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

45–181 2008

COMPREHENSIVE CHILDREN’S PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION REFORM LEGISLATION 

HEARING 

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 

NOVEMBER 6, 2007 

Serial No. 110–75 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
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 

DENNIS B. FITZGIBBONS, Chief of Staff 

GREGG A. ROTHSCHILD, Chief Counsel 

SHARON E. DAVIS, Chief Clerk 

BUD ALBRIGHT, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois, Chairman 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, Georgia 

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 

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 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

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. John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, opening statement ....................................................................................... 4 

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

Texas, opening statement .................................................................................... 6 

Hon. Jan Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, opening statement ....................................................................................... 8 

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

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

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

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

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

Tennessee, opening statement ............................................................................ 13 

Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Massachusetts, opening statement ..................................................................... 14 

Hon. Diana DeGette, a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado, opening statement ...................................................................................... 15 

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

opening statement ................................................................................................ 17 

Hon. Vito Fossella, a Representative in Congress from the State of New 

York, submitted statement .................................................................................. 18 

WITNESSES

Nancy Nord, Acting Chairman, Consumer Product Safety Commission ............ 19 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 21 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 109 

Thomas H. Moore, Commissioner, Consumer Product Safety Commission ........ 23 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 24 

Letter of November 12, 2007 to Messrs. Dingell and Barton ....................... 114 

Kathrin Belliveau, director, product safety and regulatory affairs, Hasbro, 

Incorporated .......................................................................................................... 51 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 52 

Dana Best, M.D., American Academy of Pediatrics .............................................. 54 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 55 

Lane Hallenbeck, vice president, accreditation services, American National 

Standards Institute .............................................................................................. 56 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 58 

Alan Korn, director, public policy, and general counsel, Safe Kids Worldwide .. 63 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 66 

Joseph McGuire, president, Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers ..... 75 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 77 

Rachel Weintraub, director, product safety, and senior counsel, Consumer 

Federation of America ......................................................................................... 82 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 84 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
(1) 

COMPREHENSIVE CHILDREN’S PRODUCT 

SAFETY COMMISSION REFORM LEGISLATION 

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 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, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bobby L. Rush (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Schakowsky, Barrow, Markey, DeGette, 

Gonzalez, Ross, Hooley, Matheson, Dingell, Stearns, Radnovich, 

Pitts, Burgess, Blackburn, and Barton. 

Staff present: Consuela Washington, Christian Fjeld, Judith Bailey, Andrew Woelfling, Valerie Baron, Brian McCullough Shannon 

Weinberg, Will Carty, and Chad Grant. 

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 recognizes himself for 5 minutes of opening statements. 

On May 15 of this year, before the numerous high-profile summer recalls of millions of lead-tainted toys, this committee held its 

first hearing on children’s safety and the Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. At the conclusion of that May hearing, I publicly 

made a pledge, as chairman of the subcommittee of jurisdiction, to 

reauthorize the beleaguered Commission by authorizing more resources and reforming the underlying organic statute. I also 

pledged to do so in a bipartisan manner. 

The bill that is the subject of our legislative hearing today is the 

product of that pledge that I made almost 6 months ago. H.R. 4040, 

the Consumer Product Safety Modernization Act of 2007, was introduced by Chairman Dingell, Ranking Member Barton, Ranking 

Member Stearns and myself. 

It is a bipartisan piece of legislation that authorizes desperately 

needed resources to the Commission and dramatically reforms the 

Consumer Product Safety Act. After decades of neglect, this bill restores the CPSC to its rightful place of prominence and gives it the 

necessary tools to grapple with the global marketplace and protect 

American consumers, particularly our children, from dangerous 

and defective products. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
2 

The bill has two titles. Title 1 specifically addresses children’s 

products. It bans lead in toys beyond a trace amount and significantly lowers the antiquated lead paint standard. Moreover, it requires independent, third-party testing for lead in children’s products for ages 12 and younger. For products geared toward children 

6 and under, the bill requires independent testing for all mandatory standards. 

In addition, title 1 incorporates the provisions of H.R. 1699, the 

Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, introduced by 

the vice chair of the subcommittee, Ms. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, 

and further requires a directed rulemaking for mandatory safety 

standards for 12 specified durable nursery products, thus subjecting those products to the independent, third-party testing requirement. 

Title 2 of H.R. 4040 overhauls the CPSC itself. In addition to authorizing significantly more resources, our bipartisan bill restores 

the agency to its full panel of five commissioners within 3 years. 

Title 2 also accelerates and strengthens the CPSC’s reporting requirements to the public and streamlines its rulemaking process in 

order to facilitate quick regulatory action. 

Title 2 declares a flat prohibition on the sale of recalled products 

and expedites corrective action plans while maintaining the Commission as the ultimate authority to veto any corporate remedy 

that is not in the best interest of the consumers. 

Moreover, title 2 effectively prohibits the export of defective products from our own country and authorizes the Commission to share 

and receive information from foreign governments in order to coordinate our global consumer-protection efforts. 

Lastly, the bipartisan bill also raises the penalty cap in order to 

punish wrongdoers who flout the law, a provision that has already 

passed the full House of Representatives as a stand-alone bill. 

I want to emphasize to the members of the subcommittee that 

this bill represents the beginning of the process—I said the beginning of the process—and not the end. Today’s legislative hearing 

will allow each member of the subcommittee to evaluate the bill’s 

strengths as well as areas for improvements. 

Chairman Dingell and I fully intend to move this bill and proceed by regular order from subcommittee to full committee to the 

floor, in order to give every member of the committee an opportunity to make his or her mark on the final version of the legislative product. 

In short, this is a work in progress, and we value the input from 

all members of the committee. 

Having said that, it is my sincere hope that all members and all 

stakeholders’ groups will recognize and respect the bipartisan nature of the bill. It is obvious that we are not all going to agree on 

every provision that is in or not in this piece of legislation. However, I am convinced that if we all continue to work together in 

good faith and in full bipartisan cooperation, if both sides strive to 

compromise and find common ground, we will produce a final legislative package of which we can all be proud. 

With that, I want to welcome all of our witnesses who have 

agreed to appear before us today. Many of them are familiar faces. 

And I look forward to their testimony and our deliberation. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
3 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Stearns, for 5 minutes. 

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

Mr. STEARNS. Good morning. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you for your leadership on this, and Mr. Barton of Texas and 

Mr. Dingell. 

This bill represents what we can do together. It is a strong piece 

of legislation, and that is why we are here today. I am certain 

there is, obviously, as you pointed out, some room for improvement, 

but we can do that in the regular legislative process, which is what 

we are trying to do here. 

We want to receive inputs from all people, comments on the impact of this legislation on stakeholders and those who will have to 

operate under the new burdens we place on them, including the 

Consumer Product Safety Commission and the industry. Although 

we have had input from their staff while we were drafting this legislation, I look forward to their comments after seeing the final bill 

as it is introduced, and whether they think the provisions that we 

sort of brought to optimum level, and provided increased language, 

accurately and efficiently reflect and address the safety issues of 

concern by all of us. 

My colleagues, 6 months ago we sat in this hearing room and 

began our discussions of children’s product safety. The four bills we 

passed out of this committee have already passed the House. While 

we agreed to address those specific issues, a piecemeal approach is 

really just a Band-Aid. 

Neither Congress and, more importantly, the Commission is 

equipped to legislate and mandate rules on every consumer product. This is an impossible and counterproductive exercise. With a 

few exceptions, H.R. 4040 provides all of the components necessary 

to improve product safety, and children’s product safety in particular, without having to mandate standards on a product-by-product basis. 

The bill updates the lead safety standards for paint and effectively bans children’s products containing lead. Second, it receives 

independent testing to make sure that all applicable safety standards are met for children’s products. It directs the CPSC to either 

establish an accreditation process for labs or recognize an accreditation process that provides for lab integrity and standardized testing procedures. 

Given the testing requirements many retail organizations and 

manufacturers have imposed, I have questions how these new mandates will affect those efforts, as well as the efficiency of such a 

testing requirement. 

The Commission has performed admirably in response to the 

record number of recalls for fiscal year 2007 with its current staff 

and budget. We are about to ask a lot more of them. Therefore, the 

bill also authorizes a funding boost for CPSC and additional money 

for much-needed laboratory upgrade. 

The bill also preserves the cooperative spirit with which the 

Commission and industry work together. This is important. ThouVerDate Nov 24 2008 23:33 Jan 15, 2009 Jkt 045181 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\45181.XXX 45181

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
4 

sands and thousands of consumer products are launched in the 

market every year. The Commission absolutely could not perform 

its duties without industry’s voluntary cooperation. We must ensure that companies continue to notify the CPSC in advance of 

even a potential problem, so that we can catch and remove dangerous products from the market as quick as possible. 

We must also ensure that the Commission’s resources are spent 

where they are most effective, in pursuing its mission of product 

safety, and not in a courtroom. 

As I mentioned a moment ago, this bill is a product of excellent 

bipartisan cooperation, but it also is a product of cooperation with 

industry, consumer stakeholders and the Commission itself. And 

that is important. 

I wanted to commend the commissioners and their staff for their 

help in this process. 

And I believe Chairwoman Nord’s statements regarding the Senate measure have been misconstrued in the media. I have the fivepage letter in front of me. And, Mr. Chairman, when you look 

through, in detail, some of the very careful suggestions she made— 

whether it was product certification; talking about resources; lead 

in children’s products; information disclosure; relying upon standards; State attorney general parens patriae, in which somebody 

goes forward to sue on behalf of constituents; all these very abstruse comments; whistleblower protection; penalty cap increase; 

criminal penalties—all of this is in her letter. So I call the attention of my colleagues to read it in its totality. 

Her involvement in this process is evident by her commitment at 

the Commission and its mission. Through our work with her, we 

know that she does not take this mission lightly—rather, she takes 

it very seriously—the matter of ensuring both that the agency receives additional resources and that those resources will be used 

where they are most necessary and most effective. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I reiterate my opening remark. This is a 

strong bill. And I commend your leadership, and I appreciate your 

willingness to work with this side of the aisle so that we can have 

an opportunity to participate and get involved. 

And I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now recognizes the chairman of the full 

committee for 5 minutes of opening statements, Mr. Dingell. 

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I commend you for your vigorous 

leadership in this matter. I commend you and thank you for this 

hearing. And I note that it is a valuable hearing on a very important question, H.R. 4040, the Consumer Product Safety Modernization Act. 

This is a bipartisan bill which has been worked out carefully by 

yourself, by the distinguished ranking minority member Mr. 

Stearns, and by our good friend Mr. Barton, the ranking member 

of the full committee, and I. And I want to commend you, my dear 

friends, for your collective efforts in writing this important piece of 

legislation. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
5 

I would point out that this is probably the first major review legislatively of the CPSC since the original legislation was written by 

our good friend John Moss of California way back and when I had 

the privilege of working with him to move that legislation forward. 

It has been established in the hearing records of this subcommittee that the Consumer Product Safety Commission is hampered both by lack of authority and by lack of resources to address 

critical and crucial consumer-protection issues faced by our citizens. They also face shortage of funds and, very frankly, a peculiar 

situation where they are limited to two members by a legislative 

process that appears to have served the Nation poorly. 

I believe that H.R. 4040 will go far to alleviate the problems that 

we see, as well as to strengthen the CPSC to meet the responsibilities under its jurisdiction, particularly those flowing from 

globalization of trade and some of the irresponsible trading activities of some of our trading partners. 

I want to welcome our witnesses today, and I look forward to 

their testimony. With the larger goal of protecting consumers and 

their children in mind, I am interested in the views of our witnesses on both the implementation of H.R. 4040 and how effective 

its provisions will be in addressing our goals for consumer protection. 

I will also be interested in hearing about steps other than these 

needed to see to it that CPSC can carry forward its high and important responsibilities. In particular, I hope that our witnesses 

will share their insights in certain areas of H.R. 4040, such as: one, 

the adequacy of the reauthorization for CPSC and the implications 

of restoring that agency to a five-member governing body; two, the 

advantages of permitting CPSC to engage in expedited rulemaking; 

three, whether the proposed lead standard for products will sufficiently protect children; four, the feasibility and benefits of mandatory third-party testing for certain children’s products; and five, 

any suggestions for means by which the Congress might fund the 

reforms put forth by this legislation. 

And I would observe that one of the problems at CPSC, Food and 

Drug, and other consumer-protection organizations have had on a 

continuing basis has been the inadequacy of funding and the inadequacy of the ability of the agencies to draw the necessary resources to enable them to carry out their high statutory responsibilities. 

I remain committed to ensuring that the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce produces a thoughtful, well-intentioned and effective bill that will make crucial improvements to the CPSC and 

strengthen its ability to protect our Nation’s consumers. 

I want to observe that we have here before us a bipartisan bill, 

which is, I think, very important in terms of ensuring enactment 

of the legislation before us. And I am very hopeful that we will be 

able to continue on the course on which we have begun in this regard. 

I want to thank my witnesses, and I want to thank my colleagues who have contributed to the development of H.R. 4040. 

And I want to particularly commend you, Mr. Chairman, as I 

look forward to its expeditious passage in this legislation this year 

under your leadership. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
6 

I thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Burgess. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you 

and Ranking Member Stearns and commend you both for holding 

the hearing today and for the bipartisan nature in the way our 

subcommittee has worked on this legislation that is before us 

today. 

Mr. Chairman, you have heard me say before this committee has 

some of the brightest minds, some of the greatest amount of intellectual firepower in the United States Congress, on both sides of 

the dais. When this committee acts in a true bipartisan spirit, we 

are able to write meaningful legislation that will have a significant 

impact and a positive impact on the country, not just today but in 

the decades to come. 

Under the leadership of this committee, we have been able to 

pass effective bipartisan bills, such as the Melanie Stokes 

Postpartum Depression Act, and now hopefully we will have a similar result with the legislation before us today. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to be very clear, I have no quarrel with 

the leadership of this committee, either at the subcommittee or full 

committee level. But, unfortunately, the leadership of the House of 

Representatives has been trying to run the show in the Energy and 

Commerce Committee, and that is wrong. As we all know, the system works best and we have the most effective legislation when 

bills are allowed to follow the regular committee process. And then 

we all saw what happened on the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. It was not allowed to go through the normal process, 

and as a consequence, the issue of children’s health care was 

turned into a partisan game. We focused on a year from now, rather than a near-term, mid-term and long-term strategy, and everyone lost. And, most tragically, America’s children lost in that exchange. And now all the queen’s horses and all the queen’s men are 

trying to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. And, quite 

frankly, the process has become unnecessarily messy. 

Mr. Chairman, I understand that while leadership wanted to 

rush this essential piece of legislation through, we have the commitment of you and this committee to hold both a subcommittee 

and full committee markup. And I thank you for that. I also understand that you are welcoming members’ amendments, and I thank 

you for your commitment to this process and making this good bill 

an even better bill. I am an original cosponsor of the bill, and I look 

forward to working with you on some of the amendments affecting 

recalls and nonprofits. 

I would also like to thank Chairwoman Nord for coming here 

today. I know it is not easy. 

Ms. Nord, you and your staff have provided crucial technical assistance and constructive criticism to this legislation, and I thank 

you for your honesty. Because you are not afraid to speak your 

mind about your agency’s needs, we have been able to craft legislaVerDate Nov 24 2008 23:33 Jan 15, 2009 Jkt 045181 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\45181.XXX 45181

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
7 

tion that will give the commission tools to keep Americans safe 

from unreasonable dangers in consumer products. Unlike some 

Members in this chamber and Members of the other body, I appreciate and I welcome your honesty. 

I thought the Speaker’s press conference of last Thursday was a 

disgrace to the body and an embarrassment to the legislative process. I often feel that we have an imperial speakership that likes to 

govern by edict. And I thank you for standing strong in the eye of 

the storm. 

Unfortunately, because you didn’t provide the other body the answers that they wanted, they subsequently attacked you. And, Ms. 

Nord, for the record, I have never doubted your commitment to the 

safety and welfare of America’s families. And I am thankful you 

are doing everything you can to seek true reform for your agency. 

Thank you for your service. Thank you for your dedication, and 

thank you for your commitment to our country. 

Tony Blair once said, the art of leadership is sometimes saying 

no; it is too easy to say yes. Ms. Nord, thank you for being a true 

leader and for saying no to legislation that you knew would ultimately be harmful to the country. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to simply add that, during the process of 

working on this bill and, in fact, working on a bill through the 

Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, I had an opportunity 

to introduce stand-alone legislation that would have allowed the 

Food and Drug Administration the ability to stop the importation 

of a food from a country if the country were shown to be a serial 

violator of our country’s standards. 

And we all know the country we are talking about. We are talking about the People’s Republic of China. It doesn’t matter whether 

it is food, it doesn’t matter whether it is active ingredients in pharmaceuticals or lead in toys, it all seems to come from the same 

place. And I think the Consumer Product Safety Commission needs 

that same type of stop button on the conveyor belt. 

We heard from the CEO of a major toy company that they are 

continuing to accumulate lead-based toys in their warehouses because we don’t have a stop button on the conveyor belt, because the 

orders are in, the product is being shipped, the recalls are up there, 

so they can’t sell it—I hope. I hope they can’t sell it on eBay; I hope 

they can’t sell it to bargain houses. And perhaps we ought to investigate that some, Mr. Chairman. 

But nevertheless, Americans would be better served if we could 

just simply punch that stop button, halt the conveyor belt for 30, 

60, 90 days, whatever we decide is fair, comply with all of the 

World Trade Organization restrictions that we have to comply 

with. But let’s stop the flow of contaminated products into this 

country immediately and then get back to sorting out where the 

problems are. 

Mr. Chairman, I am going to submit my full statement for the 

record. I thank you for your indulgence, and I will yield back the 

balance of my time. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois, 

Ms. Schakowsky. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
8 

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

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, I would like to say to the gentleman from Texas, it is one 

thing when we all work together to resolve a problem of the now 

millions and millions of products that have been recalled and been 

found dangerous to our children in the face of their death and injury. It is another thing when the chairman of the Commission designated to take care of those responds to legislation by saying that 

it would be too cumbersome to actually adopt the reforms that were 

suggested, that whistleblowers—it would provide too much problem 

for the agency to take care of, that the penalties would somehow 

alienate the industry. And the ones who really came to the defense 

of the chairman were the National Association of Manufacturers, 

Juvenile Product Manufacturers Association, National Retail Federation—the very people who have been selling or making these 

products that have been hurting our children. 

And so, I think that the Speaker of the House took a responsible 

position in saying what she did, that if we are going to protect our 

children, then we need to have the kind of leadership that will embrace the kind of reforms that we need and not raise excuses for 

not accepting them. 

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Stearns, for your leadership on this issue and for holding this hearing. 

About 6 months ago, the subcommittee began a series of hearings 

on how to protect our children from the recent scourge of tainted 

and imported toys and how to address other shortcomings and 

issues in the consumer product safety system. Today we have 

begun to draft what I hope will be a broad and far-reaching and 

comprehensive reauthorization of the Consumer Product Safety 

Act, perhaps our Nation’s most important piece of consumer-protection legislation. 

Yesterday, the White House told us that the President said the 

American people expect their Government to work tirelessly to 

make sure consumer products are safe. I couldn’t agree more. Families across the country should not have to worry that the toys that 

their children play with are poisoning them or that their cribs are 

killing their babies in the middle of the night due to a design flaw. 

Most Americans assume that the Government is already doing 

that work. Seventy five percent of people believe that the Government conducts premarket testing on children’s products, for example. Just like they trust the Government when a package of eggs 

or chicken is marked ‘‘USDA inspected and approved,’’ Americans 

should be able to trust the Government to do more than outline 

voluntary standards for an industry that profits on children, those 

who are most vulnerable. 

I was pleased when the chairman announced that H.R. 4040, the 

Consumer Product Safety Modernization Act, would be drafted in 

a bipartisan fashion, because there is nothing partisan about children’s safety. I believe that the bill includes a number of extremely 

important provisions and that it is time that we do this. I was glad 

to see that H.R. 4040 contains an improved lead prohibition as well 

as a mandatory third-party testing and tracking labels for chilVerDate Nov 24 2008 23:33 Jan 15, 2009 Jkt 045181 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\45181.XXX 45181

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
9 

dren’s products. I was happy that it includes the Danny Keysar 

Product Safety Notification Act, which I had sponsored, requiring 

manufacturers to provide consumers with registration cards to assist in product recalls. 

I am glad that 4040 contains similar language to that which I 

wrote in H.R. 1698, requiring a broad range of infant and toddler 

durable products to be tested and certified according to specific 

safety standards before they can be put on the market. Right now, 

only full- and half-sized cribs, rattles and bottles are the only infant and toddler products that require safety standards. 

By requiring the CPSC to establish mandatory standards and requiring that testing and certification be performed by an independent third party, this bill goes a long way toward assuring parents that the products that their infants use are, indeed, safe. 

I hope we will act to strengthen this provision by including the 

Infant and Toddler Product Review Panel that H.R. 1698 would 

have created to advise the Commission regarding existing guidelines and promulgating new standards. And it would include representatives of the manufacturers, consumers groups, independent 

child product engineers and experts and the Consumer Product 

Safety Commission engineers. 

I hope we can look at other improvements. We have a long way 

to go to strengthen the Consumer Product Safety Act section 6(b) 

provisions, which still leave far too much power in the hands of industry to regulate itself. It is essential that we also address the 

preemption issue. The health and safety standards that the CPSC 

develop should strengthen those States with weaker laws but 

should not weaken those with stronger laws. And finally, I want to 

make sure we include effective whistleblower provisions. 

Thank you. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair 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. Thank you, Chairman Rush. I am going to put my 

formal statement in the record, but I am going to speak from the 

heart and from personal experience about why we are here today. 

I think everybody on the subcommittee knows that I have a 2- 

year-old son, Jack Kevin Barton. And there are millions of little 

Jack Kevin Bartons in the United States, and each of them is precious to their parents and to their family, just like Jack is precious 

to me and my family. And these little tikes are so inquisitive and 

they are so adventuresome that you really have to be smart to keep 

them safe. 

I will give you an example. It is not a toy, but it is the same 

principle. Last weekend, my wife had to go run some errands, and 

so, while she wasn’t sure I was capable of taking care of Jack by 

myself, I was given that opportunity, since we couldn’t get a babysitter. And he brought me a bag of microwave popcorn that had he 

gotten out of the cupboard. And I was watching a football game, 

and so I said, ‘‘No, Jack, your mother doesn’t want to you to have 

popcorn. Put it back up.’’ and he toddles off. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
10 

And I am watching the game, and all of a sudden I hear this 

‘‘beep, beep, beep’’ coming from the kitchen. He had taken the popcorn back into the kitchen, got a chair, pulled the chair over to the 

built-in microwave, which is about 6 feet above the floor, climbed 

up on the chair, opened the microwave, put the popcorn in in the 

cellophane bag, figured out how to hit the popcorn button, and 

pushed the darn button. Now, it was in the cellophane, and the cellophane started popping and burning. So I rushed in, and of course 

he was just proud as punch that he had figured out how to do 

microwave popcorn, even though he didn’t know he was supposed 

to undo the cellophane. 

That is what we are up against, is 20 million or 30 million Jack 

Kevin Bartons. If they can get a hold of it, they are going to try 

to figure out. Now, he has also brought me a child-proof medicine 

bottle that he has taken the cap off in the last 2 weeks, and he 

was pretty proud that he was able to do that. 

So, whatever we can do to reauthorize the Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, which hasn’t been done since 1990—and I 

want to thank Mr. Rush and Mr. Dingell for making that a priority, getting the five-member commission, getting them a new laboratory, setting some new standards for lead, all the things that 

Congresswoman Schakowsky talked about, that is a good thing. 

That is a good thing, not a bad thing, because we are protecting 

youngsters who don’t know enough to protect themselves. 

Now, we can’t make it a perfect world, and you have to have parental supervision and we have to have some common sense. But 

this bill is a good start. And it is good that we are doing it in a 

bipartisan fashion. It is good that we are doing it by having a legislative hearing at the subcommittee. It is good that we are going to 

have a subcommittee markup. It is good that we are going to have 

are a full committee markup. By the time this bill gets to the floor, 

it will be a better bill. It is good that we are having all the stakeholders here on the second panel to give us their comments. 

The President of the United States is going to sign something 

very similar to this bill. And he is going to do it because we are 

working together. We are not bickering; we are not pointing fingers 

at each other. And we are all doing it because each and every one 

of us has either a son or a daughter just like Jack Kevin, has a 

grandson, a granddaughter, a niece, a nephew, and we care about 

them. 

And this is one of the things that this Congress can take real 

pride in when it is done. And I am proud to be an original cosponsor, and I am proud to be working with every member of this subcommittee and, ultimately, the full committee to do this. This is 

what Congress is all about. 

And so, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership. I thank 

Mr. Dingell and Mr. Stearns. And I look forward to hearing our 

two commissioners and then our stakeholders, and then we will decide what we need to do to improve the bill. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
11 

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

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barrow. 

Mr. BARROW. I thank the Chair and the ranking member for you 

all’s relentless pursuit of this issue and your willingness to put behind us the years that the locust have eaten and to get down to 

trying to address this problem. 

Lincoln said that, ‘‘As our case is new, we have to think anew.’’ 

and I think we ought to consider a little bit just how much our case 

has changed since the Consumer Product Safety Commission was 

launched way back in 1973. 

Back then, I guess it was probably safe to say that our toy market was a domestic market. We consumed the toys that we made. 

But against that backdrop of putting the CPSC in the picture, 

there was a whole regime of compliance in this country that we 

kind of took for granted. We didn’t think of it much, because it 

worked silently through the invisible hand of self-interest. 

We had a regime of compliance in which people could actually 

make manufacturers pay for the consequences of the harm that 

they do. Granted, that was a reactive approach; the civil justice 

system making you pay the damages that you cause is a reactive 

approach, not a proactive approach. But if there is a regime of compliance in which folks can make manufacturers compensate folks 

for real harm when they commit real harm, you at least are making sure they are not subsidizing people who want to harm people 

by letting them throw out the consequences of their harm on the 

consumer. 

