    [House Hearing, 110 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

          LEGISLATION TO IMPROVE CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY FOR CHILDREN

    =======================================================================

                                    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

                                       ON

                             H.R. 2474, H.R. 1699,
                              H.R. 814, H.R. 1721

                                   __________

                                  JUNE 6, 2007

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 110-52

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                            energycommerce.house.gov

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    42-256 PDF                 WASHINGTON DC:  2008
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
    Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                      JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan, Chairman

    HENRY A. WAXMAN, California          JOE BARTON, Texas
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts          Ranking Member
    RICK BOUCHER, Virginia               RALPH M. HALL, Texas
    EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York             J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey       FRED UPTON, Michigan
    BART GORDON, Tennessee               CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
    ANNA G. ESHOO, California            ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
    BART STUPAK, Michigan                BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
    ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
    ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland             HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico
    GENE GREEN, Texas                    JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
    DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
        Vice Chairman                    Mississippi
    LOIS CAPPS, California               VITO FOSSELLA, New York
    MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania             STEVE BUYER, Indiana
    JANE HARMAN, California              GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
    TOM ALLEN, Maine                     JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
    JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             MARY BONO, California
    HILDA L. SOLIS, California           GREG WALDEN, Oregon
    CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas           LEE TERRY, Nebraska
    JAY INSLEE, Washington               MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
    TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
    MIKE ROSS, Arkansas                  SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina
    DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon               JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
    ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York          TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
    JIM MATHESON, Utah                   MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
    G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina     MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
    CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
    JOHN BARROW, Georgia
    BARON P. HILL, Indiana

                                     ______

                               Professional Staff

                     Dennis B. Fitzgibbons, Chief of Staff

                       Gregg A. Rothschild, Chief Counsel

                          Sharon E. Davis, Chief Clerk

                     Bud Albright, Minority Staff Director

                                      (ii)
            Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection

                       BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois, Chairman
    JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             CLIFF STEARNS, Florida,
        Vice Chairman                         Ranking Member
    G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina     J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
    JOHN BARROW, Georgia                 ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
    BARON P. HILL, Indiana               CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts          Mississippi
    RICK BOUCHER, Virginia               VITO FOSSELLA, New York
    EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York             GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
    DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
    CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas           MARY BONO, California
    MIKE ROSS, Arkansas                  LEE TERRY, Nebraska
    DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon               SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina
    ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York          MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
    JIM MATHESON, Utah                   MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
    CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana          JOE BARTON, Texas (ex officio)
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex
        officio)

                                 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. Jan Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Illinois, opening statement.................................     5
    Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Texas, opening statement..............................     6
    Hon. Baron P. Hill, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Indiana, opening statement..................................     7
    Hon. Dennis Moore, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Kansas, opening statement......................................     8
    Hon. G.K. Butterfield, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of North Carolina, prepared statement....................    11
    H.R. 814, to require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to
      issue regulations mandating child-resistant closures on all
      portable gasoline containers...................................    12
    H.R. 1699, to direct the Consumer Product Safety Commission to
      require certain manufacturers to provide consumer product
      registration forms to facilitate recalls of durable infant and
      toddler products...............................................    15
    H.R. 1721, to increase the safety of swimming pools and spas by
      requiring the use of proper anti-entrapment drain covers and
      pool and spa drainage systems, by establishing a swimming pool
      safety grant program administered by the Consumer Product
      Safety Commission to encourage States to improve their pool and
      spa safety laws and to educate the public about pool and spa
      safety, and for other purposes.................................    21
    H.R. 2474, to provide for an increased maximum civil penalty for
      violations under the Consumer Product Safety Act...............    34

                                   Witnesses

    Edmund Mierzwinski, consumer program director, U.S. Public
      Interest Research Group, Washington, DC........................    35
        Prepared statement...........................................    37
    Sally Greenberg, senior product safety counsel, Consumers Union,
      Washington, DC.................................................    42
        Prepared statement...........................................    45

                               Submitted Material

    Nancy A. Nord, Acting Chairman, U.S. Consumer Product Safety
      Commission, submitted statement................................    66
        Answers to submitted questions...............................    83
    Thomas Moore, Commissioner, U.S.Consumer Product Safety
      Commission, answers to submitted questions.....................   102
    David Asselin, executive director, Council of Manufacturing
      Associations for the NAM CPSC Coalition, letter of June 6, 2007
      to Messrs. Rush and Stearns....................................   109

    LEGISLATION TO IMPROVE CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY FOR CHILDREN, H.R. 2474,
                       H.R. 1699, H.R. 814, AND H.R. 1721

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JUNE 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 10:10 a.m., in
    room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bobby L. Rush
    (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Schakowsky, Hill, Stearns,
    Whitfield and Burgess.
        Also present: Representatives Moore of Kansas, and
    Wasserman Schultz.
        Staff present: Judith Bailey, Christian Tamotsu Fjeld,
    Angela E. Davis, Will Carty, Shannon Weinberg, and Matt
    Johnson.

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

        Mr. Rush. The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer
    Protection will come to order.
        The subject of our gathering today is to conduct a hearing
    on legislation to improve consumer product safety for children:
    H.R. 2474, H.R. 1699, H.R. 814, and H.R. 1721.
        The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes for an opening
    statement.
        One of the most critical subjects in this subcommittee's
    jurisdiction is consumer product safety, especially the safety
    of our children and the products that they use. As I noted at
    the oversight hearing this subcommittee held last month, I
    regard this aspect of our jurisdiction very seriously. I intend
    to initiate comprehensive reform of the Nation's children
    product safety system during this 110th Congress. We could do
    no less for our children. Today's hearing is a first step. We
    are considering four bills. Each has a limited and rather
    targeted goal. More importantly, all of the bills enjoy
    bipartisan support.
        H.R. 2474 gives the Consumer Product Safety Commission an
    additional tool to enforce product safety by raising the
    overall cap on civil penalties that we can impose from the
    current $1.83 million to $20 million. This is the same increase
    that the Senate passed in 2003 as part of a CPSC
    reauthorization bill.
        Second, we will consider H.R. 1699, introduced by
    Representatives Schakowsky and Upton, and it will require the
    CPSC to promulgate regulations to require manufacturers of
    defined nursery products--cribs, strollers and the like--to
    include postage-paid postcards for consumers to fill out so
    they can be notified directly in the event of a product recall.
    This bill adds one more tool to accomplish an effective recall
    of dangerous products. It is modeled after the car seat recall
    system used by the National Highway and Traffic Safety
    Administration. With privacy concerns in mind, this bill
    specifically prohibits information provided by consumers from
    being used for any other purpose.
        Third, H.R. 814, introduced by Representatives Moore and
    Bachus, requires the CPSC to promulgate regulations to require
    child safety resistant caps on portable gasoline cans, cans
    sold empty. The current requirements inexplicably do not apply
    unless the cans already have the dangerous product inside.
        Finally, H.R. 1721, introduced by Representatives Wasserman
    Schultz and Wolf, requires the CPSC to promulgate regulations
    to require antientrapment drain covers for swimming pools to
    prevent a particularly horrible form of drowning. It also
    requires the CPSC to establish a grant program for the States
    to encourage them to enact laws that mandate greater improved
    safety, including laws requiring adequate fencing and other
    barriers to entry.
        At this time, it is my honor and privilege to acknowledge
    the presence in the hearing room of Ms. Nancy Baker. Both Ms.
    Baker and her father-in-law, Secretary James Baker, are strong
    supporters of the pool and spa bill. Please note that the
    terrible tragedy that took the life of their daughter and
    granddaughter has been a major inspiration for the reforms set
    forth in this bill.
        Ms. Baker, please accept our condolences. We intend to make
    sure that your tragic loss was not in vain, and we will use
    that as a springboard to ensure that we prevent losses in the
    future of that kind. We thank you for your presence at this
    hearing.
        I hope that we can have a full discussion on these bills in
    today's hearing. Let me emphasize that I want to work with the
    entire subcommittee on a bipartisan basis to make any technical
    or other changes and improvements to the bills and then move
    quickly to markup. As I said, these four bills are only a first
    step. In the months ahead, I hope to conduct a comprehensive
    review of the Agency's basic statutory authority and to craft
    the necessary reforms. Once again, I hope to do this on a
    bipartisan basis with the assistance of the CPSC, consumer
    advocates and industry groups. It is time now that we show the
    American people that we are serious about our children's
    product safety.
        Before we begin, let me just take leave to share a word on
    our witnesses. We have two who are presenting oral testimony.
    We also have written testimony from Ms. Nancy Nord, the Acting
    Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. We invited
    the CPSC to send a representative to provide oral testimony at
    the hearing. Originally Ms. Nord elected to respond to that
    request and to testify in person. Yesterday we decided we
    needed to collapse the hearing into one panel because of the
    time restraints presented by today's floor consideration of
    H.R. 964, the spyware bill, for which I will serve as the
    manager. When Ms. Nord learned that we needed her to testify on
    the same panel with the other two witnesses, she declined to
    appear in person or, alternatively, to send another CPSC
    representative.
        We regret her decision not to have a CPSC witness at this
    hearing. Although, perhaps unusual, we have had to have one-
    panel hearings in the past and have mixed government witnesses
    with other witnesses such as the March 9 hearing on pretexting.
    In the future we will need the full participation of all of
    those at the CPSC and its leadership as we work to improve our
    Nation's consumer product safety system. I very much hope that
    the CPSC will be able to help us promote children's product
    safety and to look out for the needs of all of our consumers.
         With that, I recognize the ranking member of the
    subcommittee, my friend from Florida, Mr. Stearns.

