution.

LEAD IN CHILDREN’S VINYL PRODUCTS

Requests for new activities as well as the development of new or the revision of

existing ASTM standards are received from a variety of sources. Earlier this year,

CPSC requested that Committee F15 coordinate the development of a new standard

for mitigating lead in certain children’s vinyl products. Accordingly, a new F15 subcommittee was created last month regarding ‘‘Lead in Children’s Vinyl Products’’.

The initial activity as approved at the organizational meeting will focus on the identification of accessible lead in vinyl children’s products such as baby bibs and lunch

boxes. The scope of the activity could be broadened in the future should it be determined based upon hazard data and risk assessments that it is necessary to do so.

CONSUMER PARTICIPATION IN ASTM F15

Most major manufacturers of toys, juvenile and related consumer products participate in ASTM F15 as do many major retailers. These individuals are classified as

‘‘producers’’ for the purposes of committee operations and standards development

work. Representatives of consumer groups, safety advocates, testing laboratories,

academics and government agencies are classified as ‘‘non-producers’’ since they represent a consumer, user or general interest. ASTM’s regulations require a balance

of interests in two ways—first by allowing only one voter per organization and second by ensuring that the number of voting producers never exceeds the number of

voting non-producers. Thus, no single person or entity can control an ASTM standards committee, its agenda or the content of an ASTM standard.

Staff of the CPSC is actively engaged in the work of ASTM F15, particularly in

key subcommittees on toys and related juvenile products. While CPSC attends meetings and actively participates in the standards development process, a Commission

policy requires that staff maintain non-official voting status. However, CPSC staff

regularly returns abstention ballots with technical comments that are very significant to F15 deliberations.

Consumers and safety advocates continue to play an important role in F15 and

other ASTM technical committees by raising awareness of issues, providing valuable

input regarding consumer behavior and preferences and recommending entire new

subject areas for standardization. These individuals share their experiences and

knowledge to create better standards and, ultimately, better products. One of the
229

greatest barriers to participation by consumers has been a lack of financial resources. Recognizing the need to assure that the interests of the public are protected

and represented in our standards activities, ASTM provides a level of travel and

participation assistance for consumers to attend subcommittee meetings and Committee F15 has a policy of waiving the annual administrative membership fee to encourage a broader participation of consumers. ASTM has also reduced barriers to

participation with a full range of electronic initiatives that allow individuals to participate in the standards development process from their computer desktop without

ever having to physically attend meetings.

While taking steps to encourage more active consumer participation, Committee

F15 is proud of the fact that many leading consumer organizations—including,

among others, Kids In Danger, the Consumer Federation of America, Safe Kids, the

American Academy of Pediatrics, Consumers Union, Good Housekeeping, and Keeping Babies Safe—are engaged and are making a difference. Individuals and organizations that do participate—in—standards—development should be applauded for

their contributions of time, talent and resources. I wish to thank them for their important efforts and numerous contributions to the development of ASTM safety

standards.

ASTM OUTREACH TO CHINA

Much of the focus of today’s hearing is on toys imported from China. ASTM has

has cooperated with the standards bodies in China on numerous initiatives. Major

activities include the signing of a cooperation agreement with the Standardization

Administration of the People’s Republic of China (SAC) and similar agreements with

other prominent standards organizations including the Chinese National Institute

of Standardization (CNIS) and the Shanghai Institute of Standardization (SIS).

Through our relationships with China’s leading standards bodies, ASTM provides

our partners in China with access to the full volume of 12,000 ASTM standards;

jointly sponsor standards and training programs; provide participating membership

to Chinese representatives on ASTM technical committees; and sponsor a professional exchange program encouraging Chinese standards experts to visit ASTM

International’s Global Headquarters in Pennsylvania for extended study of ASTM

and the U.S standards development process.

In return, the Chinese standards bodies promote the acceptance and use of ASTM

standards in China; utilize the resources of ASTM to develop Chinese National

Standards and reference ASTM standards where applicable in Chinese National

Standards (China currently uses over 450 ASTM standards as the basis of—their

national standards); and to facilitate connections between Chinese technical experts

and ASTM technical committees to ensure that ASTM standards reflect the specific

needs of Chinese industry.