Now, we had that in this country. And when the CPSC was 

added to the picture, it was a new cop on the beat. It did not supplant the civil justice system, it supplemented the civil justice system. And the country largely incorporated a culture of compliance, 

which we had incorporated in the cost of doing business in this 

country. 

Now, fast-forward 20-, 30-some-odd years. We are getting most of 

our toys in this country from China; 80 percent of our toys are coming from China. And last month alone, we have recalled more products that were manufactured in that country than we have had in 

any calendar year before. 

We have a whole new case now where most of our toys are coming from countries where they don’t have a culture of compliance. 

It might have been hard in the pre–1973 days to go all the way 

from Georgia to Michigan to sue somebody for the consequences of 

what they did. But in Georgia, we had the reach of long-arm statutes, and we could hold folks accountable for the consequences of 

their harm where that harm occurred. We can’t do that today. It 

is virtually impossible to hold a manufacturer in a foreign country 

accountable for the consequences of the harm that they do in our 

marketplace as a result of the stuff, the pollution they put into the 

stream of commerce. 

So it seems to me what we have to do is we have to figure out 

some way to outsource a regime and a culture of compliance, just 

as we have outsourced all the jobs that make the toys that we consume in this country. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
12 

If we can’t figure out how to do that, nothing we are going to be 

able to do with the CPSC is going to work. Because, right now, that 

is virtually the only cop we have on the beat, when all of the bad 

guys are now overseas, abroad and beyond the reach of the civil 

justice system, as a check on the impulse to cut corners and to hurt 

people for profit. 

So we have to figure out some way of exporting a culture of compliance into the places so that we can interdict this stuff and stop 

polluting the stream of commerce at the source of the pollution. We 

have to have a point-source pollution mentality about this and go 

at the source of the pollution, because we can’t deal with a flood 

of products when they arrive on our shores or when they have gotten into our marketplace and try to recall. The costs of doing that 

are just too high. 

We no longer have the other systems to fall back on. We have 

to realize that the CPSC, which was never designed to be the only 

cop on the beat when we were making our own stuff, is now the 

only cop on the beat with respect to all the stuff we consume, because we ain’t making it anymore. We are importing it from someplace else. We have to try to figure out how to export that culture. 

I don’t know how to do it. 

I know this, though: The issues we need to face are, who ought 

to pay for it? And the American consumers should not have to pay 

for making folks in other countries comply with the law. We should 

figure out a way of making them comply with the law. I am all for 

the people who are causing the problem bearing the burden of 

cleaning up the problem. And the American consumer ain’t the 

problem, and the American industry and the American manufacturers ain’t the problem, because that is not where the stuff is coming from anymore. 

Maybe we ought to take a cue from the USDA, which takes a 

proactive approach toward meat inspection that we don’t have from 

the FDA when it comes to importing crops that are imported in 

this country. Go to the foreign country, go to the place where it is 

made, and inspect what they are doing there, before it gets 

offloaded from the plant and fed into the stream of commerce. 

Maybe we need to take a cue from financial responsibility laws, 

where we had to post a bond or some source of insurance money 

as a condition for engaging in certain businesses, so when we extend the reach of the civil justice system in this country to make 

sure that the people who are getting into the commerce in this 

country are going to be financially responsible for what they do in 

a way that is reasonable and accessible to the victims of injury 

here in this country. 

We need to think anew. Our case is new. We have a cop that we 

have added to the beat that was never intended to be the only cop 

on the beat. And it is the only cop now, and the problem has gotten 

much bigger for that cop to do. We have to figure out how to export 

the culture of compliance we take for granted in this country. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the few seconds of my 

time. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Tennessee, Mrs. 

Blackburn. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
13 

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

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you and 

the committee staff for the excellent work on this bill. 

You know, having worked in retail and marketing and with consumer products, and sitting on this side of the aisle, I have a tendency to kind of take Reagan’s view about the nine most feared 

words in the Government speak, ‘‘I’m from the Government, and 

I’m here to help.’’ but as we look at consumer products, we do know 

that that is supposed to be the job of this Commission. 

And we have always been very slow to move forward. And, Mr. 

Chairman, I thank you for the way the subcommittee has worked 

and has looked into the shortcomings of consumer health and safety laws. And this has been illuminating for many of us. 

And I appreciate the efforts that have gone into looking at the 

Consumer Product Safety Council, looking at the testing problems 

that exist, the transition in the flow of goods from manufacturer to 

market and how they are assessed, and the manner—and in the 

timely manner, I will say—in which they are assessed; looking at 

the bureaucracy that exists within your walls and how that needs 

to be reformed and reshaped; addressing jurisdiction in the scope 

of your work and how that plays forward; communication or lack 

thereof; practices and best, or lack thereof, practices in how we 

work with you. 

And, Chairman Nord, we thank you and your team for being 

willing to talk with us, as we try to address these problems that 

our constituents and many of our constituent companies bring to 

us. So we thank you for your willingness to work on that. 

And we do know that the legislation under review today is a 

product of an effort to shine the light on what has caused some 

misgivings and some questions in the marketplace. The CPSC, as 

we all know in the private sector, are partners. They are, indeed, 

partners and should continue to be partners in ensuring a safe and 

healthy marketplace for all consumer goods. That is a big part of 

your scope of work. 

And the incidents that we have reviewed by the subcommittee 

over the past 10 months have truly shown us that there is a breakdown in this system. And, as we know, it amounts to being basically a breach of the public trust, not only for consumers but also 

for retailers who are accepting those products into their flow of 

goods into the marketplace. 

Now, our bill—and I understand the number on it is H.R. 4040. 

I looked at the number, and I thought, Mr. Chairman, we maybe 

should have had it be H.R. 2020, if that one is available, because 

we hope it will sharpen the vision and will give a clearer view of 

what is happening in the stream of moving forward with items in 

the marketplace. 

The legislation mandates third-party testing and certification of 

all products intended for children aged 6 or under. I think it is critical. Leading American retailers and manufacturers are already 

employing this practice in the international market, and it is high 

time to institutionalize this now voluntary standard. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
14 

The legislation also authorized $20 million between fiscal year 

2009 and 2011 for the renovation of the CPSC’s beleaguered test 

lab. And I have not personally visited the facility. However, from 

the witness testimony that we have had from public interest groups 

and also from Chairman Nord, it is suggested the labs cannot meet 

the needs of the American consumers in the current state. So it is 

time to reinvest, update and to add new technologies and protocols 

that will aid the professionals that are working on this. 

We thank the Commission. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you, the subcommittee staff, Ranking 

Member Stearns and the staff. 

And I yield the balance of my time. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS 

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

for having this hearing. 

The Consumer Product Safety Commission is an agency in crisis, 

sptarved of resources and slow to respond to a growing tsunami of 

toxic toys and other products that continue to put consumers at 

risk. 

CPSC used to stand for Consumer Product Safety Commission. 

Today it stands for Can’t Protect the Safety of Children Commission. Eighty percent of all toys sold in the United States are imported from China. But even as the amount of imported and recalled toys has skyrocketed, and even as parents scrutinize every 

gift given by doting grandparents to make sure that it is not on the 

recall list, the reality is that being on that list only means that the 

CPSC, with its single inspector testing toys for compliance with 

outdated standards, got lucky and found the problem before more 

children were affected. 

The reality is that the CPSC has lost 15 percent of its workforce 

since 2004 and has only half the employees it had 30 years ago. 

As the holidays approach, parents should not have to play toy box 

roulette, unsure of whether the toys they choose could harm their 

children. This must change. We must upgrade our safety standards 

to reflect scientific reality, and we must upgrade the CPSC to reflect the realities of globalization. 

I commend the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee for taking up legislation to respond to the current mess 

over at the Consumer Product Safety Commission. And I look forward to working with them and with Mr. Dingell and Mr. Barton 

and the other members of the committee to further refine the legislation as we move forward toward markup. 

Specifically, we need to close the roller-coaster loophole, which 

currently prevents the CPSC from investigating accidents at socalled fixed-site amusement parks. Some of these thrill rides hurl 

children at speeds approaching 100 miles per hour. But when accidents occur, the CPSC lacks the authority to even conduct an investigation or compel the sharing of information about the accident 

with operators of the same ride in other States. It is time to close 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
15 

this loophole. Children are at risk all across the country when their 

parents take them to a fixed-site amusement park, and the CPSC 

is actually prohibited from investigating. Children should not be 

put at that risk. 

We need to improve the public’s awareness of potential hazards. 

Currently, when the CPSC wants to warn the public about a hazard, it actually has to negotiate with the companies in order to do 

so. Companies even have the right to sue the CPSC to prevent the 

disclosures from being made. This is outrageous, and I intend to 

make an amendment in order to make sure that we change that 

once and for all. 

I believe that the ban on lead in children’s products in this legislation needs to be strengthened and accelerated so that it conforms 

with the 90-parts-per-million standard already adopted by the European Union. I also think that instead of the CPSC’s current practice of only looking at the amount of accessible lead on the surface 

of a toy, legislation should apply the standard to the entire product, 

because we all know that children put things in their mouths and 

sometimes they swallow them. 

And we need to expand the use of screening technologies that 

can identify the highest-risk children’s products at ports of entry 

to the U.S. for further screening. If we could screen these toys as 

they come into the country, we should be able to find Thomas the 

Toxic Train and other dangerous toys before they show up on store 

shelves and under the Christmas tree. 

And I also believe that this legislation should include whistleblower protections for CPSC and private-sector employees who are 

retaliated against for warning Americans about dangerous products 

that can affect the safety and health of American families. 

I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and the other 

members of the committee toward the goal of putting together, once 

and for all, a comprehensive approach to how the Consumer Product Safety Commission works out there and actually protecting the 

American people. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

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

Ms. DeGette. 

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

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Parents are under a tremendous amount of stress in America 

today, and who can blame them? One day they hear on television 

that the spinach that they bought yesterday at the grocery store is 

contaminated with E. coli. The next day they read in the newspaper that the Thomas the Tank Engine toy they bought their 

young son is contaminated with excessive amounts of lead. It is 

enough to make any parent terrified that they could be harming 

their child simply by putting food on the table or toys in the yard. 

Today’s hearing is before the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, but, frankly, I don’t think consumers are feeling very protected today. They are feeling particularly unprotected when it 

comes to the safety of children’s products, and for good reason. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
16 

So far this year, we have had over 150 recall notices issued for 

children’s products and toys. That is up from about 90 during all 

of last year, and 60 going back to all of 2002. Almost half the products recalled this year were due to excessive lead, a dangerous contaminant for children. 

Some, like current Consumer Product Safety Commission Chairman Nord, have argued that the high recall number shows the system is working. I disagree. First, a very small percentage of toys 

are actually returned once they are recalled. Once these products 

get into people’s homes, they are hard to remove. 

And here is a good example. I have these Thomas the Tank Engine toys from my chief of staff’s home. My chief of staff is incredibly diligent, and she works on these issues, so she should know. 

These were recalled in June, and she found them last night in her 

son’s bedroom. They have been sitting there since they were recalled. 

So, while recalls are important to get dangerous products out of 

the hands of children, they are not the sole answer to the crisis of 

deadly toys. We need to do a better job of testing beforehand, so 

that the toys that cause harm are never sold to the public to begin 

with. That is going to take a combined effort from industry and 

government. 

Unfortunately, I don’t think that the agency in charge of protecting consumers, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, has 

the resources and the staffing it needs to do the kind of job that 

the American people expect and, frankly, have thought, until now, 

it was doing. 

Despite the fact that our economy has grown tremendously since 

the CPSC was founded in the early 1970’s, it has less than half the 

employees now than it did in 1974 when it was founded, only about 

400. According to CPSC Commissioner Thomas Moore, it only has 

90 field investigators, about 15 of whom are responsible for guarding against the millions of products that come in through dozens 

of ports of entry. And as we have heard from other members, the 

market has shifted, so now 83 percent of our toys are coming in 

from China. 

Inexplicably, President Bush’s budget would have caused the 

CPSC to have cut 19 more staff. That is the wrong approach. 

The CPSC is also hamstrung by statutory constraints. Just a few 

examples: There is no bright-line limit on lead levels in children’s 

products. The CPSC is limited to imposing fines of $1.83 million, 

and the CPSC has to use a cumbersome administrative process or, 

in some situations, go to Federal court to order a mandatory recall. 

That is why, back in September, Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro 

and I introduced legislation, H.R. 3691, the Safety Assurance for 

Every Consumer Product Act, to address these and other problems 

as well as make additional statutory improvements. Among other 

things, our bill would increase the budget of the CPSC by 88 percent over this year’s level by fiscal year 2012; impose an absolute 

standard for lead in children’s products of 40 parts per million; 

eliminate the cap on civil penalties; strengthen the CPSC’s mandatory recall powers by eliminating the need for a hearing before a 

recall is ordered; require independent, third-party testing to make 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
17 

sure products meet safety standards; and prevent the CPSC from 

issuing rules which preempt State law. 

Mr. Chairman, I was very happy to see that the bill you introduced last week, H.R. 4040, contains many similar provisions. I am 

an original cosponsor of H.R. 4040, and I think it goes a long way. 

I look forward to this hearing. I also look forward, Mr. Chairman, 

to working with you and your staff to see if some of the provisions 

of Congresswoman DeLauro’s and my bill can be incorporated in 

this legislation as we move forward. 

I just want to talk briefly—well, maybe I won’t. I will yield back. 

I will ask it in the questions. I am very concerned about the CPSC 

travel, and I know that the manager’s amendment we are going to 

do to the bill will address that. It is more than an appearance of 

impropriety, Mr. Chairman. 

And I thank you for your indulgence. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, 

Mr. Gonzalez. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Waive an opening, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. 

Hooley. 

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

Ms. HOOLEY. Thank you for holding this important hearing. 

And thank you, Chairman Nord and Commissioner Moore, for 

being here today and providing your testimony. 

I commend the enormous amount of work that has gone into 

crafting H.R. 4040. And although I think there are some pieces of 

the bills that can be improved, this comprehensive and bipartisan 

legislation is a huge step in the right direction. 

I am also pleased that H.R. 4040 includes very similar language 

to a bill I introduced requiring that children’s products are certified 

safe. My legislation called for toys intended for children 5 and 

under be certified, and I commend the subcommittee for raising 

that age to 6. 

At this critical time before the holiday gift-giving season, it is 

vital that Americans can trust and know that products they purchase for children are safe. There have been over 21 million children’s products recalled this year. I wish I could say that things 

were getting better, less dangerous toys were reaching our shelves, 

and that the CPSC was achieving its mission. Unfortunately, I cannot. Dangerous toys are still reaching our shelves, and the CPSC 

is still unequipped to handle its enormous task. 

Hopefully, this hearing will serve as an opportunity for Chairman Nord to more emphatically convey what is clear to me: The 

CPSC is an agency in distress and not meeting its mission. I believe it is due to several things, one of which is too few resources 

and not enough regulatory authority. 

Chairman Nord, as head of the CPSC, should be the one who is 

in the best position to see the shortcomings with her distressed 

agency, but unfortunately this has not been the case. In a Senate 

hearing, Chairman Nord was pressed on what resources the CPSC 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
18 

needed to function properly, and she was noncommittal, saying the 

job could be done by the President’s budget. I flatly disagree. 

According to internal records obtained by The Washington Post, 

Chairman Nord, as well as her predecessor, traveled at the expense 

of the toy, appliance and children’s furniture industries and others 

that her agency is charged with regulating. This includes trips 

sponsored by lobbying groups and lawyers representing the makers 

of products linked to consumer hazards. Chairman Nord has pointed out that this falls within the Federal guidelines. These guidelines that she cites also state that agencies must avoid the appearance of impropriety. In my mind, travel paid by the very companies 

an agency is charged with regulating does not meet this standard. 

A great deal needs to be done to make sure that what goes on 

our store shelves are safe and that Americans can trust that the 

toys they bring home for their children to play with are safe. I applaud this committee’s work on this issue and look forward to a 

markup as soon as possible on this important bill. 

And I yield back the remainder of my time. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks the gentlelady. 

Any other statements for the record will be accepted at this time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fossella follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. VITO FOSSELLA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Today’s hearing provides an important opportunity for Congress to examine the 

health-related impacts on children who are exposed to excessive levels of lead as 

well as recently introduced bipartisan legislation from the chairman and ranking 

members of both the full and subcommittee. As we have all read in various news 

publications over the last several months, children’s products, typically toys and 

jewelry imported from China, have contained unsafe levels of lead or lead paint, 

putting our children at great risk. 

I would like to thank Chairman Rush and Ranking Member Stearns for the opportunity to speak at this hearing this morning. I would also like to thank each of 

the panelists who have agreed to testify before the subcommittee this morning. I 

believe the safety of our children is one the highest priorities Congress must adhere 

to. I personally have three young children and being a parent, I want to know that 

the toys my children are playing with and the jewelry my 4-year old daughter is 

wearing is going to be safe and not contain unsafe levels of lead. It is my firm belief 

that parents should feel safe when purchasing toys and jewelry for their children, 

yet I come to this hearing today wondering if they can be assured of just that. I 

ask each of you this one question today: How can we assure parents that the products they are purchasing for their children are safe? 

In testimony before this subcommittee in early June, the acting chairman of the 

Consumer Product Safety Commission detailed her recent meeting with Chinese officials to discuss the safety of consumer products imported from their country. Recommendations were made regarding initiatives the Chinese could take independently and in conjunction with the CPSC. However, with the alarmingly high rate 

of recalls of such products from China, coupled with the recent headlines, the public 

has a right to know in greater detail the nature and depth of the problem as well 

as potential risks of other consumer products imported from China. 

The recent headlines about the safety of Chinese manufactured products hit home 

in Staten Island in early June when two of my constituents were hospitalized after 

using contaminated toothpaste made in China. The toothpaste, manufactured under 

a counterfeit Colgate label, contained a harmful chemical commonly used in antifreeze. This instance, coupled with the toy recall, raises continued red flags as to 

the safety of the products we are importing from our second largest trading partner. 

These two instances highlight a possible pattern and warrant a full and comprehensive examination by the U.S. Congress. 

There have been several pieces of legislation introduced in both the House and 

Senate. I am happy the recent House introduced version that we will be discussing 

in great detail today is bipartisan. I remain hopeful that the testimony and quesVerDate Nov 24 2008 23:33 Jan 15, 2009 Jkt 045181 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\45181.XXX 45181

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
19 

tions today will provide us with additional opportunities and ideas on how to potentially improve this legislation even further. 

While the CPSC may be a small agency, its size should not diminish how important their role is in protecting the American people. The staff at the CPSC are dedicated to providing this service in the most efficient and effective approach. If an opportunity to improve upon their effectiveness is available, Congress should pursue 

these opportunities with an open mind and with one main goal in mind: protecting 

the American people in the best possible manner. 

I look forward to working with this committee, the CPSC and manufacturers from 

across the spectrum to pursue the kind of reforms that will direct the focus on what 

matters most and that is the safety of our children. Again, I would like to thank 

the Chairman and Ranking Member for this opportunity today and I look forward 

to hearing the testimony of our panelists. 

Mr. RUSH. Now the Chair and the committee welcomes panel No. 

1. 

Panel No. 1 is composed of the Honorable Nancy A. Nord, the 

Acting Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. 

Chairman Nord was appointed as a Republican member to the 

Consumer Product Safety Commission in 2005 to a term that expires in 2012. She has served as CPSC’s Acting Chairman since 

July 2006. 

The committee also welcomes the Honorable Thomas H. Moore, 

the Commissioner of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. 

Commissioner Moore began service on the CPSC in 1995 as a 

Democratic appointee. He is currently serving his third term, 

which expires in 2010. 

The Chair welcomes our witnesses today. 

And you are recognized, beginning with Chairman Nord, for 5 

minutes for opening statements. 

STATEMENT OF NANCY A. NORD, ACTING CHAIRMAN, 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION 

Ms. NORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Stearns and 

members of the subcommittee. 

Mr. Chairman, you have requested that I appear here today to 

give you my views on H.R. 4040, and I want to be very clear, and 

I will only state my views, because I certainly do not want to get 

in trouble with you. 

You and your staff, as well as Congressman Stearns, Chairman 

Dingell, Ranking Member Barton and 45 other co-sponsors of the 

bill, have worked hard to draft and introduce a thoughtful bill that 

takes into account both the enforcement needs of the agency and 

the realities of the modern consumer marketplace. On balance, I 

believe the bill will be a win for consumers and should give us the 

additional enforcement tools we need to expand our ability to keep 

unsafe products out of the stream of commerce. 

With respect to the specifics of the bill, I very much appreciate 

the fact that H.R. 4040 has adopted in whole or in large measure 

several of my legislative recommendations from this past July 

when I submitted to you my PRISM proposal. Of particular importance to enhancing the mission of the agency are an overdue prohibition on the sale of recalled products—— 

Mr. RUSH. Would you pull the mike closer to you, please? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
20 

Ms. NORD. Of course—an increase in our statutory penalty cap, 

asset forfeiture as a criminal enforcement option, among other 

things. 

There are other provisions in the bill, notably the section dealing 

with lead and children’s products, and I understand that these may 

be evolving. And I have directed the CPSC staff to continue to provide technical expertise and input on that and any other section of 

the bill that you would like. 

But, as I said, this bill represents a significant, positive step forward for consumer product safety; and I appreciate all the leaders 

in this committee who have brought it forward on a bipartisan 

basis. 

Mr. Chairman, with my remaining time and with your indulgence, I would like to clear the air about a few things that have 

been the focus of a good deal of media attention of late. 

First, with respect to toys, the number of toy recalls has not in 

fact skyrocketed, as I have seen reported in the media. For the fiscal year ending September 30, we had 61 recalls of toys, 19 of 

which were for violations of the statutory ban on lead paint. The 

year before, we had 40 recalls, three of which were for violations 

of the lead paint ban. The increase in lead recalls has been driven 

by this agency insisting that the laws be enforced. We all take toy 

safety issues very seriously, especially with respect to lead, and toy 

companies at our insistence have searched their existing inventories for even the slightest evidence of a violation. But I believe 

that we are starting to turn the corner on the lead paint issue. 

Does that mean we will never find a violation again? Probably not. 

But our enforcement activities and the media attention to this 

issue have made the number of violations that we expect to see far 

less likely. 

Second, let me please lay to rest once and for all the myth that 

has been perpetuated by the media that we have only one toy tester. We do not. In fact, we have a number of staff in our laboratory 

who are charged as a primary or significant part of their responsibilities with the testing of toys for small parts, for lead and for 

the other elements of our toy standards. We have at least another 

60 field personnel who as a part of their routine responsibilities 

test toys for violations. 

And, finally, because Representative DeGette and Representative 

Hooley have raised the issue of travel, I do want to address it. 

I have taken three trips that have been called into question by 

the Washington Post. Two are to toy industry conferences where I 

and CPSC staff educated toy manufacturers and importers about 

our various toy standards in an effort to increase compliance with 

those standards. Our direct travel expenses were paid by the Toy 

Industry Association. This practice, while it has not been common 

for me, is a legal and common practice throughout the Federal Government and one that has been in place at the CPSC for the last 

20 years, long before I came to the Commission. 

I, my colleague, CPSC staff members, including those on Chairman Brown’s staff, have done such travel for two simple reasons, 

first, to further the mission of the CPSC to reduce the likelihood 

that unsafe products will enter the marketplace. The second reason, quite frankly, is that, faced by limited enforcement dollars, 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
21 

Mr. Chairman, I would much rather spend $900 on paying for more 

testing of toys and more resources at our laboratory than I would 

on airfare and a hotel to go to present our toy standards at an industry conference. If others disagree with that position, then I respect their opinion, but they are not necessarily in the same position as I am of having to make these kinds of resource allocation 

calls. 

I have asked for both an internal and external investigation of 

our practice in accordance with Federal law and regulations, and 

I wait and will abide by the determinations that come out of that 

review. And I will, of course, adhere to any change in Federal law 

that Congress sees fit to make. 

In conclusion, those of us at the CPSC are working hard every 

day to find and remove unsafe products from the marketplace, to 

respond to consumer complaints, to establish product safety standards and to educate the public. The product that Congress came up 

with—— 

Mr. RUSH. Madam Chairwoman, would you please bring your remarks to a conclusion? 

Ms. NORD. I would be happy to conclude by saying to you, sir, 

that the product that you came up with in 1972 is essentially 

sound, but it could work better. I appreciate and welcome your efforts to make it work better, and I look forward to working with 

this committee. Thank you. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Nord follows:] 

STATEMENT OF NANCY A. NORD

Good Morning Mr. Chairman, Congressman Stearns, and members of the committee. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify this morning on H.R. 4040, the Consumer 

Product Safety Modernization Act of 2007, which was introduced last week to modernize the governing statutes of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission 

(CPSC). 

I want to begin by congratulating the Committee on the open and bipartisan deliberative process that has resulted in a bill that is focused on CPSC’s core mission 

of improving the safety of consumer products for American families. 

As Acting Chairman of the CPSC, I have appreciated your staff’s engagement of 

the professional staff at my agency in developing this legislation, as well as previous 

consumer product legislation that was reported from this Committee and subsequently approved by the full House of Representatives last month. Though the 

CPSC is a small agency, we are fortunate to have a staff of dedicated career civil 

servants who are skilled in an impressive array of legal, technical and scientific disciplines. They are doing an outstanding job for the American people, and I am 

pleased to see their expertise reflected in your legislation. 

I also want to thank the committee for including in this bill a number of the proposals that I submitted to Congress earlier this year to strengthen the CPSC’s ability to reduce hazards associated with consumer products. I note, for example, that 

Section 204 of your bill includes my proposal to speed agency rulemaking by giving 

the CPSC the option to employ either two-part or three-part rulemaking under all 

of our statutes. This change will make our regulatory process more streamlined, efficient and effective, and I thank the Committee for accepting it. 

Additionally, section 208 includes my proposals to clarify that the Commission is 

the final arbiter in deciding whether a company’s recall remedy should be a refund, 

a repair or a replacement and to empower the Commission to take further corrective 

actions if consumers are not protected by the original plan. I also appreciate that 

the Committee has included in the bill my proposals to prohibit the sale of recalled 

products and prohibit stockpiling under all of the statutes that the CPSC enforces. 