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

        Mr. Stearns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just thank you
    again for holding this hearing. I think I will move right to
    your last point.
        As all of us know, CPSC Acting Chairwoman Nord was
    scheduled to appear today. She is not because the majority
    staff would not afford her the opportunity and courtesy of
    having the head of a Federal agency testify separately from
    nonadministration witnesses. This has been the precedent of
    this committee as long as I was chairman and going back with
    our staff for 15 to 20 years. So I understand there has been a
    misunderstanding of, perhaps, the committee staff of the
    majority in trying to increase witness participation because of
    time constraints, and I fully take the chairman at his word,
    but mixing a chairperson of a major Federal agency has never
    been done. It has always been on a separate hearing. We did
    that under the Clinton administration when I was in the
    majority.
        So I think we had a little misunderstanding. I hope, in the
    future, that the acting chairwoman will be called back and will
    be given the opportunity and afforded the opportunity and
    courtesy of having her testify separately from
    nonadministration witnesses.
        Having said that, it is important that, I think as you
    pointed out directly here, we examine these issues on these
    four bills. So I commend you for taking the time. We do not
    have a lot of time, but it is important that we have a hearing
    on this. We both know we have the spyware bill on the floor,
    and we are both eager to try and move that forward. That bill
    is on a Suspension Calendar today. The Social Security number
    protection bill, the pretexting bill and your commitment to
    move the data security bill by regular order is all in order,
    too. So I commend you for this full agenda.
        One thing we also are a little concerned about is finding
    one witness that has an interest in all four bills from
    gasoline containers to increasing civil fines was extremely
    difficult, in addition to finding a witness given the short
    holiday workweek last week. For example, if we had 10 bills on
    the hearing, would we still only get one witness? What happens
    if we had 20 bills? So I think what would be helpful for our
    side is if we had an opportunity to have a different witness
    comment on each of these four bills instead of one witness to
    comment on the four bills.
        So, normally, I would assume a legislative hearing would be
    held on each individual bill. Absent that, I would hope a
    hearing on multiple bills will be structured in a manner that
    permits the Republicans an opportunity to present a witness for
    each bill if the majority does not invite witnesses who
    represent those businesses who may have to operate under the
    proposed regulations.
        This is an opportunity for freedom of thought, for freedom
    of opinion, and for letting the minority have an opportunity to
    have some authority on these bills. I hope we can have such an
    opportunity in the future so that we can continue as you and I
    work in a bipartisan way to develop legislation out of this
    committee.
        That being said, Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us
    today is important, as you mentioned. All of the bills before
    us in some way involve the important work on the Consumer
    Product Safety Commission. It is no secret that anything
    involving children and consumer products tends to stir emotion
    in a manner that usually leads our protective nature to shield
    our children from harm. After all, that is part of the reason
    the CPSC was created in the first place, to provide a mechanism
    to ensure that consumer products in the marketplace are safe.
    Nobody wants to find that a product they can purchase at the
    local store is unsafe and creates a hazard for our young
    children, and nothing is more tragic than a life that ends
    prematurely, especially when it ends due to a foreseeable
    hazard. But our job is to evaluate the legislation on the
    merits, regardless of how we feel about the subject matter, and
    make any necessary recommendations or changes.
        The legislation we examine today addresses four discrete
    issues: an increase in civil penalties the CPSC can levy,
    mandatory product registration for child nursery items, a
    uniform safety cap for gasoline containers, and pool and spa
    safety standards. Everyone wants to make sure that our children
    are safe, and that unscrupulous people who attempt to evade
    laws and standards are punished.
        I wholeheartedly support improved safety standards and
    punishing wrongdoers, but I have some questions about aspects
    of the relative legislation that I hope will be explored during
    our question-and-answer period to our witnesses. I intend to
    submit written questions directed to the CPSC.
        I ask, Mr. Chairman, unanimous consent that the
    Commission's responses be added as part of the record here
    today.
        Mr. Rush. So ordered.
        Mr. Stearns. The CPSC has performed an invaluable service
    to our country under a rare formula that has proven very
    successful. Voluntary standards promulgated and adhered to by
    industry can, and usually do serve as a de facto standard. With
    the aid of established industry standard-setting bodies, the
    workload of the CPSC is effectively delegated in many cases and
    obviates the need for formal CPSC rulemaking that would consume
    their valuable time and resources that could be spent more
    productively elsewhere.
        So I look forward to the hearing today, Mr. Chairman, and I
    appreciate our being able to expedite this hearing so we can
    get our spyware on the floor. Thank you.
        Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the gentle lady from
    Illinois Ms. Schakowsky for 5 minutes.