ASTM is one of four U.S.-based international standards development organizations that have jointly established the Consortium for Standards and Conformity

Assessment (CSCA) in China. Located in Beijing, the CSCA office helps to build cooperative and enduring relationships with Chinese governmental and industry

standards associations. It also promotes the understanding and use of ASTM standards and of other U.S.-domiciled SDOs in China. The other members of the consortium are the American Petroleum Institute, ASME—International, and CSA America. In addition, ASTM officially opened an office in Beijing earlier this year. The

ASTM International Board of Directors met last October in Beijing and also sponsored a day of outreach visits with Chinese industry and government organizations.

Follow-up from that event continues.

Through our offices in China, we look forward to working with representatives of

Chinese government and industry to raise a greater awareness and understanding

of ASTM standards, including F 963. ASTM also looks forward to assisting CPSC

and other U.S. government agencies as it engages China on issues involving standards, product safety and international trade.

Consensus standards such as ASTM F 963 exist to address toy safety issues and

reduce threats to children from acute mechanical and chronic hazards involving lead

and other toxic substances. While we have had great success in working cooperatively with representatives from the CPSC, industry, consumer groups and other interested stakeholders to develop ASTM standards, enhanced awareness, understanding, and adherence through out all aspects of the global supply chain will be

critical in meeting emerging safety challenges of the future. Long term solutions include a conformity assessment system that begins with the development of the most

diligent technical standard possible and then is followed by a testing and compliance

process that affords consumers the ability to purchase products with a confidence

that those products meet the applicable technical and safety standards. For ASTM
230

International, where standards development is the core competency, our efforts will

continue to focus on those critical elements needed for responsive and effective

standards development—ensuring an inclusive process that engages the most balanced and complete representation of stakeholders and providing the structure,

technology and tools needed for those stakeholders to efficiently work and develop

the standards that are needed.

I thank you for the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing and I look forward to answering your questions.

Mr. RUSH. Thank you.

The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes of questioning. Mr.

Gale, your group has reached out to the international community

on lead standards. What is the standard for children’s jewelry in

other parts of the world, especially Europe.

Mr. GALE. Europe does not have any standards pertaining to the

lead content in jewelry, either children’s or adult. The only standards in Europe are that products shall be safe and that they shall

not contain nickel, because nickel is a metal that causes allergic reaction in many individuals.

Mr. RUSH. Thank you.

Mr. Keithley, Professor Teagarden in her testimony stated, and

I quote, ‘‘Knowing how to produce products that are lead-free is not

the problem. It is a question of constant process and material vigilance throughout the supply chain.’’ First, do you agree with this

statement? Second, would you recommend that U.S. manufacturers

require their own full-time audit personnel to be present in their

contractors’ factories in China to monitor compliance with quality

control and safety standards?

Mr. KEITHLEY. Well, Mr. Chairman, I do agree with Professor

Teagarden’s statement. Indeed, the issue——

Mr. RUSH. You do agree with it?

Mr. KEITHLEY. I do agree with it. It is one of product production

processes and monitoring that to assure that the toys coming off

the line conform with the standard which prohibits lead in paint

on those toys. As far as whether or not the appropriate solution to

achieving that end is having each company have its own full-time

inspector on site, I think we should let the ANSI process work to

figure out what the optimal solution to achieving that end is. Many

of our members, a large majority of our members, are small companies, small businesses, and they rely heavily on the inspection processes of third parties, laboratories who are expert in this. That is

why part of our proposal is to make sure that those third parties

are qualified to do this testing and then assigning them the responsibility to go in pursuant to procedure established by ANSI is to

how much do we need to do to get to that optimal safety.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Knell, what pressures can Sesame Workshop

bring to bear on the companies such as Mattel that manufacture

toys with your licensed characters? Could you insist on even more

stringent manufacturing and testing that they are currently proposing? Would you consider requiring manufacturers of your licensed toys only in company-owned plants? Could they be manufactured only in company-owned plants or in contract plants with constant supervision by an American employee of the company?