The legislation also includes a more than five-fold increase in the cap on CPSC’s 

civil penalties. That provision passed the House of Representatives by voice vote last 

month, and I am pleased to see it included in this comprehensive bill. This is a reaVerDate Nov 24 2008 23:33 Jan 15, 2009 Jkt 045181 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\45181.XXX 45181

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
22 

soned approach to increasing the agency’s civil penalties and strengthening the 

agency’s hand, without forcing the CPSC to respond to a flood of new litigation and 

drain our limited resources that could otherwise be used to hire more scientists and 

more safety inspectors. 

With regard to the lead provision, I appreciate that the Committee is moving toward a stronger standard, and I look forward to continuing discussions on that provision between your staff and technical experts here at the CPSC to assist you in 

achieving that goal. 

As you well know, CPSC’s statutes have not been updated by Congress since 

1990. Clearly, the dynamics of the marketplace have changed dramatically over 

these years. New technologies have emerged, and continue to emerge, in creating 

and manufacturing products. Electronic technologies have changed the way that 

consumers shop and purchase goods and the way that the public receives information. Perhaps the most significant change is that most of America’s consumer products now come from overseas. 

So it is important that the Committee is moving forward to modernize this agency, but it is also important to recognize that the legislative foundation on which the 

CPSC was built is a fundamentally strong one. No small amount of work went into 

the crafting of the original legislation that created the CPSC in 1972. The National 

Commission on Product Safety worked for three years before presenting its findings 

to the Congress in 1970, and the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, as 

this committee was then known, held thirteen days of hearings and ten executive 

sessions, including joint sessions by the conference committee. 

I would note Chairman Dingell’s key role in authoring and enacting this legislation that established an agency that has served the public well. We are proud of 

our thirty-four year record of achievement of reducing deaths and injuries and helping to protect the American public from consumer product hazards—a successful 

record that I have outlined on numerous previous occasions this year in testimony 

before your Committee. 

The core mission of the CPSC is to protect the public from unreasonable risks of 

injury and death associated with more than 15,000 types of consumer products 

under the agency’s jurisdiction. We fulfill this mission by enforcing our governing 

statutes, including the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA), the Flammable Fabrics Act (FFA), and the Poison 

Prevention Packaging Act (PPPA). 

Since being appointed to the Commission two years ago, and subsequently becoming Acting Chairman last year, I have closely studied, enforced and directed the implementation of these statutes. Based on my study of our statutes and this working 

experience, earlier this year I submitted to Congress a comprehensive list of legislative proposals known as the Product Recall, Information and Safety Modernization 

Act, or PRISM. 

As Acting Chairman, I believed that it was important for me to be proactive and 

come forward to Congress with my ideas to strengthen the Commission’s hand in 

enforcing our laws and protecting the American public from unsafe products. As 

mentioned earlier, I am pleased to see that a number of the proposals I advocated 

at that time are included in your bill. 

In that spirit of being pro-active and advocating change, I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to ask the Committee for additional powers that were 

included in PRISM but are not included in the legislation at this point. 

First of all, I proposed in PRISM that the CPSC be granted authority to promulgate regulations for the efficient enforcement of any statute it administers, just as 

we can now do under the FHSA. This would clarify that the Commission can issue 

enforcement regulations in addition to consumer product safety standards under any 

of our statutes where warranted to carry out our mission. 

Another proposal that I would encourage the Committee to consider further is to 

extend the existing certification requirement under Section 14 of the CPSA to all 

statutes administered by the Commission. This would avoid confusion among the 

disparate certification and labeling provisions of the CPSA, FHSA, FFA and PPPA. 

I believe that these changes would strengthen the Commission’s hand, and I hope 

that the Committee will take a close look at them as we move forward. 

Mr. Chairman and Mr. Stearns, I again want to commend your leadership in 

crafting legislation that recognizes the importance of CPSC’s core safety mission and 

strengthens our ability to achieve that mission. It is clear that much hard work 

went into developing this important legislation. It respects the important foundations of the CPSC while at the same time addressing the challenges of the 21st Century marketplace that our aggressive enforcement activities have exposed, especially 

this year. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
23 

I look forward to continuing to work cooperatively with the Committee as your 

bill proceeds through the legislative process, and I am pleased to answer your questions. 

Mr. RUSH. Commissioner Moore, welcome again and, please, you 

have 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS H. MOORE, COMMISSIONER, 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION 

Mr. MOORE. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking 

Member and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to provide testimony on H.R. 

4040, legislation to establish consumer product safety standards 

and other safety requirements for children’s products and to reauthorize and modernize the Consumer Product Safety Commission. 

As the members of this subcommittee know, the U.S. Consumer 

Product Safety Commission needs help. It needs additional resources, more staff and greater authority to protect consumers from 

potential product hazards. And you have responded positively. I am 

extremely gratified by the authorization levels in the bill and by 

the bill’s clear acknowledgement that consumer product safety 

must remain an important Federal Government function. 

This bill recognizes that it will take time for the agency to rebuild. We cannot do it overnight. The downsizing and dismantling 

of the agency has been going on for a while, so I ask you to be patient with all of us at the agency as we rebuild our staff expertise 

and, with your strong support, refocus our efforts on providing a 

greater level of product safety with the increased capabilities this 

bill would give us. 

We have lost many experienced and talented people in the last 

few years, people who knew instinctively when they saw a product 

whether it was badly designed or if it was just a plain bad idea 

from a safety standpoint. We have increased our information technology spending as a way to compensate for the reduction in the 

size of our staff, but no computer that I am aware of can look at 

a product and know that it should be removed from the marketplace. Only experienced, trained people can do that. 

The real backbone of the agency is its staff, our toxicologists, our 

pharmacologists, our mechanical engineers, our human factors specialists, our chemists, our investigators and, yes, even our lawyers. 

We need to retain our current employees and recruit additional 

staff. They are the key to the agency fulfilling its role as protector 

and enforcer. This bill will allow us to rebuild our staff and should 

send a signal to current employees that the agency will be around 

for a long time and that they should stay and rebuild with us. 

There has been much attention paid lately to recalls of important 

products, and rightly so. The Commission currently has no fulltime presence at any port and little or no presence at several of the 

major ports. We currently inspect less than 1 percent, less than 1 

percent, of the products under our jurisdiction that come into this 

country. This is not quite as bad as it sounds because we do targeted surveillance. That is, we look for specific products and for 

specific importers that we know from past experience to be problematic. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
24 

I do not know what percentage of all potentially problematic 

products we inspect, but it is still probably a fairly small number. 

We will, I am afraid, always be at a disadvantage in policing this 

huge import market. But with more people at the ports, more people scrutinizing products at retail outlets and the manufacturing 

plants and with more people at headquarters and in our laboratory 

analyzing products and employing stronger enforcement tools to require recalls in a more timely fashion, we can do a better job of 

keeping hazardous products out of the marketplace before they 

cause injuries, than our current resources and authority permit us 

to do so. 

We tend to take the safety of our products, and the Commission’s 

role in that, for granted until a tragedy occurs. The real tragedy 

would be not to take advantage of the opportunity we now have to 

make the Commission stronger. 

I understand that this legislation will go through changes as it 

moves through the legislative process, but it is a very good foundation on which to build. Your bill sends the message that the American public wants to hear, that you will not permit the Commission 

to wither on the vine. You will reverse the downsizing trend of recent years, and you will give the agency the enforcement tools it 

needs to aggressively fight to protect America’s consumers. 

Thank you for providing me with this opportunity to appear before you, and I will address questions you may have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moore follows:] 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS H. MOORE

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to provide testimony on H.R. 4040, 

legislation to establish consumer product safety standards and other safety requirements for children’s products and to reauthorize and modernize the Consumer Product Safety Commission. 

As the members of this subcommittee know, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission needs help. It needs additional resources, more staff and greater authority to protect consumers from potential product hazards. And you have responded. I am extremely gratified by the authorization levels in this bill and by the 

bill’s clear acknowledgment that consumer product safety must remain an important 

Federal Government function. 

The bill recognizes that it will take time for the agency to rebuild. We cannot do 

it overnight. The downsizing and dismantling of the agency has been going on for 

a while, so I ask you to be patient with all of us at the agency as we rebuild our 

staff expertise and, with your strong support, refocus our efforts on providing a 

greater level of product safety with the increased capabilities this bill will give us. 

We have lost many experienced and talented people in the last few years—people 

who knew instinctively when they saw a product whether it was badly designed or 

if it was just plain a bad idea from a safety standpoint. We have increased our information technology spending as a way to compensate for the reduction in the size 

of our staff, but no computer that I am aware of can look at a product and know 

that it should be removed from the marketplace. Only experienced, trained people 

can do that. The real backbone of the agency is its staff: our toxicologists, our pharmacologists, our mechanical engineers, our human factors specialists, our chemists, 

our investigators and yes, even our lawyers. We need to retain our current employees and recruit additional staff. They are the key to the agency’s ability to fulfill 

its role as protector and enforcer. This bill will allow us to rebuild our staff and 

should send a signal to current employees that the agency will be around for a long 

time and that they should stay and rebuild with us. 

There has been much focus on recalled imported products lately and rightly so. 

The Commission currently has no full-time presence at any port and little or no 

presence at several of the major ports. We currently inspect less than 1% of the 

products under our jurisdiction that come into this country. This is not quite as bad 

as it sounds because we do targeted surveillance; that is, we look for specific prodVerDate Nov 24 2008 23:33 Jan 15, 2009 Jkt 045181 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\45181.XXX 45181

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
25 

ucts and for specific importers that we know from past experience to be problematic. 

I do not know what percentage of all problematic products we inspect, but it is still 

probably a fairly small number. We will, I am afraid, always be at a disadvantage 

in policing this huge import market. But with more people: at the ports; more people 

scrutinizing products at retail outlets and in manufacturing plants; and with more 

people at headquarters and at our laboratory, analyzing products and employing 

stronger enforcement tools to require recalls in a more timely fashion, we can do 

a better job of keeping hazardous products out of the marketplace before they cause 

injuries, than our current resources and authority permit us to do. 

We tend to take the safety of our products, and the Commission’s role in that, 

for granted until a tragedy occurs. The real tragedy would be not to take advantage 

of the opportunity we now have to make the Commission stronger. Your bill sends 

the message that the American public wants to hear—that you will not permit the 

Commission to wither on the vine; you will reverse the downsizing trend of recent 

years and you will give the agency the enforcement tools it needs to aggressively 

fight to protect America’s consumers. 

I understand that the legislation will go through changes as it moves through the 

legislative process, but it is a very good foundation on which to build. My staff and 

I have not had the opportunity to review the bill’s provisions as carefully as I would 

like, thus the comments below are somewhat general in nature. My staff will be conferring with the subcommittee staff and may provide them with more detailed comments on some sections of the bill after we have reviewed them more thoroughly, 

including timing requirements and issues of prioritization. 

SECTION BY SECTION COMMENTS OF H.R.4040 

Section 101. Ban on Children’s Products Containing Lead. 

I have been on record for some time as stating that I hoped Congress would take 

up the issue of lead in children’s products because the statutory constraints under 

which the Commission labors are too stringent when it comes to something as clearly toxic to our children as lead. Personally I do not think there should be any lead 

in children’s products and I hope one day we are as amazed that there was ever 

a time that these products contained lead as we are now when we remember that 

water coolers were once lined with lead. This bill’s aim is to get the amount of lead 

down to the lowest level possible and I certainly support that goal. 

Section 102. Mandatory Third-Party Testing for Certain Children’s Products. 

I support mandatory third-party testing and certification of children’s products, 

especially of products intended for younger children. I am inclined to agree that the 

laboratory should not be controlled by the manufacturer or private labeler, but 

would also consider a provision that would allow manufacturer-owned labs to do 

testing unless and until such time as we had reason to believe their test results 

were not accurate. 

Section 103. Tracking Labels for Children’s Products. 

I support having identifying marks on products and product packaging that help 

manufacturers, retailers, consumers and the Commission to identify when and 

where a product was made. I would like eventually to see this on all products so 

that in the event of a recall, the Commission has a tool to more clearly identify 

which products should be subject to it. 

Section 104. Standards and Consumer Registration of Durable Nursery Products. 

We know that direct notice to consumers from a product manufacturer about a 

recall is the most effective form of notice; therefore, I support requiring product registration card notification. 

Section 105. Labeling Requirement for Certain Internet and Catalogue Advertising of Toys and Games. 

I support this provision. As more and more products are purchased through a 

catalogue or over the Internet without the buyer ever viewing the actual product, 

the effectiveness of our labeling rules becomes more and more diminished. This 

would rectify that problem. 

Section 201. Reauthorization of the Commission. 

I support substantial increases in the Commission’s appropriations, and these authorization figures will provide the basis for that through 2011. I also support a congressional appropriation to modernize and re-equip our laboratory. 

Section 202. Structure and Quorum. 

I support both an extension of the Commission’s quorum and the gradual increase 

in the number of Commissioners, back to the five that were originally funded. 

Section 203. Submission of Copy of Certain Documents to Congress. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
26 

I support Congress receiving a copy of our initial annual budget submission to the 

Office of Management and Budget. I believe it will provide Congress with the information it needs to better analyze the President’s budget request. 

Section 204. Expedited Rulemaking. 

I support giving the Commission the authority to use, in its discretion, two-step 

rulemaking instead of the longer three-step rulemaking process. I would expect the 

two-step procedure to be used on more routine matters and not, for example when 

the Commission is taking on an issue of which it has little knowledge or experience. 

Section 205. Public Disclosure of Information. 

I am on record as supporting the elimination of section 6(b) of the CPSA, which 

has the effect of keeping a great deal of product specific safety information secret. 

While the provisions of this bill do not go as far as I would like, they are a step 

in the right direction. 

Section 206. Prohibition of Stockpiling Under Other Commission-Enforced Statutes. 

I support extending the stockpiling provisions to our other statutes. 

Section 207. Notification of Noncompliance with Any Commission-Enforced Statute. 

I support explicitly extending the reporting requirements of section 15 (b) of the 

CPSA to the other statutes the Commission enforces. 

Section 208. Corrective Action Plans. 

I support giving the Commission the final say as to whether a proposed corrective 

action plan will adequately protect consumers. 

Section 209. Website Notice, Notice to Third Party Internet Sellers, and Radio and 

Television Notice. 

I support the enhanced recall notice provisions of this section. 

Section 210. Identification of Manufacturer, Importers, Retailers, and Distributors. 

I support requiring everyone in the product supply chain to know who they are 

dealing with and to supply that information to the Commission upon request. 

Section 211. Export of Recalled and Non-Conforming Products. 

I have urged Congress to reexamine our export policy. I believe a policy that recognizes that we can only expect other countries to protect our consumers from their 

exports, if we are willing to make the same commitment by not sending them products that could harm their consumers. I believe this section does that. 

Section 212. Prohibition on Sale of Recalled Products. 

I support prohibiting the sale of recalled products. 

Section 213. Increased Civil Penalty. 

I have long supported the removal of any upper limit on civil penalties because 

I think the types of products we regulate and the different and multiple types of 

violations that are possible under our statutes, as well as the circumstances that 

contribute to those violations, are so disparate that we need maximum flexibility to 

fine companies who violate our requirements. Our statutes list various factors we 

must take into account in determining the amount of the penalty and those are 

what we should look to in structuring penalty amounts not an arbitrary ceiling that 

has no relationship to the facts of the violation(s). But, if there must be a cap, an 

increase is extremely welcome, though I would urge a higher one. 

Section 214. Criminal penalties to include asset forfeiture. 

I support this provision to give us the additional penalty of asset forfeiture for 

criminal violations of our statutes. 

Section 215. Sharing of Information with Federal, State, Local, and Foreign Government Agencies. 

I support this information-sharing provision. 

This comprehensive legislative package introduced by Congressman Bobby L. 

Rush and Congressman Cliff Stearns, with Energy and Commerce Committee 

Chairman John Dingell and Ranking Member Joe Barton, is a big step in strengthening and restoring confidence in the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. 

It is very important that in whatever we do collectively—through efforts by the 

administration, by Congress and by the Commission—to address the most recent 

problems facing the Commission, that we send the clear, unequivocal message to 

manufacturers, importers and retailers who sell products in this country that 

present a risk of injury to consumers that their actions are unacceptable and that 

they will be held accountable. This legislation will give us more resources and additional enforcement tools. It will then be up to the Commission to use them to make 

the marketplace a safer place for American consumers. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
27 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks both of the witnesses. The Chair 

recognizes himself for 5 minutes of questioning of witnesses. 

Commissioner Moore, if you had one overriding relevant key 

wish as it relates to this bill, what would be the one thing that you 

think that would make the most difference at the CPSC? 

Mr. MOORE. At this point, the increased funding reflected in the 

authorization numbers is by far the most important provision. We 

have to stop the bleeding at the Commission and reverse the trend 

that has cost us so many valuable employees. 

Aside from funding, what are the most important provisions? The 

provision banning lead I think in children’s products above a certain level has to be a priority. As well, the increase in the civil penalty cap, which is a reflection of how important we think product 

safety is in this country. 

Mr. RUSH. Chairman Nord, do you agree with Commissioner 

Moore that CPSC needs the resources that this bill authorizes? 

Ms. NORD. I wholeheartedly agree and would like to see more resources for the agency. 

In addition to the things that Commissioner Moore listed, I 

would also add that a very, very useful addition to this legislation 

would be certification authority across the board for all the statutes 

that we implement. I think that one additional statutory tool would 

go such a long way to giving us an ability to more easily flag products that may be in violation of our standard, and I would strongly 

urge you to include that as you mark up this legislation. 

Mr. RUSH. Would you explain in more detail how this certification process would work? 

Ms. NORD. Surely. I believe it would be a very useful tool to require that all product sellers certify to us that they are in compliance with applicable safety standards and regulations. That would 

give us a key to look at as products come into the country and as 

they are being sold throughout the marketplace. 

Mr. RUSH. With the H.R. 4040’s proposed changes to section 6(b), 

would this CPSC be issuing more alerts more quickly about unsafe 

products? In other words, would you use it to strengthen health 

and safety exception in more circumstances if this bill were to become law? 

Ms. NORD. Well, I was pleased to see the way that the committee 

approached section 6(b) because it really does modernize it in a 

way that I think is very, very useful. 

With respect to safety alerts, obviously, we address these issues 

on a case-by-case basis; and I want to make sure that if we see a 

problem, that we have have the tools to respond. So I am pleased 

to see what you have done with 6(b). 

Mr. RUSH. Would you address the concern that has been voiced 

by the CPSC about the fear of litigation? Why was the CPSC so 

afraid of litigation that it would inhibit getting information out to 

the public? What was the concern there? 

Ms. NORD. You mean with respect to 6(b)? 

Mr. RUSH. Right. 

Ms. NORD. Section 6(b) put in place a prohibition on the release 

of information without first making an inquiry as to whether it is 

fair and accurate. And the problem is that that inquiry needed to 

be done in a 30-day time frame going back to the manufacturer. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
28 

What you have done is cut that time frame in half, and you have 

also indicated that and make very clear—— 

Mr. RUSH. What I am concerned about is it would seem to me 

that there was a real deep-seated fear at the CPSC about court— 

my time is up, but I will ask you that a little later. 

Ms. NORD. Thank you. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair recognizes the ranking member, Mr. 

Stearns. 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Nord, I guess the question is that the press, most notably the New York Times, have claimed that you oppose new authority for the CPSC. I think it is true, and I would like you to confirm this, that you actually had proposed new authorities for the 

Commission? 

Ms. NORD. Yes, I have. Back in July of this year I sent to both 

bodies a legislative proposal that contained no fewer than 40 different suggestions for changes in our statute. 

Mr. STEARNS. So that clears up the New York Times saying that 

you actually oppose new authority. You have 40 new ones that you 

have proposed. 

I would like you to also talk about this letter that I mention in 

my opening statement, these 5 pages. You are an attorney. You 

have the opportunity to respond to a Senate bill that is being proposed, not voted on. You are just saying, as an attorney, as chairwoman of the CPSC, I would like to make known to you some of 

my comments; and these are very detailed comments you have in 

this 5 pages of letter. I thought I would give you an opportunity 

to explain your thoughts about it and your goals in sending it, because I think it is been misconstrued on one side of the aisle and 

misconstrued in the press. 

Ms. NORD. Yes, thank you so much, Congressman Stearns. 

At the hearing on this legislation, the chairman made very clear 

that he welcomed input from—— 

Mr. STEARNS. The chairman being? 

Ms. NORD. The Senate subcommittee chairman—made very clear 

that he welcomed input from all quarters on the legislation. 

I sat down and met with the Senate majority staff for well over 

2 hours and after that meeting indicated to them that I would be 

following up. That letter is my follow-up. I felt I had an obligation 

to state to the members of the committee my concerns about the 

legislation and where I thought improvements could be made. 

If you read that letter, you will see that I reference legislative 

changes that I was suggesting that were forwarded along with that 

letter. I felt that as a public official it is my obligation to talk to 

the Senate about—— 

Mr. STEARNS. I think it would be a dereliction of your duty if you 

didn’t talk about the penalty cap increases that you specified in 

here, your criminal penalties that you went into, the whistleblower 

protection. Sometimes people would dwell on one sentence of this 

five-page, detailed, lawyerly written letter, but I think you have a 

fiduciary responsibility in your position to do that. 

Ms. NORD. Well, my concern, and the portrait I wanted to convey 

to the Senate, was, while there were a number of things that were 

very helpful in the Senate bill, there were some things that were 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
29 

of concern and that might take us away from our core safety mission. 

In addition, there were a number of new rulemaking requirements being imposed under a very tight time frame; and, frankly, 

we would not have had the resources to comply with the legislation. 

Mr. STEARNS. One thing I read in the newspapers, they say that 

there is only one toy tester at CPSC. And you have cleared this up 

before this hearing, and I thought for one more time for the record, 

is there only one toy tester at CPSC? 

Ms. NORD. No, there are a number of people on our staff that 

have the responsibility to test toys. 

Mr. STEARNS. Including independent testers, there are 60 testers 

in the field. So let us make sure that people don’t think that there 

is one person sitting there as the avalanche of toys come from 

China. 

The other thing that keeps coming up is there are more recalls, 

so that means there is more danger. You know, one way to think 

of this is that because there is more notification from the CPSC 

there is a possibility it is working, the system is working better. 

Has anyone died this year from lead contamination in toys? 

Ms. NORD. I am not aware of any deaths. But, of course, with respect to lead contamination it is cumulative, so we don’t want to 

see lead in any product, and we are working very hard to keep it 

out. 

Mr. STEARNS. But can we determine over the last 50 years any 

death that has been attributable to lead content in their—I mean, 

where do we get this idea that—I mean, we know that it is an accumulation, and we know that it is bad. But the idea that we are 

notifying and we are meeting a standard, I guess is there a crisis 

like some people seem to think? 

Ms. NORD. Well, crisis or no, the statute is the statute, the law 

is the law, and I am absolutely determined that the lead paint ban 

is going to be met. And that is why we have had these 19 recalls 

over the last summer. 

Sir, with respect to the comment of why are recalls bad or escalating, we did 5 or 6 more recalls this year than we did last year. 

Mr. STEARNS. That might be a possibility that the system is 

working? 

Ms. NORD. Well, we work in a system that requires us to respond 

after things have been put on the market. That is the regulatory 

structure that Congress imposed on us. So we go into the marketplace, and we police the marketplace. And one of our tools is to do 

recalls, and we do do them. 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair has a special request from the ranking 

member. He has got to leave, and the Chair would ask the indulgence of the full committee chairman to allow—he has got to leave, 

also. I want to thank the chairman. 

The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Barton, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BARTON. I want to thank you, Mr. Rush, Ms. Schakowsky 

and Mr. Dingell for letting me go out of order. I have an appointVerDate Nov 24 2008 23:33 Jan 15, 2009 Jkt 045181 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\45181.XXX 45181

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
30 

ment that has been waiting for about 20 minutes, so I appreciate 

that. 

I am going to be very straightforward. I am going to ask the 

chairman and the commissioner the same question. I just want to 

go through the bill very quickly and make sure that you all are in 

agreement on adopting the Federal standard on lead. Are you all 

both in favor of that, that is in the bill? 

Ms. NORD. In theory. I mean, yes, in general theory, of course. 

Mr. BARTON. And you, Mr. Moore? 

Mr. MOORE. Yes. 

Mr. BARTON. The requirement for mandatory independent thirdparty testing and certification, are both of you all supportive of 

that? 

Mr. MOORE. I don’t have any problems with it. 

Ms. NORD. I think third-party independent testing is always a 

very good practice. 

Mr. BARTON. All right. What about the requirement Ms. 

Schakowsky has insisted upon that requires tracking labels for 

children’s products to identify specific models and sources to aid recalls? Are you all supportive of that? 

Ms. NORD. As long as we have regulatory authority to make that 

work. 

Mr. BARTON. And you, Mr. Moore? 

Mr. MOORE. Yes. 

Mr. BARTON. What about the mandatory safety warnings for 

choking and other hazards for Internet and catalogue sales for 

small balls, balloons and other small parts that currently require 

such labels? 

Ms. NORD. I think warning people who buy products in those alternative modes is very useful. I think, though, that we should be 

thinking a little bit more expansively about how we deal with 

Internet sales. 

Mr. BARTON. What about you, Mr. Moore? 

Mr. MOORE. Yes, they should be warned. 

Mr. BARTON. So that is a minimum? 

Mr. MOORE. Yes, at a minimum. 

Mr. BARTON. That might be something you might want to 

strengthen then, is that fair to say? 

Mr. MOORE. That is fair enough. 

Mr. BARTON. What about the mandatory safety standards for the 

nursery products—cribs, high chairs, things like that? 

Ms. NORD. Again, we need to do it under the rulemaking provisions of the statute. 

Mr. BARTON. And you, Commissioner Moore? 

Mr. MOORE. Well, I would like to review that again in terms of 

the standards. But certainly with respect to information and events 

that have occurred in a recent period indicating that there are 

problems out there, or there can be problems out there with cribs, 

as an example. Certainly we need to find the best way to protect 

families from faulty cribs and other types of faulty products. 