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

        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you so much, Chairman Rush, for
    holding today's hearing on four important bills that would
    protect children from needless harm and everyday dangers. I am
    especially grateful that you included my bill, H.R. 1699, the
    Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, or Danny's
    Act.
        As we heard at last month's hearing on children's products,
    because of lax laws and inadequate protections, dangerous and,
    in fact, deadly products are being made and sold for use by
    children. It is past due that we give parents the security they
    deserve and children the safety they need.
        The importance of enacting stronger protections cannot be
    overstated. Unintentional injuries are the leading cause of
    death among children, and for every such injury that is fatal,
    approximately 18 children are hospitalized, and 1,250 are
    treated by emergency departments. According to the Consumer
    Product Safety Commission--I have in my testimony--who is not
    with us here today, an average of 61 children under the age of
    5 die each year in incidents associated with nursery products.
    Of 318 consumer products recalled by the CPSC in 2006, 111, or
    35 percent, were items intended for use by or in the care of
    children.
        My bill, Danny's Act, would help prevent those needless and
    preventable injuries and deaths by making the recall of
    children's products more effective. H.R. 1699 would require
    that each durable infant and toddler product--and we name
    them--high chairs, cribs and strollers, et cetera--come with a
    postage-paid recall registration card. This will allow the
    manufacturers to directly contact each parent who bought their
    product should any problem arise that could put their children
    at risk.
        Although there is a shocking number of recalled products,
    our current recall system is failing. Actual notice of a recall
    is dependent on news outlets' picking up the story and
    spreading the word. Notification targeted to owners of the
    product is rare, and many parents remain unaware of dangers
    even when products are recalled. In fact, many families still
    have the dangerous products listed in this report in their
    homes because they have not happened to turn on the television
    at the right time or to read the right newspaper.
        My colleague, Representative Fred Upton, and I named our
    bill that would help solve this problem the Danny Keysar Child
    Product Safety Notification Act because his story is a tragic
    example of the inadequacy of our current recall practices.
    Danny Keysar, the precious 17-month-old son of Linda Ginzel and
    her husband Boaz Keysar, died when the Playskool Travel Lite
    portable crib he had been napping in at his babysitter's home
    collapsed. The rails of the crib folded into a V-shaped wedge
    when he stood up, trapping his neck, and he was strangled to
    death. It was May 12th, 1998, 5 years after the CPSC had
    ordered it off the shelves because it was so dangerous. Word of
    its hazard had not reached Danny's parents, the caregiver with
    whom he was staying or the State safety inspector who visited
    the home just 8 days before Danny's death. Had Danny's Act been
    in effect, there would have been a much greater chance of
    saving Danny's life and the lives of six children who have
    since died from the Travel Lite.
        We know that, while not the one and only answer, recall
    registration cards are an inexpensive and effective way of
    getting the word out. My bill is modeled after the National
    Highway and Transportation Safety Administration's recall
    system for car seats. Since NHTSA started requiring car seats
    to have registration cards in 1993, the number of families
    registering increased by at least tenfold. Recall repair rates
    have gone up 56 percent, all for a mere 43 cents per item. This
    bill will give families a much greater chance to repair, return
    or discard any dangerous products that have made it into the
    children's nurseries.
        Finally, I would like to express my support for my
    colleagues' bills that are being considered. Mr. Rush's bill,
    H.R. 2474, would raise the cap on civil penalties for knowingly
    violating CPSC requirements so that getting caught violating
    safety requirements could not be written off as simply the cost
    of doing business. The Children's Gasoline Burn Prevention Act,
    which would extend the requirement of childproof caps to apply
    to gas cans, could save 1,200 families trips to the emergency
    room every year, and the Pool and Spa Safety Act would set a
    much-needed antientrapment standard for pool and spa drains
    sold in the United States.
        I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for today's hearing, and I
    regret the lack of presence of the Acting Chair of the Consumer
    Product Safety Commission. I hope we can get past standing on
    ceremony and deal directly with saving children's lives. I
    welcome the witnesses who we have with us today.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
    Texas, Mr. Burgess, for 5 minutes.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS, A REPRESENTATIVE
                  IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

        Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        As a parent, physician and Congressman, I firmly believe
    our children's safety and security should be our highest
    priority. Through over 25 years of practice delivering 3,000
    babies in north Texas, I can tell you, before I placed a baby
    in the parents' arms, the first question invariably that was
    asked is, ``Is the baby healthy? Is the baby safe?''
        The safety and security of our children is the first thing
    on every parent's mind whether that child is a newborn or is a
    grown adult. The internal instinct is to protect all children.
    It transcends party lines. I think Republicans and Democrats
    alike can agree that our children are our most precious
    resource, and we must nurture and protect them. However, one
    thing that we do not agree on is how this hearing is being run
    today.
        Disappointment. The word does not describe how I feel right
    now about Chairwoman Nord's absence at this committee. Her
    written testimony is very compelling and provides some
    excellent points and suggestions as the acting chairwoman of a
    Federal agency, and this committee should have given her the
    courtesy that she deserved. From my understanding, and I have
    not been here that long, there is absolutely no precedent to
    put agency chairmen and/or commissioners on a panel with
    private-sector witnesses of any kind, and to ask Chairwoman
    Nord to do this is disrespectful to her and to the United
    States Consumer Public Safety Commission.
        Due to the majority's action, this committee is robbed of a
    key insight that could have been provided to and that could
    have benefited our society. The chairwoman also recently
    traveled to China and met with officials about the disturbing
    trends of recalls of Chinese products. The American public
    deserves to hear her recount of the meetings, and by her not
    being here today to discuss this crucial matter in a public
    forum, the majority has inadvertently helped to silence the
    demand for the safety of consumer products imported from the
    People's Republic of China.
        Additionally, we are talking about safety and
    antientrapment standards in swimming pools. That is a good
    thing to be talking about, but right next-door to my district
    in Fort Worth, Texas, we lost several young people and an adult
    in an ornamental pool in downtown Fort Worth, Texas. I would
    have welcomed the opportunity to ask Chairwoman Nord about the
    possibility of additional safety standards that would increase
    the amount of protection, the regulation and the protection for
    people who visit ornamental pools or landscaping pools.
        Mr. Chairman, I was so concerned about this that I was
    considering offering a motion to have the committee rise. I was
    talked off that ledge by the ranking member, so I thank him for
    his input, but let us not forget that it is the U.S. Consumer
    Product Safety Commission that is tasked with the job of trying
    to safeguard our society and our children in particular from
    unreasonable risks of injury and death associated with consumer
    products.
        I do not consider this to be a legitimate hearing to
    critically discuss legislation if the agency charged with
    enforcement is not present to testify. This committee is not
    doing our due diligence to the American public if the Consumer
    Product Safety Commission is not welcomed to the table to
    discuss the four pieces of legislation on the docket today, and
    I will continue to have grave concerns about the applicability
    of certain aspects of the legislation before us, and I am going
    to have continued concerns about the procedural irregularities
    of this hearing. I trust this will not happen again.
        I yield back my time.
        Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
    Indiana Mr. Hill for 5 minutes.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARON P. HILL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA

        Mr. Hill. I would like to thank Chairman Rush, Vice Chair
    Schakowsky and Ranking Member Stearns for holding this
    important hearing today.
        Mr. Chairman, in addition to my own testimony, I request
    unanimous consent to insert the testimony of Mr. Alan Korn into
    the record. Mr. Korn is the director of public policy and
    general counsel to Safe Kids Worldwide. Safe Kids Worldwide is
    a global network of organizations whose mission is to prevent
    accidental injury, childhood injury, a leading killer of
    children 14 and under.
        Mr. Rush. So ordered.
        Mr. Hill. They have played an important role in encouraging
    ways to improve the safety of America's children. As the summer
    months approach, there will be an unfortunate increase in
    incidences throughout the Nation. In recognition of that fact,
    June is Home Safety Awareness Month and an appropriate time to
    discuss relevant legislation pending before this committee. By
    encouraging the awareness of possible dangers within homes
    across America, we can attempt to reduce injuries and deaths to
    children across the country. The bills we are here to discuss
    today promote the ideas of home safety awareness by seeking to
    protect America's homes and families.
        Mr. Chairman, at our last hearing, I spoke about one bill
    in particular that would go a long way towards reducing
    incidents of child injury and death, and that is House
    Resolution 1721, the Pool and Spa Safety Act. Today I would
    like to reiterate my support for this bill and encourage
    action.
        After this committee's last hearing, I spoke with Nancy
    Baker, who lost one of her children because of the absence of
    the safe drain covers which this bill addresses. I know that
    Nancy is here today, and I want to commend her for her efforts
    to address this issue, and when I was on the phone with her, I
    talked to her a little bit about her courage. The best way to
    say this is not to retreat in sadness over the loss of her
    child. She wanted to make sure that other children did not have
    the same kind of things happen to them, and I applaud her here
    this morning for having the courage to step up and do this, and
    I am very impressed with her efforts.
        It is clear that children can be spared from this
    terrifying situation, and parents can be spared from enduring
    that sort of pain. The steps we take here can help to move us
    towards that goal.
        I am aware that there may be some minor technical concerns
    with the Pool and Spa Safety Act; however, I hope that we can
    all work together to ensure prompt action on this very
    important bill. By doing so, we will realize the goals of Home
    Safety Awareness Month and prevent families in the future from
    enduring the pain caused by avoidable drowning accidents.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my
    time.
        Mr. Rush. The Chair wants to thank the gentleman and now
    recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky Mr. Whitfield for 5
    minutes of opening statement.
        Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Chairman, I will waive my opening
    statement.
        Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
        Now we will recognize the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Moore,
    who is not a member of the committee, but he is a sponsor of
    one of the bills that we are considering today.
        Mr. Moore, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Welcome to the
    committee.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DENNIS MOORE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS

        Mr. Moore. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of
    the committee. I really appreciate the opportunity to come
    before your committee today to testify in support of H.R. 814,
    the Children's Gasoline Burn Prevention Act of 2007.
        Mr. Chairman, they say that good things come to those who
    wait, but I think children who are the victims of burn injuries
    and death and their families would certainly disagree with
    that. I have introduced this measure with my friend and
    colleague Spencer Bachus of Alabama to allow the CPSC to
    require child-resistant gas caps for portable gas containers. I
    believe our children have waited too long for this commonsense
    consumer protection.
        The 1973 Poison Packaging Prevention Act requires items
    containing dangerous or poisonous materials, such as pill
    bottles and drain openers, be sold with child-resistant caps,
    but gasoline cans are exempt from this requirement because they
    are sold empty even though they are designed solely to contain
    one hazardous, highly flammable liquid and probably the most
    dangerous substance in any of our homes, gasoline.
        H.R. 814 would simply amend section 9 of the Consumer
    Product Safety Act to include child-resistant standards for
    closures in all portable gasoline containers. Allowing these
    cans to be sold with simple twist-off caps is dangerous and
    causes tragic accidents when children come into contact with
    them. Unfortunately, these accidents occur all too frequently.
    In 2003, the Consumer Product Safety Commission released a
    report estimating that, in a single year, about 1,270 children
    under the age of 5 were treated in emergency rooms for injuries
    resulting from unsecured gas cans either through fires or from
    the inhalation of fumes.
        When I introduced this bill, I had a press conference at a
    fire station in my district, and the firemen were there with
    their fire trucks, and the TV cameras were there. And a mother
    brought her little 4-year-old boy over, and he was the cutest
    little thing, Mr. Chairman, running around in little shorts and
    had a short-sleeved shirt on and had a plastic fire hat on, and
    he had horrible burns all over his face and his arms and his
    legs. These burns could have been prevented.
        H.R. 814 has been endorsed by the American Society for
    Testing and Materials Task Group of Standards for Flammable
    Liquid Containers, the World Burn Foundation, the National
    Safety Council, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the
    National Fire Protection Association, Public Citizen, and the
    Office of the Kansas State Fire Marshal. In addition, Mr.
    Chairman, H.R. 814 would not cost the taxpayers one single
    penny, and it is strongly bipartisan.
        During the 109th Congress, the chairman's Gasoline Burn
    Prevention Act garnered 119 cosponsors, Republicans and
    Democrats. Mr. Chairman, this should not be about Republicans
    and Democrats. This is about our children.
        Mr. Chairman, I have seven grandchildren right now, and I
    expect my eighth grandchild by noon today, and I am doing this
    for my grandchildren and for every child in this country to
    protect those children. I was district attorney in my home
    county for 12 years, and I worked a whole lot of child abuse
    cases to protect children, and I am doing the same thing here
    today to protect children from further danger, preventable
    danger and from preventable injuries and death.
        I want to thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the
    opportunity to appear today before your subcommittee. I hope
    that we can work together to enact this simple, commonsense
    measure that will protect young children and help put their
    parents' minds at ease with regard to gasoline cans stored in
    garages, basements and back porches. The Consumer Product
    Safety Commission should be and must be allowed to adequately
    protect our children.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rush. I want to thank the gentleman.
         I want to remind the members of the committee that this
    subcommittee and this chairman are concerned about doing the
    people's business. I have respect for pomp and circumstance,
    and I am not disrespectful to any individual, be they members
    of the administration, members of this committee or members of
    the public. I intend to be respectful.
        However, if there is a time restriction, and there are time
    restraints, then the priority of this chairman is to make sure
    that the people's business gets conducted in a timely manner,
    and that was the motivation and is the motivation behind the
    actions of the Chair.
        Mr. Burgess. A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
        The time constraint was the spyware bill; is that correct?
        Mr. Rush. The time restraint was the schedule for the House
    floor, which we had no control over and which we have no
    control over. The Chair does not have any control over the
    schedule on the House floor, and the spyware bill is to be up
    today, and the Chair is scheduled to manage the spyware bill,
    and because of those obligations and conflicts, the Chair
    decided to fold the panels into one panel and to move forward
    with this hearing.
        The Chair did not consider canceling this hearing. The
    Chair did not consider moving this hearing to another date or
    to another time. The Chair was concerned about doing the
    people's business and making it the priority. Hopefully--I
    believe sincerely that anyone, whether or not they sat at a
    table with someone else or not, that that was not going to be
    that much of a big deal.
        Mr. Burgess. Mr. Chairman, there is respect for doing the
    people's business, and I respect you for doing that, but it
    also seems the people's business would be better accomplished
    if we heard from all witnesses involved.
        Mr. Rush. I really wanted to say that the Acting Chairman
    of the Consumer Product Safety Commission was told initially
    that she did not have to be here, that she did not have to
    appear. Just send a staff member. We wanted a staff member. She
    wanted to insert herself, and then she wanted to insert herself
    under certain circumstances and certain conditions that the
    Chair just could not respond to in an affirmative type of way.
    So we have decided to go ahead with the hearing. The
    Commissioner or the Acting Chairperson still has the
    opportunity to send someone over who is a staff member to
    answer the questions and to provide testimony to this
    subcommittee. The opportunity is still there for her, and I
    would certainly encourage her to come forward.
        I believe that the quibbling over who sits where is not a
    proper point of inquiry when we are attempting to do important
    business that the people elected us to get done, and the Chair
    would----
        Mr. Burgess. I do not think so. When we have a protocol, we
    should follow it.
        Mr. Rush. Thank you. We will move to our hearing.
        Mr. Stearns. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to put
    in as part of the record the CPSC coalition letter that both
    you and I received.
        Mr. Rush. So ordered. Any other statements for the record
    will be accepted at this time, as well as copies of the bills
    under consideration.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Butterfield and H.R. 814,
    1699, 1721, and 2474 follows:]

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

        The oversight hearing the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade,
    and Consumer Protection held nearly a month ago on the Consumer
    Product Safety Commission (CPSC) shed light on the understaffed
    and underfunded conditions at the Commission. It was an
    extremely productive hearing that was successful in laying out
    a framework for potential improvements. The CPSC is charged
    with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of serious
    injury or death from thousands of consumer goods. Many of these
    products have a direct safety implication for children.
        While the safety of all Americans is of critical importance
    to lawmakers, the safety of children is of particular interest
    for this hearing. The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
    Consumer Protection will discuss several important legislative
    initiatives aimed at improving the consumer product safety for
    children. Not enough is being done to protect consumers--
    particularly children.
        H.R. 2474, introduced by Chairman Rush, aims to increase
    the maximum civil penalty for violations under the Consumer
    Product Safety Act. The current limit the CPSC can assess is
    $1.825 million--the bill seeks to increase the limit to $20
    million. Unfortunately, the current penalty is so low that some
    businesses see it simply as the cost of doing business. So
    these companies continue to violate CPSC safety violations,
    putting our children at risk.
        The Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act--
    H.R. 1699--was introduced by Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky.
    Mirroring the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's
    recall for car seats, H.R. 1699 requires everyday nursery
    products to come with a prepaid postage registration card for
    easy dissemination of recall information. Through this
    legislation, if a product is recalled, more consumers and
    children will be protected.
        The Children's Gasoline Burn Prevention Act--H.R. 814--
    would require that the CPSC disseminate standards for portable
    gasoline caps for gasoline containers. Over 1,000 children are
    treated for burns related to gasoline on an annual basis. By
    streamlining these standards far less children will be harmed
    by gasoline.
        Finally H.R. 1721--the Pool and Spa Safety Act--vastly
    increases the safety for consumers who use pools and spas. Over
    250 young children drowned in U.S. pools and spas last year.
    This is a troubling number considering the total amount is much
    higher. The bill requires that all pools and spas sold in the
    United States adhere to anti-entrapment standards which are
    layers of protection that include barriers and safety vacuum
    releases. It also calls for CPSC to establish a grant program
    for the States to encourage successful passage of pool and spa
    safety laws.
        I strongly support these important legislative measures and
    urge passage. This is clearly a substantial first step in
    ensuring our children are properly protected although more must
    be done. The budget for the CPSC needs to be increased and we
    as lawmakers should have an increased vigilance for our
    country's children.
                                  ----------

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.002

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.003

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.004

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.005

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.006

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.007

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.008

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.009

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.010

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.011

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.012

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.013

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.014

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.015

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.016

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.017

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.018

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.019

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.020

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.021

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.022

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.023

        Mr. Rush.  We have two witnesses now. Will our witnesses
    please come forward.
        Our first witness this morning is Mr. Edmund Mierzwinski,
    who is the Consumer Program Director at U.S. PIRG, the United
    States Public Interest Research Group.
        Our second witness is Ms. Sally Greenberg, who is the
    senior product safety counsel at the Consumers Union.
        We want to thank both of the witnesses for appearing before
    us, and we would ask that you restrict your opening statements
    to 5 minutes. We will first recognize Mr. Mierzwinski.
        Mr. Mierzwinski, you are recognized for 5 minutes for
    opening testimony.