Mr. KNELL. We will consider all of those, Mr. Chairman. Our

contracts with licenses like Mattel do not have extended lives that
231

go on for years and years. Our contract with them will be up in

the next 2 years and we plan to have a very extensive negotiation

regarding all safety prospects which include these kinds of audits

that you have discussed, moving them more towards owning the

plants. I think everything should be on the table and what I think

we will look for them so that just doesn’t happen again is some protocol that will ensure that we move toward a lead-free environment. I want to live for the day when we can stamp all these toys

‘‘lead-free’’ and assure parents that indeed they have nothing to

worry about when they are making that purchase.

Mr. RUSH. There was some testimony yesterday about domestically locating manufacturing companies or plants here within the

United States. Would that be one of the aspects of negotiation?

Mr. KNELL. Well, it may be. Sesame Street, you should know, is

in 120 countries around the world. We are working in all kinds of

places including the Middle East trying to teach tolerance and aspect, in South Africa, around HIV and AIDS issues, so we are very

active in all parts of the world and it is really a global franchise

in many ways. With that said, we all know that 80 percent of the

toy business has moved over to China. We have got to make sure

that we are picking the best in class toy and other game and apparel manufacturers who are going to put in not only safety standards for children but safety standards for workers as well so we

have something that we can feel is an assurance that will work.

Mr. RUSH. Thank you.

The Chair recognizes now Ms. Hooley from Oregon.

Ms. HOOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a few questions.

Mr. Thompson, roughly how many contractors do large toy producers like Hasbro and Mattel have in China?

Mr. THOMPSON. Ma’am, I wouldn’t know the exact number of

Hasbro and Mattel, their presence in China. I do know that our

stores do sell a lot of their products.

Ms. HOOLEY. Do you have any idea how many subcontractors the

contractors have?

Mr. THOMPSON. We can reach out to our companies and see if

they have that knowledge. I do that what we do do is, we require

that when we do contracts with Mattel or Hasbro, that they use

known and approved contractors and subcontractors to produce

toys for our stores.

Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Keithley, do you have a ballpark figure of how

many toys your members expect to sell this Christmas?

Mr. KEITHLEY. Typically annually, it is about 3 billion toys each

year. On a Christmas basis, I am sorry, in the holiday season,

about 45 percent of our product is sold during that holiday season.

Ms. HOOLEY. During the holiday season?

Mr. KEITHLEY. Right.

Ms. HOOLEY. Of those toys, how many have already been or are

in the process of being manufactured? Are we ready for the holiday

season? Those toys are in the distribution system now, right?

Mr. KEITHLEY. Right, and I can’t give you a percentage but I can

tell you that I am confident that a very substantial proportion of

the toys for this coming holiday season are either already in distribution centers in the United States or on the water on the way
232

over here. That is why our manufacturers have told us that they

are in the process of retesting all of the toys either before they

leave China if they haven’t left yet or when they reach their destination point, point of entry here in the United States, to be sure

they don’t have lead on them because what has happened has

frankly—it should not have happened and so these manufacturers

want to be sure—all the manufacturers want to be sure that it is

not going to happen to their products.

Ms. HOOLEY. So how can the people be assured? I assume that

again most of the toys for the holidays, knowing how far in advance

you have to make things, and then the distribution process, how

can people be assured that when they go buy their children a toy

this holiday that it is going to be safe? What are you doing to reassure them that that is actually going to be happening or are they

going to have to sort of figure it out themselves?

Mr. KEITHLEY. What we have recommended to all of our 500

manufacturers is to go back and do retesting and we have been told

by the manufacturers that they are and the laboratories have told

us that they are inundated with requests to go in and take products out of the cartons that have arrived here in the United States,

retest them to be sure there is no lead paint content on them. Once

that is done—and I should say also, many of our retail partners are

doing the same thing. So once that it is done, it is our responsibility to get the word out that in fact the retesting has been done so

if a product is on the shelf, it is because it has been retested.

Ms. HOOLEY. You will retest it before it goes on the shelf?

Mr. KEITHLEY. Exactly.