Mr. BARTON. OK. I am living proof that children are—my son is 

world class at getting out of his crib now. I mean, he can do it less 

than 30 seconds. It is amazing. As soon as my back is turned, and 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
31 

I walk out of the room—I mean, he is just like a little eel getting 

out of that crib. 

The bill authorizes a funding increase of $80 million in fiscal year 2009, $90 million in 2010 and $100 million in 2011. Are those 

funding increases sufficient and do the chairwoman and the commissioner support them? 

Ms. NORD. That is fine. 

Mr. MOORE. I support them. I think it is a good start. 

Mr. BARTON. A good start? 

Mr. MOORE. Yes. 

Mr. BARTON. All right. What about restoring to the Commission 

five full-time commissioners and repealing the appropriation rider 

of only three commissioners? 

Mr. MOORE. I am not certain about that. 

Mr. BARTON. Really? 

Mr. MOORE. I have to think about it, because I have worked so 

long with three commissioners. 

Mr. BARTON. Interesting. I thought that would be something you 

all would be very supportive of. 

Mr. MOORE. I don’t know yet. I would have to see how it might 

work, but I am willing to test it. 

Mr. BARTON. And you Commissioner? 

Ms. NORD. I have no position on this. Again, I have never worked 

in a five-Commissioner structure. I will, however, refer to you to 

the congressional history of that particular provision where this 

committee and its counterpart in the Senate were very, very critical of the five-Commissioner structure. And so I think you might 

want to be mindful of those criticisms, and if you go that route, 

take them into account. 

Mr. BARTON. OK. The requirement that we authorize $20 million 

to modernize the CPSC testing lab? 

Mr. MOORE. Absolutely. 

Ms. NORD. We need a modernized laboratory. 

Mr. BARTON. And the expedited rulemaking so that the CPSC 

can respond more quickly to product safety concerns? 

Ms. NORD. I suggested that in July. 

Mr. BARTON. So you are for that? 

Mr. MOORE. Yes. That is an option we ought to have, yes. 

Mr. BARTON. And, finally, the prohibition on the sale and export 

of recalled, banned or noncomplied products, unless the importing 

country is first notified? 

Ms. NORD. Again, that provision gives us regulatory authority to 

implement it, so I think we can work within it. The concern that 

the compliance staff of the agency has expressed is that, without 

a time certain, you don’t have a trigger for when you can make a 

decision. So a time certain would probably make some sense, and 

there is such in existing law. 

Mr. BARTON. Commissioner Moore? 

Mr. MOORE. Yes. That is a provision that I did some work on, 

so certainly I do support it. 

Mr. BARTON. Again, thank you, Chairman Rush and Chairman 

Dingell. We are going to move this bill fairly quickly. It is my understanding that we want to have a markup within the next week 

or 2? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
32 

Mr. RUSH. That’s correct. 

Mr. BARTON. So we need your input on these issues that we are 

going to ask the stakeholders the same questions. But we are preparing to move this at subcommittee and full committee. So your 

personal attention to some of these issues is very timely. 

Thank you again for the courtesy of letting me go out of order. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks the ranking member. 

The Chair recognizes the gentlelady, the Vice-Chair of the subcommittee, Ms. Schakowsky, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. 

Chairman Nord, if I went to a conference on Medicare Part D, 

which is the pharmaceutical portion of it, that was paid for by the 

pharmaceutical companies and argued that it is because I have a 

limited budget and I want to spend the money in my district, do 

you think that my constituents would think that that was an appropriate thing for me to do, to take the pharmaceutical company 

money to travel to a conference where we were discussing things 

that affected them? 

Ms. NORD. I am really not going to address what your constituents would think. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. What do you think? What do you think? 

Ms. NORD. That is a hypothetical. All I can talk to you about is 

what I did. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And I am making the case that it is very parallel. In fact, I want to quote from an ethics expert: It is never a 

good idea to have your expenses paid for by a party or parties who 

will be advocating on a matter before your agency. A Senate career 

ethics lawyer and another Government agency required anonymity 

because it was not clear to comment for the record. It is legal, but 

it is clearly an abuse of discretion and exhibited, at best, enormous 

insensitivity and, at worst, outward disdain for the ethical principles of Government service. 

I also note in the same article that on February you were asked 

to recruit paying attendees for a meeting of lawyers who defend 

manufacturers in product liability cases. In offering to pay for her 

trip, Defense Research Institute lawyer Steven Coronado wrote, I 

do ask that you assist in marketing by using the brochures you 

have received and getting them into the hands of people that you 

think might be interested in attending. And the comment of the 

Project on Government Oversight called the request ‘‘creepy’. 

Ms. NORD. I agree. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So you didn’t respond to that? 

Ms. NORD. Well, with respect to the DRI thing, I have no recollection of anyone asking me to go out and recruit people to attend 

their conference. I get lots of things in the mail, many of them I 

don’t see, and I didn’t do that. 

With respect to the bigger issue, the CPSC travel regulations 

have been in place for 20 years. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. No, I heard you say that before. 

Let me ask another specific question. In February, the International Consumer Product Health and Safety Organization, a 

broad-based professional group, balked at the agency’s request that 

it pay for 6 Commission employees to attend its meeting in Orlando. They said they, too, are on a tight budget, offered to pay for 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
33 

your expenses and partial expenses for one staff member. So is it 

your policy to actually recruit funding for trips for Commission 

staff? 

Ms. NORD. Of course not, and there was no such request. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Oh, well, so we just have a difference of opinion here? 

Ms. NORD. No, no. It is very clear. We do not solicit those invitations. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Well, we will have to check back with that 

agency that said that there was a request. 

Ms. NORD. We will work with you on that. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I will ask them as well. 

Is it not true that there is one full-time employee of the CPSC, 

full-time employee, who is in charge of inspecting toys, Bob, and he 

is retiring? 

Ms. NORD. There are a number of people. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I understand. Is there one full-time employee 

in charge of—— 

Ms. NORD. No, there are other full-time employees who test toys; 

and, indeed, with respect to the employee that you have in mind, 

he often does other things. That is just an inaccurate statement. 

It is an urban myth that has grown up around us, and it is really, 

really time that it be put to rest because it is not fair to the employee and agency. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Well, if I could get a list of the full-time employees that inspect toys, that would be extremely helpful. 

Ms. NORD. I would be happy to provide it. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Commissioner Moore, you have asked us for 

patience. And, right now, consumers are in the buying season for 

toys for their children and are not feeling particularly patient right 

now. In fact, I think a lot of them are deciding to go other than 

for toys, for other products. How long—and I agree that the 

downsizing has been going on for years. But I am just wondering 

how long you think it is that it would take for the Consumer Product Safety Commission to regain the confidence of Americans that 

they could trust the products that they find, particularly for their 

children? And do you think that our legislation would make a big 

difference in that? 

Mr. MOORE. I definitely think your legislation would make a big 

difference. I wish I could tell you with some specificity in terms of 

how long it might take, but we are talking about the need to develop experienced people on these particular issues at the Commission. It may take 2 or 3 years to do that. But, in the meantime, 

we will be working on it, and we will let the public be aware of 

our work, and we will continue to look at potentially harmful products. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, if I could ask one final question. 

Yes or no, Chairman Nord—thank you, Mr. Moore. Would you 

support a travel ban of the sort paid for by companies as the FDA, 

the FCC, USDA, Congress have? 

Ms. NORD. That is totally up to Congress. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Would you support it? 

Ms. NORD. That is up to Congress. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
34 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. You have commented on many provisions. It 

is an easy yes or no. 

Ms. NORD. If Congress wishes to do that and gives us the budget, 

yes, of course I would. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. 

Burgess. 

The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Tennessee, Mrs. 

Blackburn. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I thank 

you and I thank Mr. Burgess for allowing me to go ahead so I can 

make my meeting. 

I am going to follow up on a couple of things and just get a little 

more in depth; and I thank you, Ms. Nord, for your patience with 

us today. 

We talked a little bit about the third-party testing, and I wanted 

to know if you could tell us how many companies are using this 

third-party testing, how many companies under your jurisdiction? 

Can you give us a number of the number of companies that are 

using this? 

And the other part of this question is, as we have worked 

through this process, I have wondered about the number of companies that import component parts and then do the assembly in the 

U.S. Are they going through this third-party testing and can you 

give us that information? 

Ms. NORD. With respect to how many companies are doing thirdparty independent testing today, it really depends on what kind of 

product we are talking about. With respect to toys, you have seen 

that grow dramatically; and, indeed, the toy industry, along with 

the American National Standards Institute, have put in place an 

industry-wide plan to deal with this. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Let me stop you right there then if we don’t 

have a number. 

What I would like to ask you all to do—and I am not trying to 

make work on this—but you have got some working groups that 

have all worked on this legislation. If you can approach these 

groups and give us an idea of how many companies are using the 

independent testing, how many are manufacturing the component 

parts, doing the assembly here, which we know there are lots of toy 

companies that do that, and then give us an idea of their use of 

the independent testing and then be able to let us get an idea of 

how successful that has been. 

I hope they are reporting the data back to you and that you have 

access to some of this data. I think it would be helpful to you, and 

I know it would be very helpful to us. We have discussed this issue 

a lot. You have come before the committee quite a bit. And I wish 

that you had that information to tell us if the companies feel like 

they are successful. If they are failing to report data to you I think 

we need to know that. Once we do this legislation, knowing that 

that testing works is going to be more than a theory, it has got to 

be more than a theory. 

Ms. NORD. Of course. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. So if you will work with us on that. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
35 

Another thing, the $20 million to update the labs, I want you to 

speak for a minute, is that sufficient? And what span of time, what 

is your time line for updating these labs and employing some of the 

new technologies that should yield better results, quicker turnarounds, et cetera? 

Ms. NORD. I am hopeful that we will be able to do this in a quick 

time line. We have got a proposal right now with GSA to look at 

real estate solutions to our laboratory problem. If we stay where 

we are, we are going to have to basically demolish it. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Is $20 million sufficient? Your time line in 

your proposal, does that cover it? 

Ms. NORD. I think $20 million should do it. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. And then Section 103 of the bill, the labels— 

and I think Ms. Schakowsky is the one who was talking about that, 

and you mentioned you needed—if the rulemaking authority was 

workable, that it would be practicable, I think was your comment 

to us. And what I would like to ask you is if you would consider 

this—if the Commission would consider this a new mandate? And 

then for our small business manufacturers, our small toy manufacturers, if you look at it as an unfunded mandate in that regard. 

If you would just speak to that, and if you need to get back to 

me in writing, I think that is fine, too. 

Ms. NORD. Well, I think the underlying intent of the provision 

is very good. It is very useful to be able to track products back to 

where they were manufactured. So that I am very pleased with. 

But, again, I think the Commission needs the rulemaking flexibility to deal with that issue and others that will come up implementing this. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. So we need to put a little bit more attention 

on that one is what I am hearing you say. 

Section 209, to require a manufacturer to provide notice of recall 

products on its Web site, to make radio and TV announcements, including in languages other than Spanish, is there any other agency 

that has had this authority or this mandate and has NHTSA done 

this? Are you in new territory here or do you have something you 

are going to lean on for guidance? 

Ms. NORD. I am not aware of other agencies that do this to this 

extent. Of course, NHTSA is dealing with a very heavily regulated 

product, so it can talk to the companies. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. My time has expired, so let me cut you off. 

Mr. Chairman, if I might, if counsel could provide us some guidance on that Section 209, I think that might be helpful as we move 

forward with our discussion; and I yield my time back. Thank you. 

Ms. NORD. Thank you. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barrow. 

Mr. BARROW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Commissioner Nord, in church, when you want to talk to the 

preacher about something delicate, you don’t tell him what you 

think, you tell him what others are saying. You say, some have 

said that your sermon is a little too long or some have said that 

you’re not hitting this theme or that theme or some have said that 

the CPSC ain’t exercising its rulemaking authority, that it has got 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
36 

rulemaking constipation somewhere along the line. I don’t know 

where it is. 

But some have even gone so far as to say the manufacturing 

community would like to have some guidance, like to have some 

standards, especially those that are complying with best practices, 

our laws, domestic laws on the subject of the poisons and toxins 

you are supposed to keep out of products. Some folks have said 

that it would be helpful. 

Now, 4040, H.R. 4040, has got a provision in there that proposes 

to streamline the process for rulemaking. This is a direct follow-up 

to the gentlelady from Tennessee’s comments about the rulemaking 

authority. My question to you is, if this were to be adopted and the 

rulemaking authority for the CPSC were to be streamlined in the 

manner called for by H.R. 4040, would it actually result in any new 

rules being adopted or would it result in any rules being adopted 

in a more expeditious manner? Would anything change? I want to 

hear from you as to whether or not that provision would actually 

result in any change in the rulemaking activity of the Commission. 

Ms. NORD. Well, since I recommended it, I certainly hope it will. 

What I think is important is to understand how we would use this. 

Mr. BARROW. Can you tell me that it will make a change? 

Ms. NORD. Yes. 

Mr. BARROW. How will it make a change? 

Ms. NORD. It will allow us to operate more quickly, regulate more 

quickly with amendments. 

Mr. BARROW. I understand that as a process. What are the kinds 

of things we can expect that we haven’t seen so far? 

Ms. NORD. When we are doing amendments to regulations, when 

we are doing technical, noncontroversial kinds of regulations, we 

can do two-part rulemaking, just doing notice of proposed rulemaking and then a final rule, as opposed to the three-step rulemaking which is under our statute. 

Mr. BARROW. How many instances can you think of where you 

all have been unable to get things done under the current threestep process you think you could get done under the proposed twostep process? 

Ms. NORD. Again, technical changes, amendments to rules, 

things that are noncontroversial, things where we are not breaking 

new territory, I think we can do that in two-step. But where we 

are doing complicated and new kinds of regulations, then we 

should have the option to do three-step rulemaking, because that 

allows us to develop information and refine our regulatory approach to problems. 

Mr. BARROW. Well, if this is incorporated in the final bill, I am 

going to look to you all to exercise that authority to the fullest. 

Now I want to follow up on a subject that I raised, and that is 

the subject of financial responsibility on the part of people who are 

way outside the reach of the civil justice system in this country, for 

whom you really are the only cop on the beat anywhere policing a 

market that is dominated by foreign importers. The Senate has a 

provision, a bonding requirement, that basically says if you have 

gotten into trouble and messed up in the past you are going to 

have to post a bond as a condition of getting back into the marketplace. Well, it seems to me to be pretty silly to give people who 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
37 

have a demonstrated track record of messing up, to force them to 

buy their way back into the marketplace when we have no way of 

knowing who those people will be in advance of the trouble that 

they cause. 

What do you think about the idea of trying to impose financial 

responsibility as a condition for entering the American marketplace 

in the first place? I mean, we have lost the ability to hold anybody 

accountable for what they do. And whenever we have stripped 

away that fundamental, very conservative underpinning of safety 

in the marketplace we got to replace it with something or basically 

going to start subsidizing, corner-cutting in hazard-producing activity in markets that are beyond—by suppliers who are beyond the 

reach of the folks that they harm. What do you think about something like that? 

Ms. NORD. I would like to understand better how that would 

work, and perhaps we can sit down and talk about that. I would 

like to see a model for where that has worked in other areas. 

Mr. BARROW. I will tell you what my words were. You can’t get 

a license to drive a car in this country without complying with a 

financial responsibility to law in the State where you want to get 

your license. And it is not to protect you from other people, it is 

to protect other people from you. 

Now, why don’t we apply a similar mentality to folks who want 

to not just come into a marketplace but dominate our marketplace? 

Why don’t we tell the manufacturers who got 80 to 90 percent of 

the market in this country that as a condition of you doing business in this country we are going to make sure that you do it right. 

The goal—what I am getting at is the goal ought to be that if it 

is bought and sold in the USA, it is going to be just as safe as if 

it was made in the USA. 

Ms. NORD. Well, that is a goal that I think is admirable and 

agree with. 

Mr. BARROW. How can we possibly accomplish that if you all are 

the only cop on the beat with respect to a market that has gone 

from 80 percent we make it in this country to 80 percent it is made 

someplace else and shipped into this country in containers in a 

vast stream of commerce? 

We channel to Mississippi, out of its channel and it is going 

north instead of south. I mean, it is that big a change in the 

stream of commerce, and we got nothing, nothing policing it except 

you guys, and you guys were never designed to be the end-all, beall and certainly don’t have the resources to do that. 

Ms. NORD. Well, yes. But I think practically what you are suggesting may have untoward or unexpected consequences, especially 

on small businesses. 

Mr. BARROW. I am sure it will, but so has the current process of 

basically outsourcing the supply of stuff without outsourcing any of 

the compliance regime that we take for granted. 

Mr. RUSH. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Burgess. 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Nord, currently within your agency what type of outreach do you do to notify nonprofits and other secondhand retailers 

when you have a product recall? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
38 

Ms. NORD. Each recall, of course, is different, and each recall has 

an outreach program which is specific to that recall. But what we 

do at a minimum is we require notice on the Web site, we require 

posters, we require notification of consumers to the extent that the 

company knows the consumer, and then we put other requirements 

on as needed. 

Are you talking about older products. 

Mr. BURGESS. Anything that might be available for sale at Goodwill, Salvation Army. I have got several—I have got Christian 

Community In Action. It is a huge resaler in my area. I am also 

concerned with things on Craigslist and eBay and things like that. 

Ms. NORD. I think the best example is our Neighborhood Safety 

Network, which is something we have developed, which is those 

kinds of groups. And we use them to leverage, to talk to other 

kinds of groups. So we do give notice to them and work with them 

for them to talk to their constituents. 

Mr. BURGESS. So can nonprofits sign up for an e-mail alert 

through CPSC’s Web site? 

Ms. NORD. Yes. We have a Drive to 1 Million program where people can go to CPSC dot-gov and sign up to get recall notices sent 

directly to their e-mail in-boxes. 

Mr. BURGESS. And then what kind of outreach right now is ongoing to the nonprofits themselves? 

Ms. NORD. Again, it depends on specifics. But, for example, with 

children’s products we on a very regular basis do a crib recall 

round-up. We go out and talk to daycares. 

The other thing that I think is very important here is that we 

notify all the State governors’ offices and attorneys general’s offices. A number of States have laws that prohibit the sale of recalled products or the use of recalled products, and that is another 

way that we can get the word out to local—— 

Mr. BURGESS. So the States have actually involved themselves in 

the lawmaking process? 

Ms. NORD. We have a number—every State has got a CPSC deputy, if you will, and we work with them. 

Mr. BURGESS. Can this equity then be translated into, say, having a retailer like Craigslist or Ebay post a banner ad on their Web 

site to check the product with CPSC for recall information before 

you buy it? 

Ms. NORD. They have been reluctant to do that. But we do have 

programs with them to make sure that they do not sell recalled 

products. 

Mr. BURGESS. So you do? Do you have ongoing surveillance on 

these sites? 

Ms. NORD. Yes, we do. 

Mr. BURGESS. That’s very good. 

Going back to the stuff I was talking about in the opening statement, the stuff about with the Food and Drug Administration, we 

are going to have legislation there; and I have added my own legislation that would allow the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration just simply arrest, stop, and cease delivery of a product into this country if we found there to be a serial violation of 

this country’s safety standards. And this is in regard to food products. Would such a system be helpful to CPSC as well? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
39 

Ms. NORD. Well, I think—yes, I think that we should be looking 

at tools whereby we can get to repeat offenders. But I think in the 

bill the provision that makes it a crime to sell recalled products is 

going to be very helpful. 

Mr. BURGESS. It is helpful, but I am not sure it is good enough. 

Because all summer we heard recall after recall. It sounded like a 

recall emergency to me. I mean, you couldn’t even turn on Lou 

Dobbs without them flashing something up there about this is recalled today and what is going to be recalled tomorrow. 

And then we heard testimony in another part of one of our hearings where the stuff is just accumulating. And if it is stuff with 

lead in it and there is no plan to dispose of the stuff, it seems to 

me to be only reasonable to stop the stuff before it gets here. Once 

we decide that, OK, it is coming in, this is a repeated violation 

from the same country that has repetitively violated our laws in 

the past and let us just stop it, let us make the ships turn around 

in the middle of the sea if necessary and keep that stuff from coming into Long Beach, California. 

Ms. NORD. Again, I agree with the goal that you are trying to get 

to. But what we need to make sure is that we can identify these 

products, and that is going to take place in a number of different 

ways. I just mentioned one. Another one is that Customs and Border Protection is working with us on their Automated Commercial 

Environment system so that we have got those records before the 

ship hits the dock, and that is what we need. 

Mr. BURGESS. Do you have it before the ship leaves the port from 

Shanghai or wherever? 

Ms. NORD. Yes. 

Mr. BURGESS. So, right now, are you able to deny admission of 

an imported product from a specific country, manufacturer or shipper if there are repeated instances where they have violated our 

laws or they have shipped contaminated product to our country? 

Ms. NORD. No, we would—— 

Mr. BURGESS. The answer is no? 

Ms. NORD. Yes. 

Mr. BURGESS. Yes, the answer is no. 

Ms. NORD. The answer is no. 

Mr. RUSH. Do you want to answer the question? 

Ms. NORD. Well, we can prohibit importation if it violates a safety standard or if we have reason to think that it is going to be a 

dangerous product. 

Mr. BURGESS. And are there any products recently where we 

have done that? 

Mr. RUSH. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from—Mr. Markey just 

walked in. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey. 

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

Chairman Nord, in 1981, the Gramm-Latta bill passed, and it 

was the budget proposal of Ronald Reagan. And in it there was a 

little provision under the Phil Gramm part of the bill that actually 

took jurisdiction away from you over fixed-site amusement parks 

denying you an authority, which your agency had up until then. 

Ms. NORD. Yes. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
40 

Mr. MARKEY. If we add language to this bill which gives you that 

authority back, will you exercise that authority to protect families 

as they go from State to State into amusement parks if there is an 

accident, to go in and investigate? 

Ms. NORD. If you give us the authority, we will enforce it. But 

I would also request that you give us the resources to enforce it as 

well. 

Mr. MARKEY. Well, you need more resources. There is no question about it. But I think you also need the authority. I think the 

resources will follow the authority, and so that would be my intention. 

There was a little loophole built in here, OK? And there were no 

hearings. You had the authority. It had been working very well. 

And so that is kind of still a historical disgrace as far as I am concerned in terms of taking the authority away from your agency. 

Now, let me ask this. When you get reports of potentially hazardous products from consumers, hospitals or companies, does 

CPSC enter them into a publicly available database so that people 

can search through them before they can buy the product? 

Ms. NORD. Gosh, we are talking about well over half a million 

reports. 

Mr. MARKEY. So the answer is no? 

Ms. NORD. No, we don’t. 

Mr. MARKEY. The answer is no. 

According to the Chicago Tribune, in 2005, the CPSC investigated less than 1 percent of all reports it got from emergency 

rooms. But once you do investigate and decide the public needs to 

be warned, can you immediately send out a press release? 

Ms. NORD. If the Commission determines that there is an imminent hazard and we need to do that, we can. 

Mr. MARKEY. Under the law, don’t you have to give 30 days so 

a company can sign off? 

Ms. NORD. We need to give 30 days to get comments on the fairness and accuracy of that. But under our imminent hazard provision, if we make that determination, we can proceed. 

Mr. MARKEY. And can a manufacturer—— 

Ms. NORD. Or if we file a complaint, we can proceed. 

Mr. MARKEY. Can a manufacturer actually sue CPSC to prevent 

you from issuing a warning at all? 

Ms. NORD. If they can show that what we are proposing to put 

out there is inaccurate. 

Mr. MARKEY. What if it is not inaccurate, can they sue you? 

Ms. NORD. They can sue us. They probably wouldn’t win. 

Mr. MARKEY. So the Commission gets injury reports that it almost never investigates and that it also keeps secret from the public. And if the Commission does want to tell the public about a risk, 

it has to ask the company’s permission to do so; and if the company 

objects, the Commission can be sued. That is, to me, just ludicrous; 

and I plan in this legislation to ensure that the legislation we report remedies that grave problem. 

Commissioner Moore, could you deal with that question and 

whether or not it makes any sense to have that provision remain 

on the books? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
41 

Mr. MOORE. I know I missed your point. I’m sorry. Would you 

mind repeating the question? 

Mr. MARKEY. I cannot hear you, sir. 

Mr. MOORE. Would you mind repeating the question? I missed 

the question. 

Mr. MARKEY. The question is, should we take that law off the 

books that requires the Commission to ask the company’s permission before public information is made about a defect which the 

CPSC finds? 

Mr. MOORE. I don’t think it is unreasonable to let a company 

know what the charge is about to be. But, in the meantime, it depends on the imminence of the hazard. If it is something that is 

extremely imminent and it is very hazardous, we have to move forward. Companies ought to have an opportunity to respond to it. 

Mr. MARKEY. Do you support the current law allowing companies 

to sue CPSC to prevent information from being disclosed? 

Mr. MOORE. No. 

Mr. MARKEY. You do not? 

Mr. MOORE. No. Because I don’t think that is in the public’s interest in many cases. 

Mr. MARKEY. That is very helpful to me. Thank you. I appreciate 

it. 

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

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

Ms. DeGette. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to express my appreciation for both of our witnesses coming today, because I do think that many of your suggestions are 

very helpful in helping us draft this legislation. 

Chairman Nord, I want to talk to you briefly about this travel 

issue; and I just—I think that we can come to some kind of agreement on this because I have been on this committee now for a long 

time. And we have had people come in and they say, well, lawyers 

approved this and this has been the practice. But sometimes when 

that happens no one actually sat back and said, wait a minute, 

does this really pass the smell test even though people have been 

doing it? 

And mores have changed in society, too. Members of Congress 

used to fly around on the tab of private industry, and now we have 

realized that that has the appearance of impropriety. So really my 

question to you—and it follows up on what Ms. Schakowsky—— 

Well, before I ask my question, I want to make one more point, 

which is, in fact, many other Government agencies do not allow 

regulated industries to pay for travel. For example, the Securities 

and Exchange Commission does not accept host-paid travel reimbursements from organizations regulated by the agency. The Food 

and Drug Administration also does not do that, and neither does 

the Federal Communications Commission. 

