Hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection Subcommittee - Child/Consumer Product Safety Panel I
Interview
Hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection Subcommittee - Child/Consumer Product Safety Panel I
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. EDWARD J. MARKEY (D-MA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much and thank you for having this hearing.
The Consumer Products Safety Commission is an Agency in crisis, starved 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 Products 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-doting grandparents that are given 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reality is that being on that list only means that the CPSC, with its single inspector testing toys for compliance with outdated standards, got lucky and found the problem before more children were affected.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 members of the subcommittee for taking up legislation to respond to the current mess over at the Consumer Products 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 towards mark-up.
Specifically, we need to close the roller coaster loophole which currently prevents the CPSC from investigating accidents at so-called fixed-site amusement parks. Some of these thrill rides hurtle children at speeds approaching 100 miles per hour. 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 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 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 future -- for further screening. If we can 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 whistle-blower protections for CPSC or 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 towards the goal of putting together for once -- you know, a comprehensive approach to how the Consumer Products Safety Commission is out there and actually protecting the American people. I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. EDWARD J. MARKEY (D-MA): 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 -- not -- denying you an authority which your agency had up until then. 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.
REP. MARKEY: Okay. Well, you need more resources -- there's no question about it. But I think you also need the authority. I think the resources will follow the authority and so that will be my intention. It was -- there was a little loophole built in here, okay, and there were no hearings. You had had the authority. It had been working very well and so that was kind of still this historical disgrace as far as I'm concerned in terms of taking 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're talking about well over half a million reports.
REP. MARKEY: So the answer is no?
MS. NORD: No, we don't.
REP. MARKEY: The answer is no. According to The Chicago Tribune, in 2005 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's an imminent hazard and we need to do that we can but I mean --
REP. 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 the accuracy of that but I think under our imminent hazard provision if we make that determination we can proceed however --
REP. MARKEY: And can the -- can a manufacturer actually --
MS. NORD: Or if we file a complaint we can proceed.
REP. MARKEY: Can a manufacturer actually sue CPSC to prevent you from issuing a warning at all?
MS. NORD: If they can show that it or what we're proposing to put out there is inaccurate.
REP. MARKEY: What if it's not inaccurate? Can they sue you?
MS. NORD: They can sue us. They probably wouldn't win.
REP. 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 the 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?
MR. MOORE: I think I missed your point. I'm sorry. Would you mind repeating the question?
REP. MARKEY: I cannot hear you, sir.
MR. MOORE: Would you mind repeating --
REP. MARKEY: I cannot --
MR. MOORE: I missed the question.
REP. 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's 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's something that's extremely imminent and it's very hazardous, we have to move forward. The companies ought to have an opportunity to respond to it.
REP. MARKEY: Do you support the current law allowing companies to sue CPSC to prevent information from being disclosed?
MR. MOORE: No.
REP. MARKEY: You do not?
MR. MOORE: No.
REP. MARKEY: Okay.
MR. MOORE: I don't think that's in the public's interest in many cases.
REP. MARKEY: That's very helpful to me. Thank you. I appreciate it.
I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source