Ms. HOOLEY. And I have heard these numbers and I just want

you to verify them. It has been reported that the Chinese Government has about 210,000 people in 1,800 labs dedicated to product

safety. Do you know how often they are inspecting and testing the

products from the facilities your members use there? Is that sort

of a ballpark figure?

Mr. KEITHLEY. I do not know whether those figures are accurate

or just how much safety testing they are doing, Congresswoman.

Ms. HOOLEY. Have you visited any of the labs?

Mr. KEITHLEY. I have. I have visited labs in China, both Chinese

Government labs and private labs that do testing under contract to

our manufacturers, and let me simply say that we do not rely or

we cannot suppose to offload the responsibility for safety testing to

the Chinese authorities at all. It is our responsibility so our companies pay for these contractors to go in there and do it and don’t rely

on the Chinese labs.

Ms. HOOLEY. OK. Thank you very much.

I have one question for Mr. Gale and I will try to get this done

in 22 seconds. In the fashion jewelry trade, you talked about the

difference between what you put in a child’s jewelry versus an

adult’s jewelry. I don’t know but I have held a lot of babies and

seen a lot of kids that chew on their mom’s jewelry or that it is

a really great thing that kids love to play, especially little girls like

to play dress up and they wear that jewelry or that jewelry is

passed down and then all of the stuff you don’t want anymore, you

give it to the kids. Is that a good thing to do a bad thing or do,

or how can we assure parents that all this wonderful jewelry, at
233

least that I thought was wonderful at some point in my life that

I have given away to children so they can play dress up, I am sort

of feeling bad about that.

Mr. GALE. Great question, and the answer is the jewelry that is

made today to the California standards, even the adult jewelry has

been proven to be totally safe for children. Tests have been done

and——

Ms. HOOLEY. How long has that been going on, because I have

got some really old stuff that I gave away.

Mr. GALE. Some of the old stuff might have a high lead content.

Ms. HOOLEY. So that was a bad thing to do?

Mr. GALE. Well, from what we know now, it would be bad to let

children have access to that.

Ms. HOOLEY. And how long have the California standards been

in place?

Mr. GALE. About a year.

Mr. RUSH. Your time is up.

Ms. HOOLEY. Thank you.

Mr. RUSH. The gentleman from Texas.

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

My first question would be directed to Ms. Morgan, and I am

going to ask some fundamental questions here. The ASTM International, how is that funded? Dues, subscriptions? How is that

funded?

Ms. MORGAN. Seventy-five percent of ASTM is funded by the sale

of our publications which predominantly is ASTM standards. About

10 percent is from membership fees and the balance is miscellaneous sources including investment income.

Mr. GONZALEZ. I was just curious as to who all the actors that

take advantage of your information but again, just how much input

do they have? You indicate in your testimony, ‘‘As this committee

knows very well, the Consumer Product Safety Act and its subsequent amendments establishes a Federal policy directing CPSC to

defer to a voluntary consumer product safety standard in lieu of

promulgating its own requirements if important criteria are likely

to be met through the use of voluntary standards.’’ You are going

to people seizing on that as maybe a source of the problem of government not being more active and allowing others that may be in

certain enterprises to establish standards and I am not real sure

that we are going to have a huge argument on standards. ‘‘The

United States system of standardization is the most dynamic system in the world.’’ That is on page 3 of your testimony, and we

probably would agree, but I think what we are getting into is really

inspection and compliance, and we still may have an issue about

lead levels and so on and I believe that you do a good job. I don’t

know that really is the issue today but I appreciate your participation. One of the things you point out, representative of consumer

groups and safety advocates, testing laboratories, academics and

government and so on are the non-producers but obviously are part

of your process. Is that correct?

Ms. MORGAN. That is correct.

Mr. GONZALEZ. So would like Mr. Green, who is sitting behind

you, would he be involved?
234

Ms. MORGAN. We would be delighted to have Mr. Green involved

in the organization.

Mr. GONZALEZ. Do you have a list of, let us say, those that are

concerned with safety, health, environment and so they constitute

members or contributors to your organization? That would not be

retailers, that would not be manufacturers and so on.