So my question to you simply is, given the changing mores, given 

what is going on, if Congress gave the agency a budget for travel 

to inspect these important areas, to look at, to go to the toy show, 

to look at these things, if you had an independent budget to do 

that, I assume you would not object to us also banning host-paid 

travel, correct? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
42 

Ms. NORD. Of course. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you very much. I think that solves that situation right there. 

I also want to ask you about these recalls, Chairman Nord. Because in my opening statement I am sure you heard me say that 

we had 150 recall notices for children’s products and toys this year, 

90 last year, and 60 going back to 2002. In your opening statement 

you had disputed those numbers. But the way we got those numbers was my staff went to the CPSC Web site and actually counted 

the number of recalls. And maybe it is because you are defining it 

more narrowly. You are only defining toys, and I am defining children’s products and toys. And your staff is now nodding in agreement. 

Ms. NORD. I am hearing from them. 

Ms. DEGETTE. But the basic bottom line is that my point is that 

the recall notices for this category, children’s products and toys, are 

going up. I think that it is likely because we have so many increasing imports coming in from abroad. Would you not agree with that? 

Ms. NORD. No, I don’t think I would in this respect. Our overall 

recalls inch up every year, and that is what you would expect them 

to do. And I looked at and stated in my statement toys—and we 

defined that very specifically—where we have seen the recalls go 

up is with respect to the lead paint violations. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Right. 

Ms. NORD. And that is where we have seen a big increase. That 

is because of what we have been doing. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Do you think a large part of that is because we 

are getting an increasing percentage of our toys from abroad, in 

particular from China? Your staff—some of them are also nodding. 

Ms. NORD. Indeed. The lead paint violations, by and large, were 

for Chinese-manufactured products. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Right. And that is because the market has shifted, 

right? 

Ms. NORD. Yes. 

Ms. DEGETTE. So this is another point I’d like to make, which 

is I think that the best way to stop the kids from getting these— 

I like this one. This one just says stop; and this one has lead in 

it, too. This is one of the recalled Thomas the Tank Engine toys. 

The way to stop these toys from coming in is to prevent the lead 

in the first place. Because I am sure you will agree all the studies 

show a tiny fraction of recalled toys are actually ever returned. So 

would you agree with me that the way to stop this would be to prevent the toys from coming in in the first place, if we could? 

Ms. NORD. Well, that is what we were doing with the recall. I 

mean, we have got a lead paint ban. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Except for when you do a recall, the toys are already out in the market and in the homes. So if you could find 

some way—and I think you testified about this in your testimony. 

If you could find some way to prevent the toys from coming into 

the homes in the first place, then you wouldn’t still have these toys 

in actually fairly sophisticated consumers’ homes. 

Ms. NORD. Well, my concern is that the provision in the bill is 

really not going to change that issue, because the lead that was 

coming in was above what was already violative of the law. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
43 

What we need to make sure is a couple of things: First of all, the 

certification authority which I have asked for which we do not have 

now with respect to these kinds of toys would be incredibly helpful, 

because what it would do is force companies to really look at these 

things before they are marketed. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Right. That is what I am saying. 

Ms. NORD. Then we are saying the same thing. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Then you agree. OK, great, thank you. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. 

Gonzalez. 

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

Chairwoman Nord, I want to follow up on something that Congressman Markey was pointing out. This 30-day requirement, unless there is some exigent circumstances, that is mandatory, right? 

The 30-day notice that the manufacturers or whoever is responsible 

for bringing the toy in—— 

Ms. NORD. No. Basically what the statute says is that before we 

disclose information that identifies a manufacturer and a product 

specifically, we give the manufacturer 30 days notice to make 

sure—to verify the accuracy of what we are going to put out there. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Do you really need 30 days for that? 

Ms. NORD. No, of course you don’t. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Do you have discretion to reduce the time period? 

Ms. NORD. Yes, we do. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. You do? 

Ms. NORD. We do. Your bill changes that from 30 days to 15 days 

and then gives us discretion as well. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. So you agree with that? 

Ms. NORD. Yes. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. So it seems to me that—if they protest or whatever, they can actually sue you at that point? 

Ms. NORD. They can seek to stop the release by going to court. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. So they can sue you prior to determination? 

Ms. NORD. Yes. They would go into court—— 

Mr. GONZALEZ. If you do make a determination, they can sue you 

after the determination is made? 

Ms. NORD. I am sorry? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. I am saying that prior to you making any type 

of determination, the process of arriving at a decision, they can 

come and legally file suit contesting this process, in essence, that 

you are going to identify them as a manufacturer wherever it is of 

potentially dangerous toy—I am trying to get it straight as to 

where—at what point in time can a manufacturer come in and sue 

you? From the start the process? 

Ms. NORD. We would let them know what information we would 

disclose. They would come back and say it is inaccurate. We would 

say, apparently, under your scenario, we are still going to release 

it. At that point, they could then go into court and seek a temporary restraining order, or whatever is the appropriate legal device to try to stop it. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. So they can sue you prior to you making the determination public? 

Ms. NORD. Yes, assuming the court is willing to hear the case. 

That is a court procedure, not our procedure. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
44 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Let’s say they don’t file a lawsuit in that process 

but then you make that determination, you issue whatever you are 

going to issue regarding the danger and the manufacturer and so 

on, and they disagree that you should have done that. Can they 

then come back and do anything after the fact? 

Ms. NORD. They would be suing—or they would be protesting our 

action in releasing the documents. So at that point I don’t think 

there would be any cause of action. But, frankly, I would really like 

my lawyers to respond to these questions. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Well, it leads me up to something that you have 

in your testimony. Legislation also includes a more than five-fold 

increase in the cap on CPSC’s civil penalties. 

Ms. NORD. Yes. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. So we have increased the exposure in the way of 

dollar penalties to these individuals, these companies. 

Ms. NORD. Yes. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. And you have said this is a reasoned approach to 

increasing the agency’s civil penalties and strengthening the agency’s hand. 

Ms. NORD. Yes. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. What troubles me is the following: Without forcing the CPSC to respond to a flood of litigation—what you are saying is that it is a reasonable increase. But, if we went beyond it, 

you would think there would be all this protest from the manufacturers and you would have all these lawsuits. Is that what you 

mean? 

Ms. NORD. If could I expand on my answer for just a moment. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Sure. 

Ms. NORD. The agency imposes civil penalties in 99 percent of 

the times for failure to report to us potential problems. That is 

where we use the civil penalty authority. Increasing it in the way 

that the bill does in the way the House has already passed it 

would, I think, give us a tool we need. But what our compliance 

officers are concerned about is that if it were increased many, 

many, many times, that companies would basically flood us with 

data so that the trees would get lost in the forest and that way we 

would not be able to do our job. And that is what—— 

Mr. GONZALEZ. It would flood you with litigation is your testimony? 

Ms. NORD. It would flood us with data—— 

Mr. GONZALEZ. In the context of a lawsuit? 

Ms. NORD. No, no, of course not. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Respond to a flood of new litigation. That is what 

you are saying. 

See, what I am saying is, don’t worry so much about a flood of 

new litigation. If you have tools and penalties that get people’s attention, then that is all right. I am just concerned about a flood of 

new litigation, and I just don’t want any hesitancy on the part of 

the Commission to be tough and not be fearful of litigation. 

Ms. NORD. Well, what I am concerned about there, sir, is that if 

the exposure is $100 million or more, people are not going to sit 

and work with us. Instead, they are going to fight us. So our resources are going to be diverted into court cases, as opposed to 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
45 

dealing with companies to try to resolve disputes; and I just don’t 

think that would be good—— 

Mr. GONZALEZ. I am going to disagree with you. Because I think 

when the penalties are out there and they are stiff, it gets people’s 

attention. That is the way the system has worked in this country 

for over 200 years. 

Mr. RUSH. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Oregon. 

Ms. HOOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just need some clarification from you. I was talking to a fairly 

large chain store, and I asked them about what goes on their 

shelves and how do they make sure that the toys are safe and the 

products safe. And they went on to tell me how they go to the manufacturer, wherever the manufacturer is, and ensure that they are 

safe before they even reach our shores and reach their shelves. So 

they have full confidence that what they are selling is safe. 

So my question is, if a chain store can do that, can your agency 

do that to test these toys? I mean—and I am, as you know, very 

concerned about the lead in toys for children. Can your agency 

make sure that these toys are tested before they leave the country 

where they were manufactured so we don’t even have to get into 

the recalls? 

I mean, as you have heard said today, if a toy is recalled, the 

problem is a parent doesn’t really know—it may be sitting, you 

know, in an old box where, if you have a lot of kids, you stuff toys 

over here and save them for the next child. So can we stop them 

from coming into the country in the first place? 

Ms. NORD. Our agency does not have premarket testing and certification requirements. I have asked the Congress to include legislation that would give us the authority to require that companies 

certify that they are complying with existing safety standards. If 

companies did that, that would then force the testing to occur; and 

I would like to see that authority in this legislation. 

Ms. HOOLEY. Do you think the bill as it is currently written has 

that authority? 

Ms. NORD. No, it does not. I would like to see that authority. 

Ms. HOOLEY. OK. Second question I have—so there is a way to 

do that if we give you the authority to do that? 

Ms. NORD. Certification authority would be very helpful. 

Ms. HOOLEY. OK. The second question I have is, you have testified in the Senate, you have testified before in this committee, and 

I have heard sort of this—well, we don’t need the money; well, we 

need the money; well, we don’t need—so I just need to know, where 

are you in terms of what do you need to do the job to the very best 

of your ability? I mean, I understand that it is difficult to go out 

and hire 400 people or 200 people at a time. But what are we talking about? What is the amount of money that it is going to take 

for to you really do your job? 

Ms. NORD. I have said repeatedly, and I will say it again, I would 

welcome more resources. I want more money. 

Now, with respect to the specifics, what we did when this committee passed out the previous legislation is our administrative 

staff sat down and priced it out, if you will. What we found was, 

in order to comply with that, we are going to need—I believe it was 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
46 

around—someplace between 35 and 38 additional staff and about 

$6 million additional. I did the same thing with the Senate bill, 

and that was much higher. We will do that with this bill as well, 

and we will do it very quickly. 

Ms. HOOLEY. OK. And then the last question I have for you is, 

again, when you were testifying in front of the Senate committee 

that you said you opposed the whistleblower provision; and you 

talked about this would drain resources. Do you have any economic 

data on that? And, if so, what is it? And is there any whistleblower 

provisions that you would, in fact, be for? 

Ms. NORD. One observation I would make to you, just as an 

aside, is after I sent that letter up to the Senate expressing my 

concerns there, the Senate did amend the provision. So, to a certain 

extent, they attempted to listen. I continued to be very concerned 

about it. And what I would like to do, if I might, is submit a memorandum to you that outlines my concerns in more detail, including 

the economic concerns. 

Ms. HOOLEY. OK. And is there a whistleblower provision that 

you would support? 

Ms. NORD. I would really need to see the language. I mean, I 

can’t—— 

Ms. HOOLEY. If you say you don’t like what was in the Senate, 

so—and you are going to send me the economic data, which I would 

really appreciate, I guess as just opposing something, I would also 

love to know what you might support. 

Ms. NORD. Again—— 

Ms. HOOLEY. Just send me what—I mean, just send me what you 

think you would support. 

Mr. RUSH. The gentlelady’s time is up. 

Ms. HOOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now recognizes the chairman of the full 

committee, Mr. Dingell. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank you. 

Chairman Nord, first, thank you for having made your staff 

available to the committee while we wrote the legislation. They 

have been very helpful. 

I am going to submit to you a letter which I would ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, be inserted in the record at the appropriate place. 

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chairman, it will be about the adequacy 

of the funds authorized to CPSC in H.R. 4040 and also the number 

of full-time equivalents and whether they would be adequate under 

the legislation and within what time frame you could submit those, 

you could put those people to work to do the business that has to 

be done down there. 

Could you give us your comments about what would be the practical effect of having CPSC return to a five-commissioner body? As 

you know, you are now condemned to functioning with two. It is 

my view that this would confer significant benefits in additional efficiency, competence and your ability to carry out your mission. Am 

I correct in that? 

Ms. NORD. I don’t have any information about the relative merits. The Appropriations Committee did look at that in the late 

1980s, early 1990s and reached an opposite conclusion which they 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
47 

expressed pretty strongly in the committee report language. So I 

really can’t address that beyond saying that. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, Madam Chairman, would you share with us 

here your thoughts on the provisions in H.R. 4040 that would permit the CPSC to share information pursuant to section 6 of the 

Consumer Product Safety Act with foreign governments? Since we 

now live in a world of global commerce, do you agree that it makes 

sense under controlled conditions to share this information with 

other countries so that they and we might work better to ensure 

the public health and safety? 

Ms. NORD. I am pleased to see the provision in this bill. It is 

something I requested back in July. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, Madam Chairman, do you have any concerns 

that certain governments might not keep the information shared 

under this framework confidential? 

Ms. NORD. I think that the committee has addressed this in the 

provision. 

Mr. DINGELL. That does constitute a problem, doesn’t it? 

Ms. NORD. It could, yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Do you have any specific countries that would be 

of particular concern to you? 

Ms. NORD. I am not—— 

Mr. DINGELL. You don’t think you would like to answer that at 

this time? 

Ms. NORD. Thank you. 

Mr. DINGELL. I will respect that. Will it be useful for us to negotiate a memorandum of understanding with the European Union 

pertaining to consumer product safety? 

Ms. NORD. We already have one. 

Mr. DINGELL. Do you need authority to do that? 

Ms. NORD. No, we have already done that. 

Mr. DINGELL. OK. Now is there any reason why a firm should 

not provide CPSC with information concerning contractors and subcontractors that it uses to produce a consumer product for sale in 

the United States? 

Ms. NORD. I have not thought that through. I don’t see why not. 

Mr. DINGELL. Let’s take a look at China, where we buy all kinds 

of stuff from the Chinese. We don’t have the vaguest idea of who 

is producing that. We don’t have the vaguest idea of what safety 

steps are being taken. Usually, the stuff is not scrutinized by a 

Chinese Government agency at any level of government, nor is it 

scrutinized indeed here at home. You have virtually nobody at the 

gates to see who is sending what in and whether it is safe or not. 

And so is there any reason why you should not be able to compel 

the importers to provide information with regard to contractors and 

subcontractors that are used to produce consumer products for sale 

in the United States? 

Ms. NORD. I think that makes sense. And what I am trying—why 

I am hesitating is that I believe that that was part of our agreement with the government of China, but I would like to confirm 

that. 

Mr. DINGELL. This would help you with regard to recalls, and it 

would probably in that particular alone serve to protect the public 

health and safety, would it not? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
48 

Ms. NORD. Again, traceability is a very key concept; and it is 

something that we are working through. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, Madam Chairman, H.R. 4040 amends section 

15 of the Consumer Product Safety Act to permit CPSC to review 

and improve companies’ plans for mandatory consumer product recalls. 

Ms. NORD. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. In your opinion, is this a good idea? 

Ms. NORD. Absolutely. 

Mr. DINGELL. Would you tell us why, please? 

Ms. NORD. Because I think it is absolutely imperative that we 

design recalls that address—reach the most consumers in the most 

effective way. 

Mr. DINGELL. Could you cite examples of product recall plans 

that might have benefited otherwise from having been reviewed by 

CPSC before? I will let you submit that for the record, if that would 

be your wish. 

Ms. NORD. Thank you very much. 

Mr. DINGELL. I would ask that the record remain open for that 

purpose, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RUSH. So ordered. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I notice that I am 33 seconds over 

time. Thank you for your courtesy and thank you for being here. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Ross. 

Mr. ROSS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and, Chairwoman Nord, 

thank you for joining us here today. 

I, like most American citizens, believe that we have a Consumer 

Product Safety Commission to ensure the safety of products for 

consumers. It seems to me, based on a number of decisions and the 

types of recalls made, that the Consumer Product Safety Commission has become more of a commission to protect big business, a 

commission to protect big corporations, many of which are not even 

located or employing Americans. 

I just want to ask you—and I will give one example. I could give 

many. Just October 25—this is fairly recent. This is November 6— 

October 25, ‘‘Serious head injuries prompt recall of Bumbo Baby 

Sitter seats. New warnings and instructions to be provided to consumers.’’ 

This Bumbo Baby Sitter seat, there is about a million of them 

out there. They are made in South Africa. They are not made by 

American workers. And the hazard, according to your agency, if the 

seat is placed on a table, countertop, chair, or other elevated surface, young children can arch their backs, flip out of the Bumbo 

seat and fall onto the floor, posing a risk of serious head injuries. 

To date, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has received 

28 reports of young children falling out of the Bumbo Baby Sitter 

seat, including three skull fractures which occurred when children 

fell out of chairs that had been placed on tables. 

I am somewhat familiar with this, because my colleague from Arkansas, Congressman Vic Snyder, has a young child, Penn; and 

when Penn was less than a year old, they purchased this Bumbo 

Baby Sitter seat. The picture on the box illustrates that it is something you should buy if you want to set your young child on the 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
49 

kitchen countertop, the kitchen island, many people refer to it as, 

while you are cooking, while you are working in the kitchen. That 

was the picture depicted on the box to market this thing, the 

Bumbo Baby Sitter seat. 

And Penn fell out of it. Thank God, he didn’t fall off the kitchen 

island. Instead, he smushed his face into the towel on the kitchen 

island. He wasn’t seriously injured. No telling what could have 

happened had he fallen all the way to the floor. 

But Congressman Snyder’s concern and my concern is that this 

product was not recalled. They saw it on the news; and, like many 

Americans, they assumed it had been recalled. They went back to 

where they bought it from, and the guy at the store was very nice 

and very courteous, and he explained to them, oh, no, the Consumer Product Safety Commission did not recall the product. The 

Consumer Product Safety Commission recalled the box. 

Now that is not exactly what you did. But you basically—here is 

your remedy. The box is what consumers were buying. They were 

buying it for its intended purpose, and now they are told they can’t 

use it in that way. But the product was not recalled, which to me 

was siding with big business instead of siding with the consumer. 

When you go out to the store and you buy something, you buy 

it based on what the box tells you it will do. It was bought for one 

thing, and now you are telling folks it can be used for another 

thing. 

Here is the remedy. Consumers should never use the infant seat 

on a table, countertop, chair or other elevated surface. Consumers 

can contact Bumbo to obtain new warning labels, stickers and instructions free of charge. The new warning label will state, ‘‘Warning: Prevent falls. Never use on any elevated surface. Consumers 

should use the Bumbo seat at ground level but never leave a child 

unattended.’’ 

Twenty-eight injuries, three skull fractures. There is a lot of 

Penns out there—a million of them—that have one of these; and 

so the Consumer Product Safety Commission is now telling parents 

that when a child is in his Bumbo seat on a table, countertop, chair 

or other elevated surface, the young child may very well arch their 

backs and flip out of the Bumbo seat. But apparently if the Bumbo 

Chair is on the floor, something happens to the child where they 

are no longer able to arch their backs and flip out of the Bumbo 

seat onto the floor. 

We are talking about young children. We are talking about infants. And yes, if they fall from a kitchen island it could very well 

kill them—28 injuries, three skull fractures. But what about the 

children that are simply sitting in this on a hardwood floor or on 

a concrete patio? So are you saying that if they are sitting on the 

hardwood or concrete patio, something is going to keep them from 

arching their backs or flipping out of the seat? 

I guess what I am getting at is, what type of tests—and I am 

assuming there were enormous testing done by the Consumer 

Product Safety Commission before siding with Bumbo International 

in South Africa. What kind of tests were done to ensure that if a 

child does very well arch their back and flip out of the Bumbo seat 

onto the concrete patio or onto a hardwood floor that no injury 

whatsoever is going to occur? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
50 

Ms. NORD. The issue with the Bumbo baby seat was one whereby 

the instructions that were given for use—and that is that the company said in their instructions, do not use this on an elevated surface; nevertheless, they put it on the box. And that is absolutely 

wrong, and it needs to be corrected, and that is what we were 

doing. 

The injuries that occurred happened when the parent put the 

child in the seat and the child wiggled or came out of the seat and 

fell off the elevated surface onto the ground. That is the injury. 

And that is why we took the action we did. 

You cannot have a situation where a company says in its product 

instructions, don’t use this on an elevated surface, but then has 

packaging that shows that warned-against behavior. I mean, we 

can’t allow that; and that is why we took the action we did. 

Mr. ROSS. Which was simply slapping them on the wrist, rather 

than recalling the product. 

Ms. NORD. That is not correct, sir. 

Mr. RUSH. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair and the members of the subcommittee really thank 

the two witnesses for their participation today. You have been very, 

very generous with your time, and we certainly appreciate it, and 

we look forward to working with you into the future. 

The committee now will ask that this panel disassemble and that 

the second panel please assemble. 

We have as a member of the second panel Ms. Kathrin Belliveau. 

She is the director of public safety and regulatory affairs for 

Hasbro Inc., with corporate headquarters in Pawtucket, Rhode Island. Hasbro is the No. 2 manufacturer after Mattel of toys and 

games in the world, with annual sales of more than $3 billion. Its 

toys and brands include Playskool, Tonka, Super Soaker, Milton 

Bradley and Parker Brothers. 

Sitting next to Ms. Belliveau is Dr. Dana Best, M.D., M.P.H., 

American Academy of Pediatrics. Dr. Best is on the faculty of the 

George Washington University School of Medicine and attends in 

pediatrics at Children’s National Medical Center here in our Nation’s capital. Her research focuses on lead exposure of pregnant 

women and children living in the District of Columbia. 

Sitting next to Dr. Best is Mr. Lane Hallenbeck, the vice president, accreditation services, American National Standards Institute, ANSI. ANSI is a not-for-profit organization that accredits national standards to developing organizations and improves American national standards. It brings together organizations from both 

the private and public sector dedicated to furthering U.S. and 

international voluntary consensus standards and conforming to assessments. 

Sitting next to Mr. Hallenbeck is Mr. Alan Korn, public policy director and general counsel, Safe Kids Worldwide. Safe Kids Worldwide is a global network of organizations whose mission is to prevent accidental childhood injury, the leading killer of children 14 

and under. Within the United States, Safe Kids USA consists of 

more than 300 coalitions nationwide, implements public outreach 

and awareness campaigns, conducts hands-on grassroots activity 

and works to make childhood injury prevention a public policy priority. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
51 

Sitting next to Mr. Korn is Mr. Joseph M. McGuire, who is the 

president of the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, 

AHAM, tested on behalf of the National Association of Manufacturers. AHAM is the United States-based trade association of the 

home appliance manufacturing industry. Its members include the 

manufacturers of major portable and floor care home appliances 

and the companies who supply and service these manufacturers. 

And next to Mr. McGuire is Ms. Rachel Weintraub. She is the 

director of product safety and senior counsel for the Consumer Federation of America. The Consumer Federation of America is a notfor-profit organization, association of 300 consumer groups, with a 

combined membership of over 50 million people. CFA was founded 

in 1968 to advance consumer interests through advocacy and education. 

We will now recognize Ms. Belliveau for 5 minutes of opening 

statements. 

STATEMENT OF KATHRIN BELLIVEAU, DIRECTOR, PRODUCT 

SAFETY AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS, HASBRO, INC. 

Ms. BELLIVEAU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

subcommittee. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to provide 

testimony on H.R. 4040, the Consumer Product Safety Modernization Act of 2007. On behalf of Hasbro, I would like to express our 

appreciation to the members of the committee and your staffs for 

your bipartisan efforts to address consumer product safety issues. 

Hasbro is a worldwide leader in the design and manufacture of 

toys and games that are enjoyed by children and families both here 

in the U.S. and abroad. Our widely recognized brands include 

Playskool, Tonka, Milton Bradley, Transformers, Nerf and Parker 

Brothers. 

As Director of Product Safety and Regulatory Affairs at Hasbro 

and as a mother of two young girls, no issue is more important to 

me than the safety of our toys and of the children who enjoy them. 

Our product safety and quality assurance systems are based on a 

comprehensive and stringent review process at every stage of product development and production. We require that all of our products meet or exceed all applicable national and international standards as well as our own internal often more stringent Hasbro 

standards. And to ensure compliance with these standards, 

Hasbro’s testing and quality control procedures have always included independent, third-party testing of our products. 

While Hasbro has not been impacted by the recent lead paint recalls, we have taken additional steps to confirm that our products 

and systems and procedures are being adhered to and that we are 

doing everything possible to make the safest toys for our children. 

We have checked 100 percent of our vendor base, and we have carried out over 1,000 additional confirmatory product tests over and 

above all of the tests that are routinely carried out by Hasbro, our 

retailers and third parties in accordance with the testing program 

we have had in place for years. We have also stepped up inspections of all factories manufacturing Hasbro products, both here in 

the U.S. as well as overseas. 

While nothing is more important to Hasbro than the safety of our 

toys, we recognize that no system is perfect and that, when it 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
52 

comes to a child’s safety, we must continuously be vigilant. We are 

constantly looking to improve and learn from every situation where 

there is an issue related to a toy’s safety, and we support congressional efforts to equip regulators with the resources and tools to ensure that our industry as a whole produces the safest possible products for our children. 

H.R. 4040 significantly tightens the regulation of toy safety. As 

you know, it sets a high bar, but by working closely with industry 

and others, the committee has crafted a framework that is workable while enhancing toy safety. The heart of that framework is a 

new lead content standard and a mandatory third-party testing regime. 

This legislation creates a new and significantly lower limit on the 

total amount of lead that can be in any accessible part of the toy, 

and this limit goes down over time. As the committee knows, 

Hasbro supports reducing the current total lead content standard, 

although not to the levels currently envisioned in the legislation. 

The legislation also breaks new ground by proposing for the first 

time in Federal law a limit on soluble lead. We believe that, when 

combined with an appropriate total lead standard, the soluble limit 

in the bill will further enhance protection for children by limiting 

the amount of lead that a child can be exposed to. Therefore, we 

would urge the committee to consider combining a workable total 

lead standard with a 90 part per million soluble limit. 

