Hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection Subcommittee - Child/Consumer Product Safety Panel I
Interview
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. JAN SCHAKOWSKY (D-IL): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First I'd 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 to their deaths 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 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 rescue of the -- or 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 six months ago, the subcommittee began a series of hearings on how to protect our children from the recent scourge of tainted, imported toys and how to address other shortcomings and issues in the consumer product safety system. Today we've 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 product 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 flaws.
Most Americans assume that the government is already doing that work. Seventy-five percent of people believe that the government conducts pre-market 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's 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 children's products. I was happy that it includes the Danny Kaiser Product Safety Notification Act, which I had sponsored, requiring manufacturers to provide consumers with registration cards to assist in product recalls.
I'm 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-size cribs, rattles and bottles are the only infants and toddler products that have required safety standards. By requiring the CPSC to establish mandatory standards, and requiring the testing and certification be performed by an independent third party, this bill goes a long way to ensuring parents that the products that their infants use are indeed safe.
I hope we'll 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, consumer groups, interdepartment 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's essential we also address the preemption issue. The health and safety standards that the CPSC developed should strengthen those states with weaker laws, but should not weaken those with stronger laws.
And finally, I hope -- I want to make sure we include effective whistleblower provisions. Thank you.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. 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's 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'm really not going to address what your constituents would think of --
REP. SCHAKOWSKY: Well, what do you think?
MS. NORD: That's a hypothetical. All I can talk to you about is what I did.
REP. SCHAKOWSKY: Yeah. And I think that it's really -- and I'm making the case that it's very parallel. In fact, I want to quote from an ethics expert. "It's 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," said a career ethics lawyer in another government agency who required anonymity because he was not cleared to comment for the record.
It's legal, but it is clearly an abuse of discretion. It exhibited at best enormous insensitivity and, at worst, outright disdain for the ethical principles of government service.
I also note, in the same article, that in 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. (Laughs.)
REP. 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.
REP. 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 six commission employees to attend its meeting in Orlando. You know, they said they too are on a tight budget; offered to pay for 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.
REP. SCHAKOWSKY: Oh. Well, so we just have a difference of opinion here.
MS. NORD: No, no. It's very clear. We do not solicit those invitations.
REP. SCHAKOWSKY: Okay, we'll have to check back with that agency --
MS. NORD: We'll work with you on that.
REP. SCHAKOWSKY: -- that said that there was a request. Well, I'll ask them as well.
Is it not true that there's one full-time employee of the CPSC, full-time employee, who is in charge of inspecting toys, Bob, and he's retiring?
MS. NORD: There are a number of people that --
REP. SCHAKOWSKY: I understand. Is there one full-time employee in charge of --
MS. NORD: No. There are other full-time employees that 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 employees of the agency.
REP. SCHAKOWSKY: Well, if we could get a list of full-time -- if the committee then could get a list of full-time employees that inspect toys, that would be --
MS. NORD: Happy to provide it.
REP. SCHAKOWSKY: -- extremely helpful.
Commissioner Moore, you've 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'm just wondering how long you think 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 --
REP. SCHAKOWSKY: Could you speak into the microphone?
MR. MOORE: I wish I could tell you with some specificity in terms of how long it might take, but we're talking about the need to develop experienced people on these particular issues at the commission. And it may take two or three years to do that. But in the meantime, we will be working on it. And we'll let the public be aware of our work. And we'll continue to look at potentially harmful products.
REP. SCHAKOWSKY: Mr. Chairman, if I could ask just 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 has?
MS. NORD: That's totally up to Congress.
REP. SCHAKOWSKY: Would you support it?
MS. NORD: That's up to Congress.
REP. SCHAKOWSKY: You've commented on many provisions. It's an easy yes or no.
MS. NORD: If Congress wishes to do that and gives us the budget, yes, of course I would.
REP. SCHAKOWSKY: Thank you.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source