Ms. MORGAN. Yes, we do have those lists of those kinds of participating organizations in ASTM. Also, whenever we begin any

new activity, we take every measure possible to solicit the names

of those organizations that would have an interest and a bearing

in that activity.

Mr. GONZALEZ. I appreciate if you would provide me at a later

date a list of what I refer to again your contributors or participants. I just want to see how it all comes out in the way of percentages as far as the different sectors of the industry and the consumer groups.

To Mr. Knell, I really do want to commend you, and again, it is

about reputation and about your good name and such, but it appears that you yourself in a licensing agreement feel that it is incumbent for you to provide for a third-party independent disinterested audit. Is that correct?

Mr. KNELL. That is what we are going to implement because our

faith I guess in the system has been a bit ruptured and these acts

were something that obviously made the system not work so in

order to reassure parents that our toys and the toys that we license

are safety, because we are not in the toy manufacturing business,

we believe bringing in an independent auditor such as a Veritas or

an Intertech or some independent third-party company which can

go to a factory in China unannounced, if necessary, to reassure

that those products are safe is something that we have got to do.

I think the Walt Disney Company made a similar announcement

as well.

Mr. GONZALEZ. And again, I commend you and I think Ms.

Hooley is going to have a bill regarding certain toys at certain ages

that actually take that whole aspect and make it into law, and we

will see what happens with that.

My last question, I have about 40 seconds, I am going to be real

quick here to Mr. Keithley and Mr. Thompson to kind of go through

step by step is to members of your organizations and say how do

you feel, what is their responsibility to assure that what is being

manufactured pursuant to their design or what is being sold in

their stores as far as their responsibility to make sure that that

product that is placed in the stream of commerce is safe for use by

the American consumer?

Mr. KEITHLEY. Congressman, it is our manufacturers’ responsibility to assure that, and our companies have been doing really

a terrific job for many, many years doing just that, and I think the

record shows that toy safety issues have not been just overwhelming over these past years and so when something like this does

happen that lead paint gets through on a toy, it is a particularly

damaging thing and that is why we are now proposing a new system to try and close whatever gaps there may be remaining in our

safety system.

Mr. RUSH. The gentleman’s time is up.
235

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Burgess, for 5 minutes.

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Gale, I apologize for not being here during your earlier testimony but educate me, if you can, I am walking through downtown

Lewisville, TX, the other day and passed by a jewelry store and

they have got a big sign up that says we now have the Higas

magnets I guess for costume jewelry. I assume they are talking

about a more potent magnet, a more attractive magnet. Are these

the same type of devices that pose the difficulty for children, the

magnetic toys when they were ingested?

Mr. GALE. My understanding is that any magnet that a child

would ingest, if there is more than one, can cause problems and

blockages and yes, it could conceivably do so.

Mr. BURGESS. Now, with your professional organization, what are

you doing to alert people to this possible danger? Because I didn’t

see a similar sign up in the window that said caution, magnets if

ingested could cause intestinal obstruction or blockage and consult

your pediatrician at your earliest convenience.

Mr. GALE. What we are doing is first of all informing our members that there is a potential problem and then we are creating—

we a relatively new organization. We have been in business for a

year and a half. We have established a Web site and we are in the

process of putting information on the Web site for the consumers.

Mr. BURGESS. I guess one of my biggest concerns about this problem, I was not aware of it until sitting on this committee after

practicing medicine for 25 years. Somebody called me up and said

I have got a child that swallowed a magnet and I said just be patient, you will get it back. And it turns out that is what a lot of

people thought but it wasn’t correct and some children suffered significant injuries as a consequence. So I am most concerned about

the education of the public who might be purchasing these things

and obviously we are not expecting 3-year-old children to be purchasing that type of jewelry, but their mothers might—hopefully

not in Texas it wouldn’t be their fathers—but their mothers might

and they would be exposed or potentially exposed to the danger. I

am just extremely concerned about people being made aware of this

problem because, again, I don’t think there is widespread recognition. I know there is not widespread recognition in the medical

community and the public service or the public education is so critical in this regard because from Mr. Rush’s earlier witness panels,

this is one of the most disturbing things I had ever heard sitting

here and listening to witnesses testify.