Hasbro supports mandatory third-party testing. Working with 

the Toy Industry Association, we have been seeking to develop a 

rigorous third-party testing system. This system will include vendor audits, additional process controls and product testing. Products will be reviewed for conformity not only with the mandatory 

standards but the voluntary standards as well. In Hasbro’s view, 

the proposed legislation strikes the right balance by carefully defining independence and by requiring that the testing entity be accredited in accordance with an accreditation process established or 

recognized by the CPSC. 

The bill also includes severe civil penalties for failure to report 

on a timely basis a potential product safety hazard to the CPSC. 

In light of these significant penalties, we think the law would benefit from more precise definitions covering responsibility of manufacturers to provide information to the CPSC. We also think that 

a standard of intent should be included in the bill, and we look forward to working with the committee on these issues. 

We have had the committee draft for a little over 4 days, and we 

are still completing a review of some of its provisions. We do have 

questions on several other provisions that we hope to further explore with you and the staff. 

Finally, let me again say that we at Hasbro take the safety of 

children very seriously; and we look forward to working with you 

on these and other issues as this legislative process unfolds. Thank 

you again for the opportunity to appear today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Belliveau follows:] 

STATEMENT OF KATHRIN BELLIVEAU

Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee: 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to provide testimony on H.R. 4040, The 

Consumer Product Safety Modernization Act of 2007. On behalf of Hasbro, I would 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
53 

like to express our appreciation to the Members of this Committee and your staffs 

for your bipartisan efforts to address consumer product safety issues. 

Hasbro is a worldwide leader in the design and manufacture of toys and games 

that are enjoyed by children and families both here in the U.S. and abroad. Our 

widely recognized brands include Playskool, Tonka, Milton Bradley, Nerf and 

Parker Brothers. 

As director of product safety and regulatory affairs at Hasbro, and as a parent 

of two young girls, no issue is more important to me than the safety of our toys 

and of the children who enjoy them. Our product safety and quality assurance systems are based on a comprehensive and stringent review process at every stage of 

product development. We require that all of our products meet—or exceed—all applicable national and international standards as well as our own often more stringent internal standards. And, to ensure compliance with these standards, Hasbro’s 

testing and quality control procedures have always included independent, thirdparty testing of our products. 

While Hasbro has not been impacted by the recent lead paint recalls, we have 

taken additional steps to confirm that our procedures are being adhered to and that 

we are doing everything possible to make the safest toys for our children. We have 

checked 100% of our vendor base and carried out over 1000 additional confirmatory 

product tests, over and above all the tests that are routinely carried out by Hasbro, 

our retailers and third parties in accordance with a testing program that has been 

in place for years. We have also stepped up inspections of all factories manufacturing Hasbro products, both here in the U.S. as well as overseas. 

While nothing is more important to Hasbro than the safety of our toys, we recognize that no system is perfect and that when it comes to a child’s safety, we must 

continuously be vigilant. We are constantly looking to improve and learn from every 

situation where there is an issue related to a toy’s safety. And we support Congressional efforts to equip regulators with the resources and tools to ensure that our industry as a whole produces the safest possible products for our children. 

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4040 significantly tightens the regulation of toy safety. As 

you know, it sets a high bar, but by working closely with industry and others, the 

committee has crafted a framework that is workable while enhancing toy safety. 

The heart of that framework is a new lead content standard and a mandatory third 

party testing regime. 

This legislation creates a new and significantly lower limit on the total amount 

of lead that can be in any accessible part of the toy. This limit goes down over time. 

As the committee knows, Hasbro supports reducing the current total lead content 

standard, although not to the levels currently envisioned in the legislation. The legislation also breaks new ground by proposing, for the first time in Federal law, a 

limit on ‘‘soluble’’ lead. We believe that, when combined with an appropriate total 

lead standard, the soluble limit in the bill will further enhance protection for children by limiting the amount of lead that a child can be exposed to. Therefore, we 

would urge the Committee to consider combining a workable total lead standard 

with a 90 ppm soluble limit. 

Hasbro supports mandatory third party testing. Working with the Toy Industry 

Association, we have been seeking to develop a rigorous third party testing system. 

This system will include vendor audits, additional process controls, and product testing. Products will be reviewed for conformity with both mandatory as well as voluntary standards. In our view, the proposed legislation strikes the right balance by 

carefully defining independence and requiring that the ‘‘testing entity’ be ‘‘accredited 

in accordance with an accreditation process established or recognized by the Commission.’’ 

The bill also includes severe civil penalties for failure to report on a timely basis 

a potential product safety hazard to the CPSC. In light of these significant penalties, we think the law would benefit from more precise definitions covering the responsibility of manufacturers to provide information to the CPSC. We also think 

that a standard of intent should be included in the bill. We look forward to working 

with the committee on these issues. 

Mr. Chairman, we have had the committee draft for a little over 4 days. We are 

still completing a review of some of its provisions. We do have questions on several 

other provisions that we hope to explore further with you and the staff. 

Finally, let me again say that we at Hasbro take the safety of children very seriously. We look forward to working with you on these and other issues as the legislative process unfolds. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear today. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY [presiding]. Dr. Best. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
54 

STATEMENT OF DANA BEST, M.D., AMERICAN ACADEMY OF 

PEDIATRICS 

Dr. BEST. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Good morning—or 

afternoon now. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on 

H.R. 4040, the Consumer Product Safety Modernization Act. My 

name is Dr. Dana Best, and I am proud to represent the American 

Academy of Pediatrics. 

H.R. 4040 represents an important step towards reducing children’s exposure to lead in consumer products. First and foremost, 

it establishes uniform Federal standards for lead content where 

none have existed. H.R. 4040 allows manufacturers to choose between satisfying standards either for total lead or soluble lead in 

children’s products. 

The legislation also reduces the allowable lead content of paint 

from the current level of 600 parts per million to 90 parts per million. 

The AAP further appreciates the fact that this legislation requires lead testing for products designed or intended for use by or 

with children up to the age of 12 years. 

The AAP congratulates the bill’s sponsors on making significant 

strides toward improving the safety of children’s products. In that 

cooperative and constructive spirit, the AAP would like to recommend 5 changes that would further strengthen this proposal: 

Number 1, the standards for lead exposure can and should be 

further reduced to AAP’s recommendation of 40 parts per million 

in all parts of children’s products. 

Number 2, H.R. 4040 should define a standard test for soluble 

lead. The results of lead tests on products can vary considerably 

depending upon the methodology used to assess solubility. In order 

to ensure that this is a meaningful standard that can be enforced 

consistently, the CPSC should be directed to develop a rigorous test 

protocol with appropriate opportunities for public comment. In addition, the lead standard that drops from 600 to 100 parts per million should state explicitly that it refers to total lead. 

Number 3, some of the timetables in H.R. 4040 should be accelerated. The standard of no more than 100 parts per million total lead 

in children’s products should go into effect earlier, preferably within no more than 2 years. Additionally, no timetable is specified for 

the CPSC to engage in the necessary rulemaking to establish the 

standard of 90 parts per million soluble lead. The CPSC should be 

instructed to engage in this rulemaking on a set timetable, such as 

within 6 months to 1 year. In the meantime, the alternative standard for total lead should apply to all children’s products. 

Number 4, given that there is no compelling reason to include 

lead in children’s products, lead content should be banned regardless of accessibility. 

Number 5, Children’s products should be defined to cover those 

designed or intended for use of children up to age 12 years not only 

with regard to lead testing but related to other CPSC standards as 

well. The bill’s limitation of other standards to products designed 

or intended for children under the age of 6 years fails to protect 

children age 6 to 12 years from hazards such as choking, sharp 

edges, amputation risk, caustic chemicals, and electrical shock. In 

addition, the legislation should not qualify this definition by requirVerDate Nov 24 2008 23:33 Jan 15, 2009 Jkt 045181 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\45181.XXX 45181

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
55 

ing that it apply to products designed ‘‘primarily’’ for children of a 

certain age. The word ‘‘primarily’’ should be deleted from the bill. 

In conclusion, the American Academy of Pediatrics praises H.R. 

4040, the Consumer Product Safety Modernization Act, as an important advance in protecting our Nation’s children from the pernicious threat to health and development posed by lead. We look 

forward to continuing our dialogue and will work together towards 

our mutual goal of improving the health and well-being of all children. 

Thank you. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Best follows:] 

TESTIMONY OF DANA BEST, M.D. 

Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today before the Energy 

and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection on 

H.R. 4040, the Consumer Product Safety Modernization Act. My name is Dana Best, 

MD, MPH, FAAP, and I am proud to represent the American Academy of Pediatrics 

(AAP), a non-profit professional organization of 60,000 primary care pediatricians, 

pediatric medical sub-specialists, and pediatric surgical specialists dedicated to the 

health, safety, and well-being of infants, children, adolescents, and young adults. I 

am an Assistant Professor of Pediatrics at the George Washington University School 

of Medicine and an attending physician at Children’s National Medical Center in 

Washington, DC. I also serve on the AAP’s Committee on Environmental Health, 

which is the primary body within the AAP that handles lead issues. 

On September 20, I had the privilege of testifying before this subcommittee to 

present the AAP’s recommendations regarding the lead content of toys and other 

children’s products. Based upon the overwhelming scientific evidence of the serious 

danger that lead poses to children and the lack of a compelling need to include lead 

in children’s products, the AAP recommended banning lead above trace amounts in 

children’s products. The AAP advised the subcommittee to define a trace amount as 

no more than 40 parts per million. The AAP further recommended that a children’s 

product be defined as one used by or with children under the age of 12 years in 

order to provide a standard that protects the most children possible throughout periods of rapid brain development. 

H.R. 4040 represents an important step toward reducing children’s exposure to 

lead in consumer products. First and foremost, it establishes uniform federal standards for lead content where none have existed. Current regulations permit most 

products to contain unlimited amounts of lead in any component other than paint. 

The proposed legislation will ensure that children’s products must be tested and 

conform to limits on lead content. 

The legislation reduces the allowable lead content of paint from the current level 

of 600 parts per million to 90 parts per million. As members of the subcommittee 

are undoubtedly aware, millions of toys and children’s products have been recalled 

this year due to violations of the current lead standard of 600 parts per million. 

That standard, established in 1978 and based on an outdated understanding of the 

harms of lead poisoning, should be lowered significantly. H.R. 4040 sets a standard 

of lead in paint that is approximately one-seventh of the current allowable level. 

This step will greatly enhance the safety of products and homes. 

H.R. 4040 allows manufacturers to choose between satisfying one of two standards 

for lead content in children’s products. Manufacturers may choose to limit total lead 

content to a level that is initially set at 600 parts per million and is reduced to 250 

parts per million after two years, then to 100 parts per million another two years 

later. Alternatively, manufacturers may choose to limit soluble lead content to 90 

parts per million. The standards of 90 and 100 parts per million are significant 

goals which, if met, will measurably reduce exposure to lead in children’s products. 

The Academy commends the bill’s authors for establishing a single standard for 

lead in all children’s products, rather than attempting to establish different classes 

of products with varying standards. It is critically important that all children’s products be held to the same aggressive standards to protect children’s health and assure parents that all children’s products are safe. 

The AAP further appreciates the fact that this legislation requires lead testing for 

products designed or intended for use by or with children up to the age of 12 years. 

Children’s brains develop rapidly throughout childhood, and significant damage can 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
56 

occur from lead exposure at any point during this time. This provision represents 

a vital protection for child health. 

The AAP congratulates the bill’s sponsors on making significant strides toward 

improving the safety of children’s products. In that cooperative and constructive 

spirit, the AAP would like to recommend five changes that would further strengthen 

this proposal: 

The standard for lead exposure can and should be further reduced to AAP’s recommendation of 40 parts per million in all parts of children’s products. We can reduce or prevent damage to children’s brains by lowering the lead standard to AAP’s 

recommended level. 

H.R. 4040 should define a standard test for ‘‘soluble’’ lead. The results of lead 

tests on products can vary considerably depending upon the methodology used to assess solubility. Further, the relationship of solubility to bioavailability and absorption will vary by method used to determine solubility. In order to ensure that this 

is a meaningful standard that can be enforced consistently, the Consumer Product 

Safety Commission should be directed to develop a rigorous test protocol with appropriate opportunities for public comment. In addition, the lead standard that drops 

from 600 to 100 parts per million should state explicitly that it refers to total lead. 

Some of the timetables in H.R. 4040 should be accelerated. While the standard 

limiting lead in children’s products to 100 parts per million is laudable, it does not 

take effect until four years after enactment. The standard should go into effect earlier, preferably within no more than two years. Additionally, no timetable is specified for the Consumer Product Safety Commission to engage in the necessary rulemaking to establish the standard of 90 parts per million soluble lead. The CPSC 

should be instructed to engage in this rulemaking on a set timeframe, such as within six months to one year. In the meantime, the alternative standard for total lead 

should apply to all children’s products. 

Given that there is no compelling reason to include lead in children’s products, 

lead content should be banned regardless of accessibility. If an accessibility standard 

is included, it should state explicitly that paint, coating or electroplating do not 

render lead inaccessible. The Commission should establish parameters for this exception by rulemaking and review them periodically, especially as lead-free alternatives become available. 

Children’s products should be defined to cover those designed or intended for use 

of children up to age 12 years not only with regard to lead testing, but related to 

other CPSC standards as well. The bill’s limitation of other standards to products 

designed or intended for children under the age of 6 years fails to protect children 

age 6 to 12 years from hazards such as choking, sharp edges, amputation risk, caustic chemicals, and electrical shock. In addition, the legislation should not qualify 

this definition by requiring that it apply to products designed ‘‘primarily’’ for children of a certain age. The word ‘‘primarily’’ should be deleted from the bill. 

In conclusion, the American Academy of Pediatrics praises H.R. 4040, the Consumer Product Safety Modernization Act, as an important advance in protecting our 

nation’s children from the pernicious threat to health and development posed by 

lead. We look forward to continuing our dialogue and our work together toward our 

mutual goal of improving the health and well-being of all children. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Hallenbeck. 

STATEMENT OF LANE HALLENBECK, VICE PRESIDENT, ACCREDITATION SERVICES, AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS 

INSTITUTE 

Mr. HALLENBECK. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

As noted, my name is Lane Hallenbeck; and I am Vice President 

of Accreditation Services for the American National Standards Institute, or ANSI. My responsibilities at ANSI include directing accreditation programs that assess the competence of third-party conforming assessment bodies. In lay terms, this means I work with 

organizations that determine whether products, services, systems 

or people comply with requirements found in voluntary standards 

or mandatory regulations. 

ANSI is coordinator of the U.S. private-sector-led and public-sector-supported standards and conformity assessment system. In this 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
57 

role, we work with a broad range of industries. We speak as the 

U.S. voice in standardization forums around the globe; and, 

through our network of members, we represent the interests of 

more than 125,000 organizations and companies and 31⁄2 million 

professionals worldwide. 

During its 9-year history, the Institute has demonstrated a 

unique ability to bring together diverse stakeholders in a spirit of 

cooperation and collaboration. Among other things, we have successfully teamed with the Council of Better Business Bureaus to 

tackle identity theft, partnered with the 9/11 Commission and the 

DHS to address some urgency preparedness in homeland security, 

and helped Health and Human Services to develop a secure electronic health record for every American. In all our efforts, protecting the safety of consumers has been of paramount importance. 

It is a key element of the Institute’s mission, and we are committed 

to its implementation. 

Earlier this year, the Toy Industry Association asked ANSI to 

help them design a program of testing inspection and education 

that could be implemented across the industry’s global supply 

chain. ANSI responded with a 3-point proposal. 

First, we would help the toy industry analyze existing standards, 

technical regulations and conformity assessment programs. Next 

we would form technical working groups and coordinate their efforts to design testing and inspection methodologies. And, finally, 

we would recommend steps to improve compliance activities 

throughout the toy industry’s global supply chain. 

TIA accepted this proposal, and I along with several ANSI colleagues have begun working with the Association and its members 

2 months ago. Almost immediately we agreed that two criteria 

were necessary for success in the global marketplace: common 

product requirements and harmonized test methods. Our solutions 

will draw from a toolbox of conformity assessment resources, not 

just testing and inspection but also systems auditing, accredited 

certification programs and, of course, education and training. 

The program we are developing will be committed to improving 

product safety, not just reducing the number of recalls. It will be 

sustainable and forward looking to anticipate and prevent problems 

yet unknown. It will be considerate of all types of suppliers, regardless of size or location; and it will support the concept of one standard, one test accepted everywhere. 

We are making great progress. There are three groups on process 

control, testing and reporting and design; and they are meeting on 

a weekly basis. During biweekly teleconference, they report to a 

steering committee I Chair that is comprised of working group 

leaders and representatives of consumers, the U.S. Government 

and staff from both ANSI and TIA. 

Recommendations from the working groups and steering committee are targeted for broad review and approval, including a public comment period and formal review and endorsement by TIA before year end. Implementation is expected to begin in early 2008. 

Government, industry and consumers need to work at a single 

purpose if we are to restore marketplace confidence in imported 

goods. Regulatory bodies that lead oversight and regulation for consumer health and safety issues will not be able to handle the workVerDate Nov 24 2008 23:33 Jan 15, 2009 Jkt 045181 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\45181.XXX 45181

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
58 

load alone. ANSI is proud to help coordinate the public-private 

partnership. 

Thank you, and I welcome your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hallenbeck follows:] 

STATEMENT OF LANE HALLENBECK

The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) is a private non-profit organization whose mission is to enhance U.S. global competitiveness and the American 

quality of life by promoting, facilitating, and safeguarding the integrity of the voluntary standardization and conformity assessment system. ANSI’s membership is 

comprised of businesses, professional societies and trade associations, standards developers, government agencies, and consumer and labor organizations. Through this 

network of members, the Institute represents the diverse interests of more than 

125,000 companies and organizations and 3.5 million professionals worldwide. 

ANSI is the official U.S. representative to the International Organization for 

Standardization (ISO) and, via the U.S. National Committee, the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), and is a U.S. representative to the International Accreditation Forum (IAF). A memorandum of agreement between ANSI and the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology outlines a mutual understanding of the roles of each organization. This includes ANSI’s recognition as the official U.S. member of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). 

Since its formation, ANSI has been coordinating the development of standardsbased solutions to support accident prevention and improve worker and consumer 

safety. Today, 10% of the approximately 10,000 approved American National Standards (ANS) currently available address issues that help to protect the workforce, 

consumers and the general public. 

Protecting the safety of consumers is of paramount importance to ANSI. It is a 

key element of the Institute’s mission. ANSI works hard to ensure that there is consumer participation at all levels of the total federation—from the Board of Directors 

all the way through the policy and technical activities. Sometimes the participation 

is by consumers themselves, at other times representation is through a consumer 

organization. But there is always a need for more consumer involvement in standards and conformity assessment activities. 

ANSI’s processes give any interested stakeholder the opportunity to engage in the 

development of a standard or the approval of a compliance program. The Institute’s 

procedures are written to assure that everyone, regardless of ANSI membership status, is able to participate in ANSI activities. If someone is interested in the subject 

covered by a standard, for example, that individual may participate by applying to 

become a member of the consensus body or submitting a contribution during public 

review and comment. 

American National Standards (ANS) run the entire spectrum, from the very first 

ANS on pipe threads to work that is underway today to meet emerging needs in 

areas ranging from the service sectors to the aging populations and those with disabilities. 

Standards are important for everyone because they influence the design, safety, 

manufacturing and marketing of many products worldwide. Standards are not only 

developed in response to injuries, hazards or other identified safety risks, but more 

often in a proactive manner to prevent injuries from known hazards. Some areas 

that come to mind where voluntary standards have especially made a difference in 

enhancing consumer safety include: 

• the National Electric Code (ANSI/NFPA 70) 

• Safety for Ground-Fault Circuit Interrupters (ANSI/UL 943) 

• Safety for Gas Water Heaters (ANSI Z21.10.1) 

• Safety of Corded Window Covering Products (ANSI/WMCA A100.1) 

• Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities (ANSI/ICC A117.1) 

• Standard Specification for Protective Headgear Used in Bicycling or Roller Skating (ASTM F1447–98—Approved as an American National Standard) 

Voluntary consensus standards and conformity assessment programs are driven 

by requirements for continuous quality improvement—especially as technology 

changes and evolves. ANSI and its hundreds of accredited standards developers and 

conformity assessment bodies are constantly reviewing and updating their systems 

to stay abreast of current and anticipated needs. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
59 

ANSI: RESPONDING TO NATIONAL PRIORITIES. 

ANSI’s actions are aligned with the United States Standards Strategy (USSS), an 

overarching framework document that calls for close cooperation between those who 

develop the nation’s standards and conformity assessment programs and those who 

use them. The USSS (excerpted in Annex B of this testimony) calls for the consistent use by government of voluntary consensus standards. It also calls for the 

standardization community to show leadership in developing responses to emerging 

national priorities. 

ANSI’s standards panels are excellent examples of how the Institute is addressing 

the critical needs of the nation. Last fall, ANSI partnered with the Council of Better 

Business Bureaus to tackle identity theft prevention and ID management—an issue 

that has victimized more than 18 million Americans over the past two years. 

The Institute has partnered with the 9–11 Commission and the DHS to address 

homeland security; and with the President’s Office of Science and Technology Policy 

to help lead global nanotechnology initiatives. ANSI is working with HHS to implement the President’s vision for every American to have a secure electronic health 

record within the next ten years. And the Institute’s newest panel is working with 

a broad spectrum of agencies to support the commoditization of viable alternatives 

to fossil fuels and the diversification of the global energy infrastructure. 

ANSI has a unique ability to bring together in a neutral forum representatives 

of industry, standards developing organizations, trade associations, professional and 

technical societies, government, labor and consumer groups. 

ANSI believes that a strong public-private partnership is essential to renew consumer confidence in the safety of toys. 

ANSI: ACTING TO IMPROVE TOY SAFETY

Earlier this year, the Toy Industry Association asked ANSI to help them design 

a program of testing, inspection and education that could be implemented across the 

industry’s global supply chain. 

ANSI responded with a three-point proposal: 

First, we would help the toy industry analyze existing standards, technical regulations and conformity assessment programs. 

Next, we would form technical working groups and coordinate their efforts to design testing and inspection methodology programs. 

Finally, we would recommend steps to improve compliance activities throughout 

the toy industry’s global supply chain. 

TIA accepted this proposal and I, along with several ANSI colleagues, began 

working with the association and its members two months ago. 

Almost immediately, we agreed that two criteria were necessary for success in the 

global marketplace: common product requirements and harmonized test methods. 

This means the system must be efficient, consistent and sustainable. It must focus 

on improving how products are evaluated and assessing who is conducting the evaluations. 

ANSI is focusing its facilitation efforts on the development and standardization 

of compliance procedures that can be used industry-wide and throughout the supply 

chain. . . in the past, these activities have been defined by individual manufacturers 

and retailers. 

The Institute is also turning its attention to harmonization of the current practices used to evaluate the competence of the conformity assessment bodies that are 

evaluating compliance to requirements . . . regardless of whether those requirements are defined in a voluntary standard or a Federal regulation. 

For both the requirements and the organizations, we are working to harmonize 

these practices for use industry-wide. 

Our solutions will draw from a toolbox of conformity assessment resources. Not 

just testing and inspection, but also systems auditing, accredited certification programs, and, of course, education and training. These tools are defined in the National Conformity Assessment Principles of the United States, excerpted in Annex 

C of this testimony. 

The program we are developing will be committed to improving product safety, 

not just reducing the number of recalls. It will be sustainable and forward looking 

to anticipate and prevent problems yet unknown. It will be considerate of all types 

of suppliers—regardless of size or location. And it will support the concept of ‘‘One 

standard . . . One test . . . Accepted everywhere.’’ 

We are making great progress. Three working groups on Process Control, Testing 

and Reporting, and Design are meeting on a weekly basis. During bi-weekly teleconferences, they report to a Steering Committee comprised of the WG leaders, and representatives of consumers, the U.S. government, and staff from both ANSI and TIA. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
60 

Recommendations from the Working Groups and Steering Committee are targeted 

for broad review and approval—including a public comment period and a formal review and endorsement by TIA—before year-end. 

Implementation is expected to begin in early 2008. 

In the meantime, a broad spectrum of stakeholders is already taking decisive action to remove unsafe products from distribution. In particular, brands and retailers 

have shared with ANSI that they have intensified their conformity assessment efforts to ensure the integrity of the import safety net. 

There can be no guarantee unless all the stakeholders are working together. From 

producer to government regulator to retailer to parent—everyone has a role to play. 

BUILDING CONSUMER CONFIDENCE

Just as consumers have the right to expect that the toys they buy for their children will be safe, the same expectation should hold true for the toothpaste they use, 

the tires they travel on, and the food they eat. 

The emergence of the global marketplace has created both consumer benefits and 

problems. If the public and private sectors work together, practicable solutions can 

be found to address the emerging issues of consumer health and safety in a global 

world. 

Steps are already being taken. On September 26, ANSI hosted a conference focused on building consumer confidence in the products that enter into our marketplace. Presentations and discussion sessions engaged participants in identifying resources, initiatives, and applicable standards and compliance programs that will create a safer consumer environment. 

A follow-up session was held during a joint meeting of the ANSI member forums 

in mid-October. The Institute is committed to a process that identifies necessary, 

practicable and immediate actions that can be taken to ensure that only safe products enter into the U.S. marketplace. 

ANSI wants to help reassure consumers that the products they find on the 

shelves of their local retailer have been tested and found to be safe—regardless of 

country of origin. In order for the Institute to accomplish this objective: 

• Standards and conformity assessment resources that are already in place must 

be used more efficiently. • Government and industry need to work at a single purpose to identify gaps in 

the current systems of testing and inspection of products imported to the United 

States. • New human and financial resources must be brought to bear to strengthen existing systems and fill any identified gaps. 

In some cases, it may be necessary to elevate certain requirements from voluntary 

to mandatory status. If this happens, the U.S. must also be careful to remain compliant with our obligations in the WTO and existing bi-lateral trade agreements. 

Any efforts made to improve the safety of imported products should not cause other 

governments to reciprocate with trade barriers on American exports. 

CPSC and the other regulatory bodies that lead oversight and regulation for consumer health and safety issues will not be able to handle the workload alone—even 

with additional financial resources. Private and public sector resources must be utilized in harmony if consumer confidence in imported goods is to be restored. 