      STATEMENT OF EDMUND MIERZWINSKI, CONSUMER PROGRAM DIRECTOR,
      UNITED STATES PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP, WASHINGTON, DC

        Mr. Mierzwinski. Thank you very much, Chairman Rush,
    Ranking Member Stearns, Vice Chair Schakowsky, and members of
    the committee.
        The U.S. Public Interest Research Group is pleased to offer
    our views on these important child safety matters before the
    committee today. To those Members unfamiliar with our work, in
    2006, we released our 21st annual toy safety report, building
    on the passage of the 1994 Child Safety Protection Act, which
    was supported by the Consumer Federation of America, the
    Consumers Union, U.S. PIRG, and a number other groups. A number
    of toys have been recalled in response to the passage of that
    legislation and our subsequent work, and we have participated
    in a number of other matters before the Consumer Product Safety
    Commission as well over the years.
        U.S. PIRG is pleased to support the goals of all four of
    the bills before the committee. We strongly support H.R. 1699,
    the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act. We
    strongly support H.R. 2474 to increase civil penalties. We
    support the goals of H.R. 1721, the Pool and Spa Safety Act,
    that offer suggested amendments to improve the bill. Similarly,
    we support H.R. 814, the Gasoline Burn Prevention Act, but
    offer suggested amendments to improve the bill.
        The legislation from Vice Chair Schakowsky, H.R. 1699,
    addresses one of the troubling problems that the CPSC faces,
    how to ensure that recalled products are actually tracked down
    and recalled. The legislation would call for an improved
    product registration card mechanism for finding the recalled
    products and for making sure that particularly durable infant
    and toddler products, often which are handed down, often which
    are kept for many years, have labels on them so that they can
    be tracked down if recalled.
        In the past, dual-use warranty cards have had a low trust
    factor among consumers. Quite frankly, consumers have not
    wanted to fill them out because they are afraid of privacy
    invasions from marketing practices of the companies. This bill
    strikes the appropriate response. It states that the
    information that is collected and recall registration cards
    cannot be used for secondary purposes. Safety is better served
    by protecting privacy as well.
        In regard to H.R. 2474, increasing civil penalties, this
    legislation sponsored by you, Mr. Chairman, has a simple goal
    that everyone should support. No company should have a business
    model that has callous disregard for the law's intent to
    protect the public from safety hazards. What I am saying is a
    company should not game the system by deciding that it is
    cheaper to take the chance of paying a small penalty and get
    away with not making safe products. You need a big hammer to
    hit them over the head with. Your bill would give the CPSC that
    big hammer that it needs to hold companies accountable to
    protect the safety of the American public.
        We support, in addition, H.R. 814, the Children's Gasoline
    Burn Prevention Act. As Mr. Moore stated, and as you stated in
    your opening remarks, there is a very simple problem. These gas
    containers are sold empty; therefore, they do not have to meet
    existing childproof standards. We would recommend that the bill
    be expanded to include kerosene containers as well as gasoline
    containers.
        Regarding H.R. 1721, the Pool and Spa Safety Act, this
    laudable legislation by Representative Wasserman Schultz and a
    number of cosponsors was introduced in response to a number of
    horrific tragedies caused by entrapment, entanglement and
    eviscerment hazards posed by the tremendous suction power of
    pool and spa filters. It takes a three-part approach. It
    requires new construction of pools and spas to include drains
    that meet strong safety standards. It establishes a program of
    grants to States to encourage greater safety, and it enhances
    CPSC drowning education programs.
        Our only comments on this bill would be that, as you heard
    at your last hearing on the Consumer Product Safety Commission,
    it is the ``little agency that could.'' It is the little agency
    with a $63 million budget and only 400 professional staff.
        We would simply encourage you to clarify that the purpose
    of the grant program is to expand money to the CPSC. If
    possible, you should include additional new money for someone
    to run the grant program. I note that in Acting Chairwoman
    Nord's testimony that she suggests outsourcing the program with
    the CPSC's getting its costs reimbursed, but that is our
    primary concern, the agency's new project, and it has reduced
    the priority of drowning programs in the last several years
    from a strategic goal to merely a program, so it needs more
    people to handle this important new program, and I hope the
    committee can address that issue.
        I have a number of other ideas about improving the Consumer
    Product Safety Commission, but since this is not an oversight
    hearing, I have left them in my written testimony.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Rush. I want to thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Mierzwinski follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.028

        Mr. Rush. Our next witness is Ms. Sally Greenberg, who is
    the senior product safety counsel at the Consumers Union.
        Welcome, Ms. Greenberg. You are recognized for 5 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF SALLY GREENBERG, SENIOR PRODUCT SAFETY COUNSEL,
                    CONSUMERS UNION, WASHINGTON, DC