So for what it is worth from me, I think it would be a very useful

trade that your trade association could do to publicize the potential

dangers of these magnets. It doesn’t really matter in this case

whether they are made in China or India or anywhere. It is the attractive capabilities of the magnet and the ability to cause the

bowel to adhere to cause the obstruction which again never in my

years of practice would I have considered that as being a potential

problem. So again, for what it is worth, I would encourage your

trade association to make that information readily available to the

people who purchase the jewelry and we will just gradually increase public awareness of that because the other efforts that the
236

consumer protection agency was utilizing at least in my experience

hadn’t been filtering down to the level of the community and certainly not the level of the community physician.

Mr. Chairman, it has been an outstanding group of witnesses you

have had over the past 2 days and I just want to thank you for

doing this. I really don’t have any other questions and I will yield

back the balance of my time.

Mr. GALE. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. May I answer? Thank you

for that observation, and I want to compliment the toy industry because they have done a very good job on informing the public about

the problem of magnets and magnets coming loose and dislodging

and therefore children being able to swallow them, and so that is

very important in the jewelry field as well that we must make sure

that if magnetic clasps or any magnets are used, that they be absolutely secured, mechanically secured so that there cannot be any

ingestion by children.

Mr. RUSH. At this point the Chair wants to issue a sincere apology to the gentlelady from Illinois for abruptly cutting her off during her sentence in yesterday’s hearing. I hope the gentlelady will

please accept my apology.

The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois for 5 minutes.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Of course I accept your apology and I thank

you for your making it. I appreciate that very much.

In the first panel, Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, said that—and this is really I think a question for

Mr. Thompson, that the United States would need to alter various

provisions of U.S. trade agreements including the WTO Technical

Barriers to Trade Agreement whose rules currently set limits on

the level of safety protection and the rate of border inspection. She

says absent such changes, the improvements that Congress may

make to improve import safety would be exposed to challenges as

non-tariff trade barriers before trade tribunals, and so I wanted to

get your view of that. I think that is a serious concern because we

suspect are going to take action in response to the crisis that has

emerged and that is an area of your expertise, I guess.

Mr. THOMPSON. Congresswoman, I am probably not the right

person to address the WTO component of this. I would be more

than happy to get the appropriate people in front of your staff.

What I can address, particularly probably in relation to the previous panel, is, one, we are responsible for what is sold on our store

shelves and we take that responsibility very seriously. We invest

heavily in actually entire departments that deal with toy safety

and that includes using independent certified third-party labs to

test toys made exclusively for us. That includes using third-party

and our own employee auditors to go out and check the factories

regardless of which country we source and make products out of to

ensure that there are safe manufacturers’ practices in place. And

so we will always use our leverage to ensure that——

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Well, these are all things after the products

have come into the country. Do any of you advocate the notion that

there ought to be safety inspections at the plants as well as at the

borders and what is actually happening in that regard? And I am

talking both about plants that are owned by the company but I
237

guess more particularly plants that are contracting with the companies. Mr. Keithley, you are nodding.

Mr. KEITHLEY. Yes, ma’am, absolutely. There needs to be inspection in those plants and our companies who are sourcing the product from those Chinese producers need to have their inspectors in

those plants inspecting the product coming off the line, and by

their inspectors, most likely third-party contracted inspectors because as I said, many of our manufacturing companies are small

businesses.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. They would be chosen by you and chosen by

the company and work for the company?

Mr. KEITHLEY. Well, they would most likely be an independent

third-party laboratory that had been accredited under our proposal

by the American National Standards——

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. This is our legislative proposal you are speaking of?

Mr. KEITHLEY. Well, we are working with ANSI to develop the

protocols and the procedures. It would be an ANSI-sponsored-anddriven set of procedures. We are asking for a Federal requirement

that the inspection be done pursuant to those procedures.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. There was some talk about this. What kind of

consumer input as opposed to only industry-driven input would go

into that?