ANSI stands ready to coordinate that public/private partnership. The Institute 

knows how to leverage voluntary consensus standards and the related compliance 

systems to create solutions that engage and support all stakeholders. 

ANSI looks forward to working in partnership with this committee, Congress, and 

other U.S. public sector representatives to stem the tide of unsafe products imported 

into our country. 

BACKGROUND ON THE U.S. STANDARDIZATION AND CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT SYSTEM

AND THE ROLE OF THE AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE (ANSI) 

The U.S. private sector-led, voluntary standardization and conformity assessment 

system has been in existence for more than 100 years. Highly decentralized, the system is naturally partitioned into industrial sectors that are supported by numerous 

independent, private sector standards developing organizations (SDOs). Marketplace 

demand drives the system’s activities, with standards and conformity assessment 

programs typically developed in response to specific concerns and needs expressed 

by industry, government, and consumers. 

Since 1918, this system has been administered and coordinated by the American 

National Standards Institute (ANSI) with the cooperation of the private sector and 

the Federal, state and local governments. ANSI does not develop standards or conVerDate Nov 24 2008 23:33 Jan 15, 2009 Jkt 045181 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\45181.XXX 45181

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
61 

formity assessment programs. Rather, it functions as a central clearinghouse and 

coordinating body for its member organizations. The Institute is a unique partnership of industry, professional, technical, trade, labor, academic and consumer organizations, as well as government agencies. These members of the ANSI federation 

actually develop standards and conformity assessment programs, contributing their 

time and expertise in order to make the system work. 

ANSI ensures the integrity of the U.S. standards and conformity assessment system by: 

1. Establishing a set of due process-based ‘‘essential requirements’’ that SDOs 

may follow in order to manage the development of consensus standards and conformity assessment programs in a fair and open manner, 

2. Accrediting SDOs who adhere to these requirements, 

3. Approving candidate standards from ANSI-accredited SDOs as American National Standards (ANS), and 

4. Conducting regular audits of the ANS activities of ANSI-accredited SDOs to ensure ongoing compliance with ANSI’s essential requirements. 

1ANSI has accredited hundreds of SDOs across a range of industry sectors. These 

industries include (but certainly are not limited to) telecommunications, medical devices, heavy equipment, fire protection, information technology, petroleum, banking, 

and household appliances. There are now approximately 10,000 ANSI-approved 

ANS that address topics as diverse as dimensions, ratings, terminology and symbols, 

test methods, interoperability criteria, product specifications, and performance and 

safety requirements. These standards development efforts serve the public interest 

and are being applied to new critical areas such as the environment, healthcare, 

homeland security, and nanotechnology. 

The Institute’s approval of a candidate standard or conformity assessment program as an ANS verifies that the principles of openness and due process have been 

followed and that a consensus of all interested parties has been reached. Due process requires that all proposed ANS be circulated to the public at large for comment, 

that an attempt be made to resolve all comments, and that there is a right of appeal. In addition, ANSI considers any evidence that a proposed ANS is contrary to 

the public interest, contains unfair provisions or is unsuitable for national use. This 

basic formula has been the hallmark of the ANS process for decades, and it has garnered worldwide respect and acceptance. 

One of the best indicators of confidence in the U.S. voluntary consensus standardization and conformity assessment system (as exemplified by the ANS process) is 

Congress’s 1996 passage of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA). This law (P.L. 104–113) requires Federal agencies to use voluntary consensus standards and conformity assessment programs for regulatory purposes 

wherever feasible and to procure equipment and services in accordance with such 

standards. It also requires agencies to increase their participation in the development process and directs the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to coordinate Federal, state and local voluntary standards and related conformity assessment activities. 

ANSI’s success is measured by usage and acceptance. From the government’s perspective, there are two examples of confidence in the ANSI process that are worth 

citing here: 

The first is the Consumer Product Safety Act. This 1972 legislation mandates that 

if a voluntary standard exists, CPSC may issue a mandatory standard only when 

the voluntary standards will not eliminate or adequately reduce the risk of injury 

or death, or it is unlikely that there will be substantial compliance with the voluntary standard. 

The second is Congress’ 1996 approval of Public Law 104–113, also know as the 

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA). This law requires 

Federal agencies to increase their reliance upon and participation in the voluntary 

consensus standards and conformity assessment systems. 

ANSI also promotes the international use of U.S. standards and conformity assessment programs. The Institute serves as the U.S. national body representative 

in two major, non-treaty international standards organizations: the International 

Organization for Standardization (ISO) and, through the United States National 

Committee (USNC), the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). ANSI and 

the USNC play a leadership role in ISO and IEC, respectively, on both policy and 

technical matters. 

Part of ANSI’s role as the U.S. member of ISO includes accrediting U.S. Technical 

Advisory Groups (U.S. TAGs) which develop and transmit, via ANSI, U.S. consensus 

positions on the activities and ballots of technical committees and subcommittees. 

Similarly, the USNC approves TAGs for IEC activities. In many instances, volVerDate Nov 24 2008 23:33 Jan 15, 2009 Jkt 045181 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\45181.XXX 45181

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
62 

untary standards and conformity assessment programs developed by U.S. SDOs are 

taken forward, through ANSI or the USNC, where they are approved in whole or 

in part by the ISO and/or IEC as International Standards. ANSI also encourages 

the adoption of international standards as national standards where they meet the 

needs of the user community. 

In addition, ANSI advocates U.S. positions in various regional standards organizations and regularly meets with representatives from standards bodies in other nations. Thus, ANSI plays an important role in facilitating the development of global 

standards and related conformity assessment programs that support global commerce and which prevent regions from using local standards that favor local industries as trade barriers. 

Conformity assessment is the term used to describe steps taken by both manufacturers and independent third-parties to determine fulfillment of standards requirements. ANSI’s role in the conformity assessment arena includes accreditation of organizations that certify that products and personnel meet recognized standards. The 

ANSI-American Society for Quality National Accreditation Board (ANAB) serves as 

the U.S. accreditation body for management systems certification, primarily in areas 

such as quality (ISO 9000 family of standards) and/or the environment (ISO 14000 

family of standards). ANSI also is involved in several international and regional organizations to promote multilateral recognition of conformity assessments across 

borders to preclude redundant and costly barriers to trade. 

In summary, through its various roles and responsibilities, ANSI advances its 

mission to ‘‘enhance both the global competitiveness of U.S. business and the U.S. 

quality of life by promoting and facilitating voluntary consensus standards and conformity assessment systems and safeguarding their integrity.’’ 

EXCERPT FROM THE UNITED STATES STANDARDS STRATEGY

Principles. It is well established in the community of nations that standards 

should meet societal and market needs and should not be developed to act as barriers to trade. In approving the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to 

Trade Agreement, WTO members recognized that goal and established globally accepted principles as a framework to promote cooperation and discourage the use of 

standards as trade barriers. The U.S. standards and conformity assessment system 

is based on the following set of globally accepted principles for standards development. 

• Transparency. Essential information regarding standardization and conformity 

assessment activities is accessible to all interested parties. 

• Openness. Participation is open to all affected interests. 

• Impartiality. No one interest dominates the process or is favored over another. 

• Effectiveness and relevance. Standards and related conformity assessment programs are relevant and effectively respond to regulatory and market needs, as well 

as scientific and technological developments. 

• Consensus. Decisions are reached through consensus among those affected. 

• Performance-based. Standards are performance-based, specifying essential characteristics rather than detailed designs where possible. 

• Coherence. The process encourages coherence to avoid overlapping and conflicting standards and conformity assessment programs. 

• Due Process. Standards development accords with due process so that all views 

are considered and appeals are possible. 

• Technical Assistance. Assistance is offered to developing countries in the formulation and application of standards and related conformity assessment programs. 

In addition, U.S. interests strongly agree that the process should be: 

• Flexible, allowing the use of different methodologies to meet the needs of different technology and product sectors; 

• Timely, so that purely administrative matters do not slow down the work, but 

meet market expectations; and 

• Balanced among competing interests. 

EXCERPT FROM THE NATIONAL CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT PRINCIPLES OF THE UNITED

STATES

The National Conformity Assessment Principles for the United States document 

articulates the principles for U.S. conformity assessment activities that will allow 

consumers, buyers, sellers, regulators and other interested parties to have confidence in the processes of providing conformity assessment, while avoiding the creation of unnecessary barriers to trade. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
63 

Conformity assessment includes sampling and testing, inspection, supplier’s declaration of conformity, certification, and management system assessment and registration. It also includes accreditation of the competence of those activities by a 

third party and recognition (usually by a government agency) of an accreditation 

program’s capability. 

While each of these activities is a distinct operation, they are closely interrelated. 

The choice of the most appropriate assessment processes, as well as the quality with 

which any one of them is performed, can have a significant effect on the confidence 

in and reliance that can be placed on the results of the entire conformity assessment. 

The definitions included in the National Conformity Assessment Principles document are based on ISO/IEC 17000:2004, Conformity assessment—Vocabulary and 

general principles. Some variances, noted in italics, occur where the term is not in 

ISO/IEC 17000 or has another specific meaning in the United States. Definitions are 

included in this document to preclude confusion and to make it more understandable. In different contexts, the same term can signify different types of activities. 

• Accreditation Third party attestation related to a conformity assessment body 

conveying a formal demonstration of its competence to carry out specific conformity 

assessment tasks. (These tasks include sampling and testing, inspection, certification and registration.) 

• Certification Third party attestation related to products, processes, or persons 

that conveys assurance that specified requirements have been demonstrated. 

• Conformity Assessment Demonstration that specified requirements relating to 

a product, process, system, person or body are fulfilled. (This may include any activity concerned with determining directly or indirectly that relevant requirements are 

fulfilled.) 

• First, Second and Third Party The first party is generally the person or organization that provides the object, such as the supplier. The second party is usually 

a person or organization that has a user interest in the product, such as the customer. The third party is a person or body that is recognized as being independent 

of the person or organization that provides the object, as well as the user or customer of the object. 

• Inspection Examination of a product design, product, process or installation and 

determination of its conformity with specific requirements or, on the basis of professional judgment, with general requirements. 

• Recognition Procedure used to provide formal notice that an accreditation body 

is competent to carry out specific tasks. These tasks include accreditation of testing 

laboratories and inspection, certification and registration bodies. A governmental 

recognition system is a set of one or more procedures used by a Federal agency to 

provide recognition. 

• Registration Third party attestation related to systems that convey assurance 

that specified requirements have been demonstrated. Such systems include those established for the management of product, process or service quality and environmental performance. 

• Sampling. Provision of a sample of the object of conformity assessment according 

to a procedure. 

• Supplier’s Declaration. Procedure by which a first party or supplier conveys assurance that the object of conformity fulfills specified requirements. 

• Test. Technical operation that consists of the determination of one or more characteristics of a given product, material, equipment, organism, person’s qualification, 

physical phenomenon, process or service according to a specified technical procedure 

(test method). 

• Testing. Determination of one or more characteristics of an object of conformity 

according to a specified technical procedure (test method). Action of carrying out one 

or more tests. 

• Test Method. Specified technical procedure for performing a test. 

Mr. RUSH [presiding]. Mr. Korn. 

STATEMENT OF ALAN KORN, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC POLICY AND 

GENERAL COUNSEL, SAFE KIDS WORLDWIDE 

Mr. KORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me say by way of introduction that we have great confidence 

in this committee. We have seen more attention on consumer prodVerDate Nov 24 2008 23:33 Jan 15, 2009 Jkt 045181 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\45181.XXX 45181

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
64 

uct safety in the past 5 months—you are making my life very 

busy—than we did for many, many years before. 

And, also, I must say that the staff on both sides—the ones sitting to your left and to your right and behind you—have been really stellar. They are always engaging us to find out what we think 

and often agreeing with us, a few times disagreeing. But the vast 

majority we have come to some very good conclusions, and I think 

many of them are contained in this piece of legislation. I think that 

should go said. 

Also by introduction let me say this, that there are many who 

feel that the CPSC is a dead agency and that it is failing—and that 

they are failing to repeatedly serve its important mission. I am not 

one of those people, Mr. Chairman. The CPSC is full of committed 

staff who day in and day out—I work with them every single day, 

every single week—who are completely committed to protecting 

consumers and children from unreasonable, dangerous products. 

The CPSC, however, is an agency withering on the vine. It is not 

dead, but it is withering, and it is in immediate need of water and 

fertilizer. We believe your act is a much-needed dose of MiracleGro. 

Let me, at the risk of my own peril, not read through my testimony but just go through a couple of points. 

Number 1, we are particularly pleased that there is a budget increase in this bill. Its present budget in no way allows the agency 

to do what it needs to do. It is the single-handedly most important 

reform in this legislation. If you do anything else, get it the fertilizer and water it needs to get the job done. I think we are all 

in agreement there. 

We are also supportive of the fact—it is a nuanced point but important one—that you created a separate authorization for the lab. 

We have been to that lab. They are embarrassingly poor. I think 

staff has been there, also. It is time. I think everybody is in agreement with that. 

My third point is this extension to 5 commissioners, and I am 

going to spend a little bit more time on that because I think both 

the acting chairman and the commissioner expressed some reservation there. 

We are glad to see it in the bill. The bill’s sponsors feel that the 

Commission can function more effectively with a full complement 

of members. We agree. An agency with 5 members makes for a 

much more vibrant institution and will promote active discussion, 

compromise and even dissent when necessary, which we think 

serves the public interest. 

We can see that energy and I believe effectiveness in another 

agency under the subcommittee’s jurisdiction, and that is the Federal Trade Commission. Due in large part to its full complement 

of commissioners and its adequate budget, the FTC on whole effectively serves its mission of protecting consumers from deceptive 

practices and preserving a competitive marketplace. 

Another point, the five-member Commission would allow a president and Congress to expand the diversity of the expertise of the 

CPSC through the nomination and confirmation process. For example, the CPSC panel could include a commissioner with a legal 

background, a commissioner with human factors experience, a comVerDate Nov 24 2008 23:33 Jan 15, 2009 Jkt 045181 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\45181.XXX 45181

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
65 

missioner with knowledge of children and how they interact with 

products, a commissioner with experience in certain risk areas like 

drowning and fire and burns, which is the leading causing killer 

of kids under the CPSC jurisdiction. It is motor vehicle crashes is 

No. 1. That is NHTSA. Those other two are CPSC and, third, a 

commissioner with a background in product design and engineering. 

I am not so egotistical to say that this is a recommendation to 

the President or Senate as to a particular candidate for the confirmation process, but your bill does capture the diversification. 

I think we can also learn by looking at the NTSB, who each has 

a member with experience in aviation, boating and railway, collectively making a very diverse expertise in that commission. 

I think—I am using your words here—that you believe that the 

agency is in the minor leagues. This provision in the bill, although 

not the sole provision that will help, will help move this to the 

major leagues, I believe. In fact, your staff—both staff—did some 

great research that I don’t think there is another agency in this 

city that has three commissioners. They all have five. So I think 

that is an excellent thing. It is something that we should keep in 

the bill, notwithstanding I detected a bit of apprehension from the 

agency itself. 

My testimony goes into much more detail on several other provisions. I will let you work through those and certainly offer my help 

to staff as we go forward on the many other technical provisions 

of the bill that we think are good and a few that we think can be 

modestly improved. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and we thank you 

for your gracious commentary. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Korn follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
66 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 70 here 45181A.001
67 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 71 here 45181A.002
68 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 72 here 45181A.003
69 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 73 here 45181A.004
70 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 74 here 45181A.005
71 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 75 here 45181A.006
72 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 76 here 45181A.007
73 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 77 here 45181A.008
74 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 78 here 45181A.009
75 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now recognizes Mr. McGuire for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH MCGUIRE, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION 

OF HOME APPLIANCE MANUFACTURERS 

Mr. MCGUIRE. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for providing me the opportunity to testify on behalf of 

the National Association of Manufacturers regarding the Consumer 

Product Safety Modernization Act of 2007. 

We support legislation that reauthorizes CPSC and provides it 

with the resources necessary to carry out its vital mission. The subcommittee is to be commended on its bipartisan efforts to develop 

a bill. 

I am president of the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, which represents the manufacturers of major portable and 

floor care residential appliances and their suppliers. I am pleased 

to provide the views of NAM and its coalition of manufacturing associations. 

CPSC is our most important regulatory relationship and justifiably so because consumer safety is the most critical obligation we 

have to our customers. We have aggressively supported increased 

appropriations for the Commission in this Congress. Although we 

believe that the American marketplace is safer than ever, the perception of a safety problem is troubling to U.S. manufacturers because their economic viability depends on the confidence of the U.S. 

public and their products. 

H.R. 4040 contains a number of provisions our coalition supports, 

and we applaud you for seeking these improvements. However, we 

also believe H.R. 4040 contain a few provisions that need modification. 

We support the significantly increased authorization for CPSC 

funding and recommend that it be focused on the Commission’s 

laboratory and its ability to evaluate the increasingly voluminous 

information reported to the Commission by manufacturers and retailers. We also believe that the number of full-time inspectors, including those at ports, should be significantly increased. We support structural reforms so that the Commission may continue a 

temporary quorum with two commissioners. 

The Toy Industry Association and the Fashion Jewelry Trade Association have strongly advocated national lead standards for toys 

and children’s jewelry based on sound science and with practical 

limitations in which to work with the subcommittee on this issue. 

The toy industry also supports mandatory testing for children’s 

products. They favor the use of accredited laboratories and CPSC 

authority to recognize laboratory sanctioning programs, but not to 

micromanage such programs. 

We support more rapid dissemination of information to the public. The reality is that the vast majority of delays and responses to 

Freedom of Information Act requests are due to lack of CPSC resources and technology. We understand the bill sponsors’ intent 

that there may be circumstances where the Section 6(b) disclosures 

process should be shortened if rapid dissemination of data is required by public health and safety, but we believe that this exception should be carefully drawn. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
76 

In order to maintain the present environment of voluntary industry communications with CPSC, we strongly urge the Congress to 

keep in place the requirement that there be review of company submissions and CPSC documents for accuracy and fairness before disclosure occurs. We agree to strengthening the prohibition on stockpiling provisions. 

We also believe that, in most cases, the Commission’s power to 

disseminate information through its press releases and electronic 

messages to a wide variety of media has proven to be effective. But 

we appreciate that in certain narrow circumstances it may be necessary to conduct further outreach, particularly in languages other 

than English. We appreciate, Mr. Chairman, your interest in this 

particular provision. 

Certainly manufacturers, importers, retailers and distributors 

should provide, upon request from the Commission, any information that they have on others in the supply chain, to the extent 

such information is known. Dangerous products should not be exported from the United States to foreign countries. However, where 

foreign countries are protected by different standards, U.S. firms 

should not be banned from exporting a product that meets those 

foreign standards. 

We also support, with slight modification, the bill’s provision in 

sharing information with Federal, State, local and foreign government agencies. 

In addition, the appliance industry supports Federal action to ensure the proper installation of cooking ranges with UL, ANC and 

building-code-mandated anti-tipping products and equivalent devices. My industry proposes that it be a violation of Federal law for 

a person to install a range that is not compliant with the UL safety 

standard. 

We believe that, in general, this bill places consumer safety first 

and properly resources the Commission. We look forward to working with you and the committee on adopting this beneficial and 

reasonable CPSC reform in this Congress. 

I will be glad to answer any of your questions or follow up with 

requested information. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McGuire follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
77 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 82 here 45181A.010
78 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 83 here 45181A.011
79 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 84 here 45181A.012
80 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 85 here 45181A.013
81 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 86 here 45181A.014
82 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes Ms. Weintraub for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF RACHEL WEINTRAUB, DIRECTOR, PRODUCT 

SAFETY, AND SENIOR COUNSEL, CONSUMER FEDERATION 

OF AMERICA 

Ms. WEINTRAUB. Thank you, Chairman Rush and Vice Chairman 

Schakowsky and Ranking Member Stearns, as well. I am Rachel 

Weintraub, director of product safety and senior counsel for the 

Consumer Federation of America. Today I am also testifying on behalf of Consumers Union, Kids in Danger, Public Citizen, U.S. 

PIRG, and Union of Concerned Scientists. 

Thank you for holding this hearing and for all of your hard work 

on product safety issues. 

It is clear to all of us that something has gone terribly wrong 

with our current safety systems. Your bill, H.R. 4040, the Consumer Product Safety Modernization Act, correctly recognizes that 

the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the agency responsible 

for protecting consumers from unsafe and dangerous products in 

the marketplace, is broken. H.R. 4040 seeks to remedy this critical 

problem by increasing the agency’s resources and legal authority 

necessary to keep unsafe products out of the marketplace. 

We applaud you for addressing many of the key areas in need 

of reform. We provide several modest tweaks for strengthening several sections of the bill, and we raise additional issues that this bill 

should address to make the legislation truly comprehensive. 

We wish to emphasize the importance we place on six issues: 

Section 6(b); independent, third-party testing; the ban on lead in 

children’s products; criminal and civil penalties; the need to include 

whistleblower protections; and language clarifying the reach of 

CPSC’s authority regarding the preemption of State regulatory and 

common-law claims. 

Section 6(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Act is the ultimate 

secrecy provision. It is unique to the CPSC, and it requires CPSC 

to give a company an opportunity to comment on a proposed disclosure of information. If the company has concerns, they can object. 

CPSC must accommodate the company’s concerns or inform them 

that they plan to disclose the information. The company can then 

sue the Commission, seeking to enjoin them from disclosing this information. 

While H.R. 4040 makes positive modifications to the section, it 

does not remove the ability of the company to institute a court proceeding to enjoin release of the information. The threat of lengthy 

and resource-intensive litigation could compel CPSC often to maintain the secrecy of or delay the disclosure of important product 

safety information, and ultimately keeps consumers in the dark. 

We also support the creation of a searchable adverse-event database containing consumer complaints and industry reports of safety 

concerns relating to consumer products. 

Second, independent, third-party testing of final products, as well 

as components, must be required to identify design flaws as well 

as violations of existing regulations. Section 102 mandatory thirdparty testing for children’s products is a meaningful provision that 

establishes a clear definition of an independent third party. Section 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
83 

104 of this bill that will ensure that infant durable products will 

be tested to what are now mandatory, as well, standards is critical 

as well. 

We also suggest that children’s products be defined as those intended for children 12 years old and older, as the ban on lead provision of this bill currently includes. The disparity between these 

two sections means that hazards not including lead, such as those 

involving sharp edges, suffocation and thermal hazards, just to 

name a few, do not have to be tested for in products intended for 

children between the ages of 7 and 12. We support the provision 

that requires CPSC to ensure that testing laboratories meet accreditation standards established by the Commission. 

Third, banning lead. We support a bright-line ban on the use of 

lead in children’s products to no more than trace amounts, because 

experts confirm that there is no safe level of lead. Serious, acute 

and irreversible harm can come to children as a result of exposure 

to lead, and there is no reason why such a dangerous additive 

should be used in children’s products. A safer alternative almost always exists. 

Overall, our groups view section 101 as a positive improvement 

over the status quo. We applaud the definition of a children’s product defined as that for a child 12 and younger and support a 

bright-line test for children’s products. 

We have two questions, though. First, we are not clear about the 

standard the phase-in option of the bill is requiring. We recommend that language clarify that this lead limit shall apply without regard to whether the lead is accessible to children. Second, we 

are concerned that the alternative test for 90 ppm soluble lead is 

ambiguous, as we understand there are many measures of solubility which could lead to different results. 

Number 4, civil and criminal penalties. We urge that the civil 

penalties be increased, and we urge that the criminal penalties be 

modified to take away the ability of manufacturers to first receive 

a notice of noncompliance from the Commission before they can be 

held accountable. 

Finally, we also support whistleblower protections. We oppose 

preemption and urge the committee to consider language clarifying 

this issue. 

And we also support the inclusion of addressing the relationship 

between CPSC regulators and the regulated industry, with new restrictions on industry-paid travel for CPSC officials. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Weintraub follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
84 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 90 here 45181A.015
85 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 91 here 45181A.016
86 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 92 here 45181A.017
87 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 93 here 45181A.018
88 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 94 here 45181A.019
89 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 95 here 45181A.020
90 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 96 here 45181A.021
91 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 97 here 45181A.022
92 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 98 here 45181A.023
93 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 99 here 45181A.024
94 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 100 here 45181A.025
95 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 101 here 45181A.026
96 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 102 here 45181A.027
97 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. 

We want to again thank the panel. 

The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes of questioning. I will 

begin with Mr. McGuire. 

Mr. McGuire, NAM is opposed to eliminating section 6(b)(3) of 

the act, which allows manufacturers to go to court to exercise a 

form of prior restraint to prevent a public disclosure of information 

about their products that the CPSC wants to release. 

My question is, doesn’t this provision hamper the CPSC’s ability 

to get vital health and safety information to the public? And, ultimately, aren’t manufacturers better off if this information gets out 

quickly to protect the public? 

Mr. MCGUIRE. Mr. Chairman, I think the record will show that 

the vast majority of delays in CPSC getting this type of information 

out to the public is due to their own resource limitations, both people and technology, to review the voluminous amount of information submitted. 

Current law allows manufacturers 30 days to comment on the 

fairness and the accuracy of the data. CPSC does not have to accept manufacturers’ opinions. But if they do not accept their opinions and decide to release the information, manufacturers have the 

right to sue them to stop that. 

This is not in cases where the CPSC determines that the product 

might be an imminent health hazard. If they determine that, they 

can release the information without consulting manufacturers, and 

we have no problem with that. The vast majority of these cases we 

are talking about, in reality, do not involve cases where you have 

an imminent health hazard. 

And so, the provision in current law is a 30-day notice. I think 

your bill reduces it to 15 days. We don’t really quarrel with that. 

We just believe that, in fairness, the manufacturers ought to be 

given the opportunity to comment whether something actually is 

accurate and is going to help consumers or confuse consumers in 

cases where it isn’t an imminent health hazard. 

Mr. RUSH. So you are saying that, where there is a question of 

health and safety to the American people, that the CPSC have the 

full authority, right now, as it stands, to go and to issue statements 

immediately without being sued? 