        Ms. Greenberg. Thank you, Chairman Rush, and thank you,
    Ranking Member Stearns and, of course, Vice Chair Schakowsky,
    who has been such a great leader on product safety for kids
    particularly.
        My name is Sally Greenberg. I am with Consumers Union. I
    really appreciate--we really appreciate--the opportunity to be
    here this morning. We support all four bills that are before
    the subcommittee.
        Let me start with H.R. 2474, which is a bill to raise the
    maximum penalty for violations of the Consumer Product Safety
    Act. I applaud the Chairman for introducing this important
    bill, and I particularly applaud him for his earlier stated
    commitment to doing comprehensive reform of the Consumer
    Product Safety Commission, because that has been a long time in
    coming, and we look forward to working with you on those
    reforms.
        The CPSC is currently empowered to impose fines on
    companies for failing to report safety hazards, but the amount
    is capped at $1.8 million. We think the cap hampers CPSC's
    ability to adequately enforce the reporting requirements under
    15(b) particularly, and we support raising the cap to $20
    million. This increase in potential fines would, we believe, be
    a strong deterrent for any company that might otherwise be
    inclined to flout the law. For some companies, the current cap
    on fines is so low that the threat of a fine will not make a
    dent in the company's bottom line, and I am thinking
    particularly about the $750,000 fine that the CPSC imposed on
    Wal-Mart a few years back for failing to report safety hazards
    with fitness machines. The calculation is that the $750,000
    fine at Wal-Mart was the equivalent of about 1 minute and 33
    seconds of cash register receipts on that corporation.
        I also want to bring to the subcommittee's attention that,
    in 2002, Commissioner Moore, who was then acting chairman of
    the CPSC, told an audience at a product safety conference that
    perhaps some companies would be less likely to stall--he was
    recommending that the cap be lifted entirely and said that
    perhaps some companies would be less likely to stall our agency
    by putting off reporting hazardous products if we had penalties
    that were more commensurate with the harm that they caused.
        CPSC's Web site is replete with examples of companies that
    have numerous reports about products that injure consumers that
    simply did not report those incidents to the CPSC, and I have
    listed four examples of those incidents where you have
    companies that had plenty of time and plenty of information,
    and they just did not get around to reporting it to the CPSC.
        Our greatest concern is child product manufacturers in
    particular, and there is a long history of those manufacturers
    not reporting problems with products that could have prevented
    injuries to children, and the fine level needs to be at a point
    where it serves as a sufficient deterrent to those kinds of
    decisionmakers within companies who are considering not
    reporting to the agency. So we fully support 2474, and thank
    the chairman for introducing it.
        Let me move on to H.R. 1699, the Danny Keysar Child Product
    Safety Notification Act. We strongly support this bill. It
    would require product registration cards to be included in
    durable children's products. We applaud Congresswoman
    Schakowsky and Congressman Fred Upton for their leadership in
    introducing the bill.
        According to CPSC's statistics, an estimated 59,800
    children every year under 5 years old are treated in hospital
    emergency rooms for injuries associated with nursery products.
    We have a very ineffective recall system today that poses
    serious problems for children's products. Moreover, there is a
    long-standing pattern of children's products being a large
    proportion of recalls. It tends to be between one-third and
    one-half of all products recalled every year that are
    children's products.
        The term ``recalled products'' suggests that a product has
    been successfully returned, repaired or replaced. In fact, that
    is rarely the case. Most products that are recalled remain in
    the marketplace and in consumers' homes, and they threaten the
    safety of those consumers who use them. Estimates on successful
    rates of recall for the average product falls somewhere between
    10 and 30 percent, so we need much more effective means for
    informing parents when a product that their child is using
    poses a safety hazard and has been recalled.
        Seventeen-month-old Danny Keysar, as we have heard from
    Congresswoman Schakowsky, died using a recalled product--that
    is just tragic--but the information does not get out there. We
    know this, and we have to do better. That is why H.R. 1699 is
    so important, the registration card system called for in the
    bill. It is not a perfect system. There will not be a perfect
    system. It will represent, I think, a great improvement on what
    we have today, which is really nothing except using the media
    to get out to people, and that misses so many.
        I want to use an example of the Toro Corporation, and I
    also want to note that the CPSC had some very interesting
    hearings themselves several years back on recall effectiveness,
    and they brought in a bunch of companies who had done some very
    interesting work. I can talk about that later because I want to
    address the other bills, but there are many innovative
    approaches to this, and the industry always comes back with,
    ``Well, it does not work, and people do not really pay
    attention.'' that is really not accurate. Toro Corporation had
    a 75 to 80 percent return on their recall registration cards
    because they did it the right way, and they made these cards
    very user friendly, and they were not invading people's
    privacy, and that worked for consumers.
        Others have already talked about or had already talked
    about the car seat manufacturer being the model. I think that
    is a good model. I think it is working, and we should use that
    for moving forward on H.R. 1699.
        As for H.R. 814, the Children's Gasoline Burn Prevention
    Act, we are fully supportive of that. We applaud Congressman
    Moore and Congressman Bachus for introducing the legislation.
    Those tragedies that happened in Congressman Moore's district
    are so preventable with this very simple safety measure. Our
    credo at Consumers Union is if you have a product and it proves
    defective or dangerous, and you can fix it for a reasonable
    cost, and you do not affect the utility of the product, you
    ought to move forward very quickly to put those fixes in place.
    I think that is what H.R. 814 does. We have some statistics in
    my written testimony.
        Am I overtime? Oh, OK. I apologize, Mr. Chairman.
        Just one last point on the Pool and Spa Safety Act.
        In my written testimony, we have outlined why we support
    the bill and some of the concerns that we have about how it is
    going to be implemented, but as I said in my initial statement,
    we fully support all legislation and look forward to your
    questions.
        Mr. Rush. Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Greenberg follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.041