Mr. KEITHLEY. Right. ANSI, like ASTM, has a very robust system for including all stakeholders including consumers and academics and media and government.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Let me ask under a different topic. I am not

sure who best can answer this, but how long, I guess the retailers,

after a recall is issued does it take a retailer to remove all recalled

products from the shelves and does it make a difference if it is a

mandatory or a voluntary recall?

Mr. THOMPSON. First, ma’am, it does not make a difference

whether it is a mandatory or voluntary recall.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And you know that because?

Mr. THOMPSON. Because once we are notified by the CPSC that

a product is going to be recalled, our retailers take immediate steps

to remove that product from the shelves and dispose of it and find

the best way to notify our consumers to return that product and

also ensure that our systems have that, the fact that that product

has been recalled.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So you don’t a different procedure for mandatory or voluntary. Do your retailers?

Mr. THOMPSON. No, ma’am. Once we are notified of a voluntary

or mandatory recall, we remove that product from our shelves and

ensure at the register that that sale is blocked.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you.

Mr. RUSH. The Chair will allow one additional question from

each member. He recognizes himself for one additional question.

Mr. Thompson, your testimony states that RILA retail association members review their suppliers’ testing methods after recall

and might levy sanctions if appropriate. Do you have an example

of such a sanction?

Mr. THOMPSON. I don’t have a specific example with regard to

toys. I know that, for example, with some of the recent recalls in-
238

volving pet products that one of our companies decided to cease the

business relationship with that manufacturer, and I think I want

to leave with the committee as well that a lot of our members conduct multi-stage testing so this is not after the product is in the

stream of commerce. We test pre-production and we test in some

cases mid production and post-production. Now, they will also pull

some samples off the shelves but our testing involves all stages of

the production process and our audits also do occur overseas in

those factories.

Mr. RUSH. The gentleman from Texas for one additional question.

Mr. GONZALEZ. The question will go to Mr. Keithley, Mr. Thompson. What is the consumer’s individual recourse legally as to a retailer and a manufacturer for a product that obviously is harmful

as you understand it today?

Mr. KEITHLEY. Well, as I understand it today, Congressman,

there is no prohibition, nothing under the Consumer Product Safety Act or any existing law prevents the consumer from seeking redress if they felt they had been injured.

Mr. GONZALEZ. OK.

Mr. THOMPSON. Congressman, there is nothing that prohibits the

consumer from taking action and it is my understanding that it

will vary State by State depending on their own consumer protection laws but we do have a responsibility to our consumers for

what is sold on our shelves so there is nothing that prohibits them

from——

Mr. GONZALEZ. The reason I ask that, Mr. Chairman, is that, as

you know, what Congress in the past few has been doing and that

we can just go down the line at the Federal level what we done

with strict liability, joint and several, class action, Federal preemption, eliminating certain legal remedies and of course restricting

damages, and I think that there is a role to the civil justice system

in this country to also assist our private sector to accomplish what

we are all attempting to accomplish and that is to make sure we

don’t have harmful products out there that will do harm to the

American consumer. I yield back.

Mr. RUSH. Thank you.

The gentlelady from Illinois is recognized for one additional question.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I could make one comment and then a question. In Illinois, there is a $500 per day per violation that if a recalled product remains on the shelf, a tool that has been very effective in speeding up recalls. It is something that I think we ought

to consider.

My question is this to Mr. Keithley. Yesterday I raised concerns

about Mattel’s decision to ignore the 24-hour reporting requirement

and in the words of the Wall Street Journal, defying the Consumer

Product Safety Commission. Do you believe that toy manufacturers

should be required to comply with the 24-hour rule of reporting

about a hazard in a product?

Mr. KEITH. Definitely, and I think they are required to under the

present law.
239

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Well, they are required to but Mattel has said

that they don’t like that law so they didn’t comply. But thank you

very much.

Mr. RUSH. The members of this panel, the final panel for these

particular hearings, thank you so much for your time. We will keep

the record open for 30 days and subcommittee members may submit additional questions to all of our witnesses and we ask that

you respond to those questions on a prompt basis. We thank you

so much for coming. Thank you for your time and being generous

with your time. The subcommittee is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 1:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281