Mr. MCGUIRE. Yes, sir. If it is an imminent health hazard, they 

have the ability to do that. 

Mr. RUSH. Who is to determine whether or not it is an imminent 

health hazard? 

Mr. MCGUIRE. The CPSC. 

Mr. RUSH. OK. 

Ms. Weintraub, do you want to comment on Mr. McGuire’s comments? 

Ms. WEINTRAUB. Sure. 

First of all, in terms of disclosing information to the public, it is 

clear that consumers are in the dark. If a consumer wants to do 

research on any type of consumer product—let us say a stroller, for 

example—if they go to the CPSC Web site, they are not going to 

find comparative information, they are not going to find any other 

consumer recommendations or complaints from consumers. But 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
98 

they would find information like that on other agencies’ Web sites, 

such as NHTSA or FDA. 

Overall, we see section 6(b) as problematic because it creates this 

dynamic where CPSC needs to go with its tail between its legs to 

the industry it regulates and ask permission to disclose information 

that is in the public interest. 

While we have urged for the repeal of this section for years, we 

understand that the argument is on the side of allowing industry 

to verify such information. So if 6(b) is retained to allow this dynamic to proceed, we still don’t understand why it is necessary for 

the industries to be able to sue the Commission. There are FOIA 

protections, which also protect the confidentiality, the trademark 

information of such information. And we have never been persuaded or even heard a public-policy argument for keeping in this 

provision that allows industries to sue the Commission. 

Mr. RUSH. This ability to sue the Commission, it seems to me, 

that has been the single most important—or single greatest obstacle to CPSC’s quickly notifying the public. Do you have any idea 

about why the CPSC would be afraid to be sued, afraid of litigation? 

Ms. WEINTRAUB. Sure. I mean, litigation is expensive and resource-intensive. And with a budget which we all establish today— 

a budget that is very small and with vast priorities that are growing, the threat of litigation really is a scary prospect for the Commission. 

Mr. RUSH. So if we give them more resources, then that should 

take care of that particular problem; is that right? 

Ms. WEINTRAUB. I don’t think so. I still don’t think that there are 

any public-policy reasons for retaining the ability of manufacturers 

and others to sue the Commission. Even with increased resources, 

it provides a lot of leverage for manufacturers that other agencies 

don’t provide. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. My time is up. 

The Chair recognizes the ranking member, Mr. Stearns. 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me just continue that line of questioning, but ask Ms. 

Belliveau. 

We have heard testimony that section 6(b) must be repealed in 

order to improve safety. I guess the question for you is, what are 

the practical effects of this? 

Ms. BELLIVEAU. Hasbro supports section 6(b) currently, and we 

also support the proposed bill and its reduction of the time frame 

for release of the information. We support the provision because we 

do want to preserve the right to verify the accuracy of the information proposing to be released by the CPSC. 

We do agree that the information should be readily available to 

consumers and should be released on a timely basis. However, we 

do see instances where information that is shared with us is inaccurate or must be corrected or, perhaps, contains proprietary business information. 

So we feel that, while the process certainly could be sped up, we 

would like to preserve the right, again, to verify the accuracy. 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. McGuire, do you have a comment on this? 

Mr. MCGUIRE. Well, I would agree with that, sir. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
99 

And one of the things that we have been encouraged to do by the 

Commission for many years is to report information to them even 

if we are uncertain of its accuracy or validity. So we do that in 

order to get information to the Commission that they can review 

and deal with as appropriate. 

We are just talking about the ability, if something is proven to 

be inaccurate or unfair, to point that out. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. 

Dr. Best, you state that you would like to see 40 parts per million or less in all parts of a child’s product. Does that include electronic products that use lead to protect a viewer from radiation, 

such as LCD screens? And how would you propose to deal with 

this? 

Dr. BEST. For one thing, we should consider if there is a substitute. We understand that there are some products that—right 

now, the only technology we know that is economically feasible is 

to include lead. And that is where we have a concern, is if the product can be made without lead and the only barrier to eliminating 

the lead is economics or the cost of the product. 

And if that product is a child’s product, then there is no reason 

not to eliminate the lead. When you talk about a cost-benefit equation, there is no way to define the cost of lead poisoning in a child. 

It is too huge to quantify. 

Mr. STEARNS. No, I understand. It is not acceptable, I understand that. 

But I note a New York Times story recently reported that a 

mother had a 17-month-old child who played with a toy that had 

excessive lead paint. She had the child tested, and the doctor indicated it was an excessive amount. She took the toy away, and she 

had the child retested, and the level dropped significantly. 

Is this typical, that blood lead levels in children can decrease 

that quickly? 

Dr. BEST. It is typical that lead levels do drop over time, even 

with continued exposure, in some instances. What is hidden in that 

information, though, is that the damage has already been done. 

Mr. STEARNS. For example, it said the national average is now 

approximately 3 micrograms per deciliter, down from 16 less than 

20 years ago. Obviously, you don’t want any lead, but it appears 

that, over the years, it has gone down dramatically. And, in this 

case, this woman had her child tested after removing the lead toy, 

and it came down significantly. 

Dr. BEST. Just because it came down significantly does not mean 

that the damage to that child’s nervous system was not already 

done. And, in fact, we know that, by the time you have a measurable level of lead in your blood, which is—— 

Mr. STEARNS. What is that measurable level of blood? 

Dr. BEST. The lowest that a typical instrument can measure is 

2 micrograms per deciliter. And below that, we end up dealing with 

instrument variability. 

Mr. STEARNS. The national average is 3, it says here. In my 

notes, it says 3. So the national average is above what it should 

be, in your opinion? 

Dr. BEST. Absolutely. It should be below measurable levels. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
100 

Mr. STEARNS. Right. And the damage that is above 2 is to the 

nervous system. How can you identify the damage? How is it exhibited? 

Dr. BEST. In terms of low levels of lead, it is typically exhibited 

in decreased IQ. And so they do it on population level samples 

where they look at children who have been exposed and haven’t 

been exposed and compare the means of the IQ. 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I think my time has expired. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair recognizes now the Vice Chair, Ms. 

Schakowsky. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. 

Is it Ms. Belliveau? 

Ms. BELLIVEAU. Yes. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. You mentioned testing prior to the sale of your 

products. Is that true of products for which you license your brand? 

Ms. BELLIVEAU. Yes, it is true. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. A Chicago family lost their son to the 

Playskool Travel-Lite Crib in 1998, which was made by Kolcraft 

but carrying your Hasbro brand Playskool. And six children have 

died in that model crib. Documents reveal that Hasbro did no testing and did not receive any testing reports from Kolcraft and yet 

let their name go on the product. 

What are you doing differently now? 

Ms. BELLIVEAU. Vice Chairman Schakowsky, you are correct. Approximately 10 years ago, we did have a situation where we licensed our brand to a play-yard manufacturer, and unfortunately 

there were deaths associated with that play-yard. 

We have made changes since those events, including not only 

tightening up our internal licensing procedures and requiring testing on all licensed products, as well as having worked with the 

safety standard setting to address portable play-yards. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So all of your products now that you license 

out, you do the same testing as those that you don’t license out, 

that are in-house? 

Ms. BELLIVEAU. Our licensed products are subject to a testing 

program and protocol that is appropriate for those products, and 

Hasbro does require that. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. The same as those that are for the ones that 

you directly manufacture? 

Ms. BELLIVEAU. Yes. If it were, for example, a toy, it would be 

subject to the same toy testing standards that Hasbro subjects its 

own toys to. If it is a different product, it will be subject to the testing protocols appropriate to that product. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I wanted to ask Ms. Weintraub a question. 

We have been very concerned with Simplicity Cribs. And there 

were, what, a million recalls? And the CPSC decided to approve 

and Simplicity decided to approve a repair kit that immobilizes the 

drop side of the crib. So, in other words, the repair kit goes out; 

it is fairly complicated in how to actually install the repair. But it 

changes the product itself, so the people who may have a disability 

and need a drop side in order to reach the child in the crib can’t 

do that, or someone with a bad back or anybody who bought it for 

that feature. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
101 

What do you think about the appropriateness of approving a fix 

that changes the design of the product, as opposed to what I would 

like—and I sent a letter to Chairman Nord—a refund for those consumers who want a different product? 

Ms. WEINTRAUB. Well, first of all, not only is this ultimate repair 

filled with flaws, but it took a month, at least a month, between 

the time that the recall was announced and for the remedy to actually be approved and available. So there are many, many problems 

associated with this product and this recall. 

We agree with you that this product and this company has been 

subject to numerous recalls, many of which have been repairs as 

opposed to a recall and refund. And we would very much support 

a refund as opposed to repair that could be complicated, time-consuming and ultimately change an essential aspect of the product. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I hope we can maybe talk about dealing with 

this in our legislation. 

I wanted to ask Dr. Best—and I know Ms. Weintraub came up 

with this as well—the issue of the 7 or 6 years old to 12 years old 

and the importance of including them in the legislation. I wonder 

if you could talk a little bit more about the hazards for older children. 

Dr. BEST. Well, older children, while we think of them as being 

at less risk than the 2-year-old who might be prone to run out in 

the street, still have very similar risks in terms of choking. They 

are a little less likely to choke, but they still put things in their 

mouths and still swallow coins and still do some of the same behaviors that a younger child will do. 

And one of the other aspects of the 6- to 12-year-old age is that 

those children may have younger siblings, since most families try 

to group their child-bearing years into a fairly narrow gap. And so, 

a toy that is designed primarily for a 10-year-old may end up in 

the hands of the 10-year-old’s little sister. And that is one of the 

big risks. Those are the kinds of children I see in the emergency 

room. They got ahold of their big brother’s toy and had a great time 

and then ended up with some untoward event. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you very much. 

I yield back. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Colorado, Ms. DeGette. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank Congresswoman Schakowsky for asking the 

question about the 6 versus 12 years old. Because in Congresswoman DeLauro’s and my bill, H.R. 3691, we do have the age 12, 

and exactly for the reasons you said, Dr. Best. We think that all 

of the definitions should apply up to age 12. And I will probably 

be doing some kind of amendment or working with the chairman 

on the manager’s amendment to increase that age in our committee 

mark. 

I also wanted to ask you, Dr. Best, about another issue that Congresswoman DeLauro and I raised in our bill, which is what the 

lead standards should be per million. In your prepared testimony, 

you recommended a lead standard of 40 parts per million for all 

children’s products, which is what is in our bill. H.R. 4040 has a 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
102 

standard of 90 or 100 parts per million. And I am wondering if you 

can explain to us why 40 parts per million would be preferable. 

Dr. BEST. We spent a lot of time thinking about this, because it 

is an obviously complex issue. And we understand that every time 

we ratchet down the limit, it costs money for manufacturers and 

for the testers and for all involved. But what we decided was that 

the reference level should be what is trace in our environment. We 

can’t get below trace in any of our products. 

And so, to look for trace levels, we had to go to the scientific literature. And you had to look not at the United States on the East 

Coast, because we have actually contaminated our soil so much 

that it is higher than what we would consider trace. So we found 

an article that looked at the soil on the top of one of the mountains 

in Vermont. And they actually—this scientist looked at the levels 

in the air and in the layer of material that is right at the top of 

the dirt, you know, with the little pine cone needles—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. We have those in Colorado too. 

Dr. BEST. And then into the lower and lower levels, and then actually at the amount of lead that ended up in the waters, in the 

water table. 

And that is one of the ways we arrived at the 40, is that that 

was one of the lowest levels that this scientist found. 

Ms. DEGETTE. So that determination was actually based on a scientific examination? 

Dr. BEST. It was. It was. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Mr. Korn, I wanted to ask you, in your testimony 

you had said that you support increasing the Consumer Product 

Safety Commission’s budget. This, of course, has been an issue for 

debate in the press and other places with the commissioners of the 

CPSC about what kind of increase in the budget could be effectively used. 

And I am wondering, is there a particular level of funding that 

you think would be necessary? Putting aside what is in H.R. 4040 

or any other legislation, just in general, how much would we be 

able to increase their budget so that they could actually use that 

money effectively? 

Mr. KORN. Well, we are particularly hypnotized and pleased that 

it is just more money. This has been an agency that has not had 

the appropriate funding for so long. So seeing $10 million, $15 million increments in a year’s time is something that we think is a 

very good way. 

Do I have the expertise to tell you whether or not $20 million is 

enough to improve that lab? I don’t. To hear that the chairman has 

said that one of the options is to level the lab completely and start 

fresh raised with me the possibility that $20 million may not be 

enough. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And, in fact—and I think Ms. Weintraub pointed 

this out, too—when the Consumer Product Safety Commission 

started out in the 1970’s, the budget was $34.7 million. So if you 

took that, just for adjusting for inflation, it would be $140 million 

now. 

Mr. KORN. Which is where your bill gets to eventually. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Eventually it does. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
103 

Ms. Weintraub, what do you think? Would that be sufficient to 

do the things the Consumer Product Safety Commission needs to 

do? 

Ms. WEINTRAUB. We have been using that as a benchmark. 

Based upon our conversations with experts, we believe that money 

can’t be thrown at the Commission. We need smart growth. And we 

believe that about 15 percent increments, which is what this bill 

actually authorizes, is a smart way to go. 

This bill stops at 3 years. We would recommend going to 4 or 7 years, and ultimately at least getting to $140 million, which would 

put them on par with where they were at their very first authorization. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And then I would think what you would have to 

do, once you got it on par, is take a look, because the markets have 

changed so much, we have so many imports coming in from around 

the world, and say, is that budget going to be sufficient with the 

reorganization over 3 or 5 years to account for the current market? 

Ms. WEINTRAUB. I would agree. 

I also agree with Mr. Korn. We are coming from a starving men- tality, so the idea of $140 million is just pretty incredible. 

But, yes, I agree that we constantly have to be doing assessments, looking at all of the responsibilities that the Commission 

has, especially with the changing marketplace and the increased 

complexity of products, and determine if, indeed, that is adequate. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, 

Mr. Gonzalez. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you. 

My first question will be to—is it Ms. Belliveau? 

Ms. BELLIVEAU. Yes. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. In your testimony, you state, ‘‘We have also 

stepped up inspections of all factories manufacturing Hasbro products, both here in the United States as well as overseas.’’ 

What percentage of your toys are manufactured domestically, in 

the United States? 

Ms. BELLIVEAU. We have a game and puzzle manufacturing facility located in East Longmeadow, Massachusetts. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. But if you had a hundred toys—I just want to get 

the percentage. I am just assuming that the bulk is overseas? 

Ms. BELLIVEAU. The bulk is indeed overseas. 

We have a manufacturing facility that we own in Europe, in Waterford, Ireland, that is also a game and puzzle manufacturer. It 

is actually the largest game and puzzle manufacturer in Europe. It 

produces—— 

Mr. GONZALEZ. What country manufacturers the greatest percentage? 

Ms. BELLIVEAU. The greatest percentage of our manufacturing is 

done in southern China. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. So what I am getting at is, how do you perform 

your quality testing? Do you have Hasbro domestic personnel, 

United States, go to China and review the process there? 

Ms. BELLIVEAU. We have a U.S.-based quality assurance and 

product safety team. We are headquartered in Pawtucket, Rhode 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
104 

Island. And those are our corporate headquarters, where our QA 

function is based. We also have headquarters in the United Kingdom. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. What about China? 

Ms. BELLIVEAU. In China we have operations not only in Hong 

Kong but also in southern China. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Do you have personnel in the major manufacturing sites themselves? 

Ms. BELLIVEAU. Yes, sir. We have an on-the-ground presence in 

China, where we have engineers, inspectors and product safety experts who are full-time Hasbro employees whose responsibility it is 

to ensure that our systems are being—— 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Are these United States-trained United States 

citizens that obviously are assigned overseas duties, or are these 

outsourced? 

Ms. BELLIVEAU. We have United States citizens who are running 

our global operations as well as heading up our quality assurance 

function based in China. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Are the inspectors, the inspectors that are on the 

ground viewing the process, testing the product, trained in the 

United States, certified in the United States if that is what is required, but basically are in-house? 

Do you know what I am saying? People just contract everything 

out. I assume that happens with even inspection facilities in personnel. 

Now, once that process is taken care of, what do you do with the 

shipment of toys once they hit the American shores? Do you then 

conduct another sampling? Every hundred box of toys or something, do you take them out, test them, look at them? 

Ms. BELLIVEAU. Products that are produced in China for direct 

import into the United States are tested in China. We do our own 

in-house testing, and they are also tested by independent third parties. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. All right. 

And real quick, Mr. Korn, there are many things in this bill that 

are actually, well, are not in this bill at the present time, and one 

of them is going to be Federal preemption of State laws or allowing 

State attorneys general to enforce Federal law. Do you have any 

view on that? Because that is still being debated. 

Mr. KORN. It is not in my testimony, although it does seem to 

me to be a concept that is worthy of pursuing, whereby a State has 

got a product-safety piece of legislation that has been vetted 

through the State democratic process, whatever that may look like, 

that ends up stronger than the Federal legislation, that the Federal 

legislation does not preempt that process. That does make sense to 

me. 

My testimony, we haven’t formally had an opinion on it, but it 

is, my gut tells me, something that this committee could explore. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you. 

My last question—I only have a few questions, but I am hoping 

the chairman will indulge me and allow Mr. McGuire to respond. 

In your testimony you state, ‘‘We need to weigh whether we are 

actually achieving significant enhancements to product safety or 

whether we are imposing new nontariff barriers.’’ and then you 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
105 

continue and you expand on that: ‘‘dangerous products should not 

be exported from the United States to foreign countries. Therefore, 

we support the concept of expert provision in Section 211. However, 

where foreign countries are protected by different standards, U.S. 

firms should not be banned from exporting a product that meets 

those foreign standards’’—I am assuming standards that don’t really compared to United States standards. 

What 211 does—and really, do we have a moral obligation to 

other countries not to export those products that we wouldn’t want 

our citizens or our children on this side of the ocean to play with 

or be exposed to? 

211 simply states, ‘‘Section 211 permits the CPSC to prohibit the 

export of consumer products that cannot be sold in the United 

States. A manufacturer may not export products that are not in 

conformity with consumer product safety rules or subject to mandatory or voluntary recalls or designated an imminent hazard to public health and safety or designated as a banned or hazardous substance, unless the importing country is first notified.’’ 

So I assume that if we tell the country it is a dangerous product, 

we wouldn’t sell it over here, that they would simply say, well, that 

is fine, and—— 

Mr. RUSH. The gentleman’s time is expired, but we will allow the 

witness to answer the question. 

Mr. MCGUIRE. Well, thank you. 

Our views on that provision are that there are some cases where 

another country that has safety standards may have a different 

standard than the U.S. In the case of Europe, their flame-retardant 

standards are much different than ours, yet they are protective. 

Our views on the bill are that, while it is proper to inform the 

Consumer Product Safety Commission that a company wants to export a product to another country that has a standard but maybe 

different than the U.S., we are concerned about needing to obtain 

permission from the company where the product is going to be 

sent, for fear of creating a nontariff trade barrier, where that country, perhaps in consort with its own domestic industry, might want 

to prevent the importation of the product for nonsafety reasons but 

business reasons. 

So I think that provision needs to be carefully crafted so we are 

not creating another problem in the area of trade. 

We understand your intent with the safety provisions of the bill, 

and I think having the CPSC notified and given the opportunity to 

prevent the export would be the provision that would get at safety. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chairman now recognizes the chairman of the full 

committee, Mr. Dingell. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your courtesy. And, 

again, I commend you for the hearing. 

Starting with Ms. Weintraub, going across the committee table 

from her right on down, ladies and gentlemen, in three words or 

less, how do we fund H.R. 4040’s increased authorization of CPSC? 

Appropriations, user fees, what? 

Ms. WEINTRAUB. Appropriations. 

Mr. MCGUIRE. Authorization and appropriations. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
106 

Mr. KORN. I agree, Mr. Chairman. In fact, the appropriators have 

already committed, I believe, to this in part; some of them have. 

Mr. HALLENBECK. Congressman, I will have to demur. I am here 

to talk about the toy safety coordination initiatives, so I—— 

Mr. DINGELL. All right. 

Ma’am? 

Dr. BEST. And I also will have to say that is not in the purview 

of the pediatricians. 

Mr. DINGELL. And the last of our panel? 

Ms. BELLIVEAU. We would support authorization and appropriation, as well. 

Mr. DINGELL. Is there anybody there that will tell me that we 

have done a good job of getting appropriations to fund CPSC? 

As a matter of fact, we have done a very poor job, have we not? 

Now, Mr. McGuire you stated that there should be recognition 

that it is not practical for certain small products to contain tracking labels on each tiny component. However, section 103 of 4040 

mandates tracking labels for a product and its packaging only to 

the extent that it is feasible. 

Is this condition, requirement compatible with your statement, 

yes or no? 

Mr. MCGUIRE. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Very good. 

Now, Mr. McGuire, can you tell us why you maintain that it is 

unrealistic to expect firms to know every possible and changing 

subcontractor or fabricator used to produce a consumer product for 

sale in the United States? 

Mr. MCGUIRE. Mr. Chairman, manufacturers are the ones that 

are responsible for the safety of the product, as are major retailers 

or any retailer that is importing a product. In a foreign country, 

even in the United States, there are times when a manufacturer 

may not know the identity of a sub-subcontractor in the supply 

chain. They need to have systems in place where they are monitoring and auditing the safety of their suppliers. But it could be an 

incidence where something has changed. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, we have to understand that that is an essential component of knowing those things if you are anticipating the 

possibility of a product liability suit, isn’t it? 

Mr. MCGUIRE. Our position is simply that—— 

Mr. DINGELL. In other words, if you are a manufacturer and you 

say, ‘‘Well, I am manufacturing this, and if I make a mistake I am 

going to be sued.’’ so you are going to know who your suppliers are, 

are you not? 

Mr. MCGUIRE. Manufacturers need to know who their suppliers 

are and, to the best of their ability, try to know that. But there 

may be instances where someone further down the supply chain 

who is making a material that was going into a part—— 

Mr. DINGELL. That should be dealt with by putting in the contract to say that you will notify us in the event of changes in suppliers, isn’t that so? That is easily learned in the contract, is it not? 

Mr. MCGUIRE. I think if the provision related to an ultimate 

product manufacturer having actual knowledge, it would be preferable. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
107 

Mr. DINGELL. All right. It would be particularly true in the case, 

say, of a country like China, where we haven’t got any idea who 

manufactures what, where or how or why, and we don’t have the 

vaguest idea of what the controls or protections for consumers 

might be; isn’t that so? 

Mr. MCGUIRE. Well, Mr. Chairman, I don’t think that is necessarily true across the board. 

Mr. DINGELL. You are comfortable with all Chinese imports, is 

that right? And you are here to tell us what a great job they are 

doing about setting safe foods, drugs, cosmetics, appliance, toys? 

Mr. MCGUIRE. Well, with respect to appliances, a large percentage of appliances are manufactured in China, and they are all tested by independent labs for safety to meet U.S. safety standards. 

And it is up to the product manufacturer and the retailer to enforce 

that, as well as CPSC, in terms of—— 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, let us go to the next question. 

Mr. McGuire, you stated you wish the committee to amend section 211 of H.R. 4040, which relates to a recall and nonconforming 

products to permit U.S. manufacturers to export a product to a foreign country if the manufacturer can show that the product meets 

the country’s safety standards. 

What if the country does not have applicable safety standards for 

certain products? 

Mr. MCGUIRE. Then I think that would be an exception to that, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DINGELL. So that would be acted on accordingly. All right. 

Now, Mr. McGuire, H.R. 4040 keeps all the restrictions, or virtually all the restrictions, on section 6(b) of the Consumer Product 

Safety Act intact for public disclosure of information related to consumer products, except in the case that such information would be 

vital to protecting the public health and safety. 

Do you feel that this amendment is reasonable? 

Mr. MCGUIRE. I do, sir. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, Mr. Korn, H.R. 4040 amends section 15 to 

the Consumer Product Safety Act to permit CPSC to review and to 

approve a company’s plans for mandatory consumer product recalls. In your view, is this a good idea? 

Mr. KORN. Absolutely. 

Mr. DINGELL. Would you tell us, briefly, why? 

Mr. KORN. Right now, under the law, it is the manufacturer can 

elect a remedy amongst three. 

Sometimes there may be toasters in the marketplace and the 

manufacturer may elect to refund minus an allowance, which for 

a toaster is about $5. I don’t think that is enough of a motivating 

factor for an owner of that particular product to move to get the 

dangerous product that could start a house on fire, just to make up 

a situation, out of their homes. 

Instead, I believe it is important for the CPSC compliance staff 

to have a check on that election. I think it is OK to have the manufacturer at least pro-offer what they think is best, but let’s give the 

Consumer Product Safety Commission compliance staff the opportunity to police that selection to make sure the public interest is 

preserved. 

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
108 

Now, Mr. Korn, you have indicated your position supports independent, third-party testing throughout the manufacturing process 

and on several lots. In light of such a testing’s potential to protect 

consumers’ health and safety, do you think such a requirement 

would place an undue financial burden on manufacturers? 

Mr. KORN. I don’t. I think we have seen in the amount of recalls 

that have happened, because of lead in particular, the minimal cost 

for an extra lot testing is very small, de minimis, compared to the 

cost of recalling iconic brands out of the marketplace. 

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I have noticed I have used over my time. I thank 

you for your courtesy, and I yield back the balance of my time, such 

that it might be. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks the chairman of the full committee. 

I didn’t want to exercise the distasteful burden of telling the 

chairman that his time was up, so I just let him go on and on and 

on. 

And the Chair would now want to inform the committee that the 

record will remain open for 30 days for any additional questions 

that you might have for the witnesses. 

And we would ask the witnesses, if there are questions submitted to you, would you please respond promptly in writing. 

This subcommittee hearing is now adjourned. And we want to 

thank the witnesses for your time and for your patience, and thank 

you so much for your participation. Thank you very much. 

The meeting stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:58 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
109 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 115 here 45181A.028
110 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 116 here 45181A.029
111 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 117 here 45181A.030
112 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 118 here 45181A.031
113 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 119 here 45181A.032
114 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 120 here 45181A.033
115 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 121/200 here 45181A.034