        Mr. Rush. The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes of
    questioning.
        Ms. Greenberg, do you know whether other similar agencies
    have overall caps on the amount of civil penalties that they
    can assess? Are the CPSC's limitations rare in this instance?
        Ms. Greenberg. I do know that the FTC, for example, does
    not have limits on--it does not cap fines that the agency can
    impose on those who violate the FTC statute. I do not believe
    that NHTSA has a cap on fines that it can impose, and I think
    that the general concept of having a cap on fines for companies
    who violate a law just sort of goes against, I think, common
    sense. You really do not want companies--as Ed Mierzwinski just
    said, you do not want companies figuring that this is the cost
    of doing business, not reporting something.
        Section 15(b) is so important to CPSC because it really
    acts as its early warning system. So I think anything we can do
    to encourage companies and also to deter companies for failing
    to report is really important.
        Mr. Rush. Mr. Moore has, as you indicate in your testimony,
    indicated that he is opposed to caps at all. He wants to
    eliminate them altogether; is that right? I think, in your
    written testimony, the Acting Chairman is not in favor of the
    caps of our bill.
        Do you have any knowledge about whether or not the CPSC--
    what their response is to the overall bill?
        Ms. Greenberg. Raising the caps? Well, I remember former
    Chairman Stratton's commenting on caps, and I think one of his
    concerns was it would lead to greater litigation, and I am not
    sure I completely understand that argument.
        I would think that the leadership officials at the CPSC
    would want every possible power that they can muster and that
    Congress would give them to make sure that companies are
    complying with their laws. So it surprised me a little bit that
    the former chairman of the Commission did not want that
    additional power to ensure that companies were reporting for
    this very important early warning system that CPSC has.
    Otherwise, I have not heard compelling arguments about why that
    cap even exists and why it should not be either raised or
    simply there ought to be no cap. I think it impairs the
    effectiveness of the CPSC.
        Mr. Rush. Thank you.
        Mr. Mierzwinski, according to the Acting Chairman's written
    testimony, Ms. Nord's written testimony, she states that the
    agency would need more resources to implement all of the bills
    if they became law, all of the bills that we are considering
    today.
        Please state what your opinion is on the level of
    additional CPSC resources that might be required to implement
    these bills.
        Mr. Mierzwinski. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that the
    matter of the CPSC reauthorization has not been carried out
    since, I believe, 1990, and the matters have not been
    adequately reviewed on an overall basis, but for these
    particular bills. I think that what we are looking at is that
    the agency has had a diminishing number of full-time
    equivalents; its budget has been relatively flat over the
    years, and we spend very little money on this agency that
    regulates 15,000 separate products. We are asking it to conduct
    a couple of rulemakings to initiate a grant-making process. It
    would seem that it would need at least several new staffing
    slots just to deal with these bills.
        I think the money is probably modest, but I would hope that
    the committee can move these bills and then also move
    separately oversight and possibly a reauthorization that
    results in increasing the resources of the Commission in the
    long run. They may be able to juggle things around with
    existing resources. Although, I do note that, on the pool bill,
    I think it would be useful to have an additional person to
    administer the grant program, and we probably would agree with
    them on that.
        Mr. Rush. Thank you very much.
        The Chair now recognizes the ranking member, Mr. Stearns,
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Stearns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I think, when you have bills like this, I think, as a
    parent of three boys and seeing them around swimming pools when
    they were young, and also experiencing having the gas can in
    the garage and the possibility they could open it themselves,
    it makes you concerned as a parent, and I am very sympathetic.
        Also, though, as a small businessman, I look at the
    economic cost/benefit analysis for some of this, and I was
    struck that, when Dennis Moore was over here talking about his
    particular bill in dealing with the caps on the gasoline cans,
    he mentioned that 1,200 children were in hospitals because of
    it. He did not indicate how many died. I understand from staff,
    roughly there are 80 million children in the United States. So
    as to the cost/benefit analysis, whatever you do, you are
    talking about, because 1,200 ended up in the hospital, it is
    0.000015 of the 80 million, so it is a very small significant.
        Now, one child ending up in a hospital is a tragedy, and a
    death is absolutely unnecessary, and I think what is being
    proposed here is not unreasonable, but the question I have for
    both of you is do you ever take into account the cost/benefit
    analysis here?
        You are dealing with the Pool and Spa Safety Act. As I
    understand it, we have had 300 children who were killed, and
    this is out of 80 million. So do you ever consider the cost/
    benefit analysis for--is there one point where you would say,
    ``Is 0.000015 such a small percent that it may be not
    significant in the totality in looking at this issue dealing
    with caps on gasoline cans?''
        Ms. Greenberg.
        Ms. Greenberg. I think I would probably go back to our sort
    of working philosophy as a consumer organization and an
    organization that cares very deeply about safety.
        When the Consumer Product Safety Commission was set up,
    there had been a congressional study looking at all kinds of
    terrible injuries that happened to children, and----
        Mr. Stearns. And you take into account the overall
    percentages when you look at this, or you just look at the
    deaths and the incidents?
        Ms. Greenberg. Well, what we look at is can a product be--
    --
        Mr. Stearns. Improved regardless of the statistics?
        Ms. Greenberg. Can a product--well, you know, 1,200 kids in
    the hospital is--maybe we evaluate that differently.
        Mr. Stearns. No. I think it is terrible, but I am saying,
    relative to 80 million children, it is a very small percentage.
        Ms. Greenberg. Yes.
        Mr. Stearns. So you are saying you do take the statistics
    into account?
        Ms. Greenberg. What we try to do is look at how much are
    fixed costs, and if it can be done for a reasonable amount----
        Mr. Stearns. Go ahead and do it.
        Ms. Greenberg. We are talking about a gas cap. It is a
    change in design.
        Mr. Stearns. Right. I understand. I think that is a good
    example. I think a gas can can be taken care of much like you
    have got vitamins or you have medicine that has that cap on it
    so that it is childproof. I agree.
        Do you agree with her? Is that pretty much----
        Mr. Mierzwinski. Mr. Stearns, I would agree with her, but I
    would have to say the cost/benefit analysis is only a tool. I
    think it can be easily overused in measuring the value of a
    consumer's life versus the need for a health and safety
    standard. I do not know that it is necessarily the right
    approach in all circumstances.
        Mr. Stearns. But in lots of these cases, the parents of
    these children are delinquent, too. We know that the child ends
    up in the hospital or there is death, but there is some
    culpability for the parents in not supervising their children.
    Wouldn't you agree on that?
        Ms. Greenberg. Well, again, when CPSC was set up, Congress,
    the panel which is a bipartisan panel that set the Consumer
    Product Safety Commission up, was very focused on making
    products safer, not on parents' behavior, because it isn't a
    child's fault if a parent's attention has waned or they have
    been called off to deal with another problem with a child. We
    deal with this all the time in the area of product safety, this
    notion of product misuse or parental negligence or whatever.
        Mr. Stearns. So you don't take that much into account.
        Ms. Greenberg. If we did, there would be a lot more injured
    or dead children today.
        Mr. Stearns. In the areas of increasing civil fines, this
    letter I put into the record for the National Association of
    Manufacturers points out that CPSC has never even gone up to
    the $1.8 million in fine. And now we are asking for it to go up
    to $20 million in fine. So each of the instances you cite does
    not amount to the full penalty authorized.
        What information do you have that a $1.825 million civil
    penalty is not sufficient when there is no evidence they have
    ever used it and now you want to go up by 1,000 percent
    supposedly? So the question is why go up so much when the CPSC
    has not even used the amount that they have as a penalty?
        Ms. Greenberg. We didn't make the decisions that CPSC made
    to impose fines. In my view, in some of the cases much higher
    fines probably were warranted. The powers that be at the CPSC
    perhaps didn't agree with our philosophy on that.
        Mr. Stearns. So you would go up to $20 million.
        Ms. Greenberg. I don't want to commit to a specific number.
    What I do think is important is that the Commission, the CPSC,
    have the ability to impose a fine that is not specifically set
    out. The $20 million fine gives them more leeway to impose
    higher fines. But I don't think when you see the litany of
    companies that fail to report, I don't think the fines are
    serving as an adequate deterrent to nonreporting. We see many,
    many examples of companies that do not come forward and report.
        So I personally believe that there ought be no cap. I don't
    think that companies should have an opportunity to make a cost/
    benefit analysis about maybe we won't report because we are not
    likely to get fined the full amount. I don't think that makes
    sense for any Federal agency to have to work under that
    constraint. So that would be my preference. But given that we
    have a $1.825 million, I think $20 million fine is a much
    bigger threat.
        Mr. Stearns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think she is
    indicating that she would go up to $100 million. You are saying
    that if there is no ceiling, in your opinion you could go up to
    $500 million. So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rush. The Chair recognizes the gentle lady from
    Illinois Ms. Schakowsky for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to talk a little bit about this cost/benefit ratio.
    When we start getting into 1,200 children out of 80 million
    children, that is really not the question. It is 1,200 children
    versus how much would it cost a company to make a small and
    responsible change in their product. And if you want to just
    get into dollar figures, how much does it cost to care for a
    severely burned child in a hospital, for how long, throughout
    their whole life, it is just kind of ridiculous when we are
    talking about a very small cost to improve a product that can
    save 1,200 very precious children. And so I think the argument
    is a little bit specious, especially, as you said, the
    philosophy is let's look at what it would really cost to
    improve a product.
        And so I want to talk a little bit about my bill on the
    recall registration. I have looked at Acting Chairman Nord's
    testimony, and she points out a petition that was acted on in
    2001 and making recall registration cards, and they found that
    this wasn't useful. Well, for one thing, they were talking
    about doing it for all children's products.
        I want to make it very clear that in my bill we are
    specifically listing the products, and they are the durable
    children's products, as you pointed out, Ms. Greenberg, that
    stay in the home for a long time or often passed on to the next
    generation of children. And so we are talking about very
    specific products.
        But the other thing that I wanted to ask you both about is
    that they say that these cards are ignored and returned. And I
    want to once again get on the record, if you would, the
    refutation of that argument, because while no one is claiming
    that this is a perfect mechanism and that it will result in
    every consumer knowing about the recall, is it not true that
    there is evidence of significant improvement? And if I could
    start with you, Ms. Greenberg, and then go to Mr. Mierzwinski.
        Ms. Greenberg. Significant improvement in----
        Ms. Schakowsky. The number of consumers that then know
    about the product recall.
        Ms. Greenberg. Your bill very clearly lays out what the
    card should state. As my colleague pointed out, people are very
    cynical about these recall cards, or these cards in general,
    not the recall cards, but these warranty cards that you get,
    because they ask you all sorts of personal questions, and so
    people don't return them. It is not the model we should be
    looking at.
        With NHTSA, as you pointed out, the number of cards
    returned, NHTSA requires every manufacturer of a car seat to
    include a card, and the card return rate is 10 times what it
    was before the regulation went into place. And NHTSA is very
    specific in its regulation about what the card should say, what
    kind of information it is asking for and what it is not asking
    for. And it is asking for information in case of a recall. I
    have seen these cards. I have sent them in. I bought car seats.
    And they are very good. They say, mail this card now. They are
    postage paid. They do everything short of walking the consumer
    to the mailbox. They make it very easy. And now with cell phone
    portability, number portability, people have cell phone numbers
    that stay with them presumably for life. So there are ways to
    get in touch with consumers. And I think these cards have
    proven their effectiveness.
        We know there are companies like Toro which has found them
    to be very effective when done right. They ask specific
    questions. They are not a marketing effort. They are not
    perfect. There is always going to be a percentage of consumers
    who won't return them. But it gets us many steps ahead of where
    we are today.
        And the Danny Keysar situation where a kid is confronting
    or parents are confronting a product that has been recalled,
    and they didn't know about it, and the kid is injured or killed
    is just an untenable, terrible situation, and we should do
    everything, I think, to try to make sure that doesn't happen
    again. And this is a big step forward.
        Mr. Mierzwinski. Thank you, Representative. And I would
    concur with Ms. Greenberg that the NHTSA situation offers a lot
    of guidance to the CPSC. In addition to their successful card
    programs, think about their successful marketing programs:
    Buckle Up, Kids in the Back. These are programs that work if we
    had a card that we trusted and the CPSC consumer groups would
    get behind it, and we could help you and help the CPSC make it
    work.
        Mr. Rush. The gentle lady's time is up.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas Dr.
    Burgess.
        Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Staying on the concept of the card for just a minute, has
    there been any study to look at if the return rate for cards is
    increased if it is coupled with a rebate or something of value
    that would be returned to the consumer if they fill out the
    card?
        Ms. Greenberg. Congressman, I think I can respond to that,
    not with respect to the NHTSA situation, because they don't
    require car manufacturers to give a rebate or reward for
    returning the card, but some companies have done that, and that
    has been a successful strategy.
        As I said, the CPSC held a couple of hearings a few years
    ago on recall effectiveness, and what you had is a bunch of
    companies coming forward and describing some very interesting
    and innovative ways to improve the recall effectiveness. I wish
    the CPSC had gone a few steps further and put some of those in
    place, but be that as it may, what they found is that when they
    offered a reward or a rebate, yes, consumers responded more
    positively.
        Mr. Burgess. Again, the CPSC isn't here today to ask them.
    Kids are growing so fast, so products and toys that are bought
    for the nursery, a child outgrows them before they use up their
    shelf life. And if they have got a younger sibling on the way,
    that is a good thing.
        I have never done this myself, but people in my family are
    great students of a thing on the Internet called eBay. What
    happens when someone sells their product on eBay; are they
    obligated to provide that follow-on information as far as the
    mailing card is concerned?
        Ms. Greenberg. Well, right now, since we don't--maybe with
    car seats it happens. I haven't seen it. But since we don't
    have product registration cards now, it is hard to say whether
    we would be able to incorporate that into eBay.
        Mr. Burgess. So a crib or a beach ball or a baseball or
    something, a small object that a child could ingest, if these
    things are sold on eBay, there is really no requirement for the
    seller to provide that follow-on information?
        Ms. Greenberg. No, Congressman, but I think that is an
    interesting idea.
        Mr. Burgess. If we increase--and we will get to the cap in
    just a minute--but if we increase the cap, of course I can see
    a company might say I am going to offer a rebate thinking this
    cap scares me to death because it is up to $20 million; but
    then is the company that sold the beach ball or the baseball
    glove or whatever, is the company still going to be liable when
    that product is resold on eBay after the child outgrows its
    usefulness?
        Ms. Greenberg. The cap is for reporting incidents related
    to product safety. It is section 15(b) of the Consumer Product
    Safety Act, and that is simply a requirement that companies
    report when they hear about incidents. So I don't think it
    would relate specifically to your eBay scenario.
        Mr. Burgess. At the present time we really don't have a
    good way to track resales at garage sales, even hand-me-downs
    within families, for these products.
        Ms. Greenberg. I, too, wish Commissioner Nord was here,
    because I know the CPSC is doing some interesting, innovative
    work on that.
        Mr. Burgess. Since I am so new at this, talk to me for just
    a minute about the fines. Right now how is that? And either of
    you, please feel free to answer this. Right now the fine is
    $1.875 million or thereabouts. How is that money allocated? If
    a company is fined $1 million, does that money all go to CPSC,
    does it go to the general fund, does the Department of Justice
    get it, does it go to the victim; what happens to the dollars?
        Ms. Greenberg. The U.S. Treasury. It goes into the general
    fund. It goes into the U.S. Treasury. It doesn't go into CPSC's
    budget, if that is what you are asking.
        Mr. Burgess. How much is spent just in the course of
    litigation to recover those monies?
        Ms. Greenberg. I don't have a strong sense of the
    litigation costs for CPSC, but they don't litigate very often.
    I do know that.
        Mr. Burgess. Is there a danger--with a vastly expanding
    cap, is there a danger of an unwillingness to settle on a fine
    because now they are at risk for such a higher settlement that
    more will go to litigation?
        Ms. Greenberg. That is the argument that has been certainly
    put forward.
        Ed, did you want to respond to that?
        Mr. Mierzwinski. I would just say, Congressman, that I
    think that argument is a red herring being put forward by
    companies that are regularly before the CPSC. The way I think
    that this system works today is that companies do their own, if
    you will, benefit/cost analysis, and they say the maximum fine
    is $1.83 million. Wal-Mart only paid $750,000.
        Mr. Burgess. On that issue, is there a danger then for MOFA
    reporting. We expand that fine a whole bunch, and is the CPSC
    just going to be flooded with data from companies that don't
    want to be caught in the situation of not having reported their
    problems?
        Ms. Greenberg. Well, I think it would be useful to look at
    what other agencies have experienced on this issue of fines and
    caps on fines.
        Mr. Burgess. If the Commissioner were here, we could ask.
        Ms. Greenberg. I don't think that has been a problem in
    other Federal agencies, the fact there isn't a cap on fines.
        Mr. Burgess. We should ask the question before we enter
    into that, so it would be a fair question to ask.
        Mr. Chairman, you have been indulgent, and I know we have
    got to get on to other things. I yield back.
        Mr. Rush. Thank you, gentleman.
        The Chair now recognize the coauthor of H.R. 1721, Ms.
    Wasserman Schultz of Florida. She is not a member of the
    committee, but the Chair recognizes her for 5 minutes for
    questions.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and Ranking Member
    Stearns for your support of this issue and for including this
    legislation in your hearing today.
        I also want to, although I understand she has already been
    recognized, recognize Nancy Baker, who has been a tireless
    advocate on behalf of this legislation, which is named after
    her daughter Graeme Baker, who drowned in a suction drain
    entrapment accident; and Congressmen Hill, Matheson and Weiner,
    who are members of the subcommittee that are cosponsors of the
    bill.
        I actually have a question for Ms. Greenberg. I noted in
    your testimony your support for pool alarms and their possible
    inclusion in this legislation. Every drowning expert I have
    worked with over the last 10 years has said that pool alarms
    are not the best first line of defense because they only
    address the problem after the child has already fallen into the
    pool.
        Now, since you note in your testimony that pool alarms
    sometimes do, sometimes don't meet the national safety
    standards, the ASTM guidelines, and quite honestly, although I
    think they probably are at about 85 decibels, which is very,
    very loud, in the event that you are standing in the laundry
    room dealing with the practical reality of what happens when
    supervision lapses, if someone is standing in the laundry room
    and their dryer and washing machine are going, and the child
    falls in the pool, and the pool alarm goes off and they don't
    hear it, then we haven't addressed the problem. So can you
    speak to your support for pool alarms, because I sponsored the
    law in Florida which does not include pool alarms, and I remain
    completely unconvinced that that is wise.
        Ms. Greenberg. I confess that I am not an expert in pool
    alarms. I included it because Consumers Union tested pool
    alarms. I think we have got a series of safety devices that are
    all imperfect. Pool alarms is one of them. Hopefully you are
    not in the laundry room. It increases, I think, a parent's or a
    caregiver's opportunity to be notified if a child gets into the
    water and you don't want them there.
        So it is certainly not a perfect solution. We said in our
    testimony, as you noted, that the best strategy for preventing
    kids getting into pools without parental supervision is to have
    a fence around the pool, but we know we can't make that happen
    on a Federal level. That has to be done on the State level.
    That is why your legislation is so good. It encourages States
    to do that.
        But I have a colleague with me who has worked extensively
    on pool alarms, and I would be glad to answer any questions on
    the record or ask Don Mace, who is here from our Yonkers
    office, who is an engineer and worked on standards with pool
    alarms and worked on the testing that we did for Consumers
    Union. Maybe we can talk with you later.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. If you can follow up with me,
    because the chairman has extended a courtesy to me as a
    nonmember of the committee, and I would appreciate it.
        And also as a member of the Appropriations Committee, I
    want to tell you both that I fully intend to pursue an
    appropriation for both the grant program and the education
    program if this legislation hopefully becomes law, and really
    have been an advocate on the Appropriations Committee of
    increasing the CPSC's budget. We actually did that in the
    Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services yesterday. So
    I sincerely hope--and you will have my full advocacy to make
    sure that it is not absorbed into the existing budget of the
    CPSC.
        So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the courtesy. I appreciate
    it. I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Rush. Thank you very much.
        That concludes the testimony of the witnesses, and that
    concludes the hearing. Again, I want to thank the witnesses for
    coming forward. I certainly want to reiterate our condolences
    and also our compassion and our thanks to Ms. Baker for
    attending today. And I want to remind members of the
    subcommittee that the record is open for 30 days for additional
    testimony and questions, and submit the questions in writing to
    whomever.
        Thank you so much. Hearing no objections, the subcommittee
    is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.043

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.046

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.047

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.048

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.049

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.050

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.051

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.052

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.053

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.054

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.055

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.056

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.057

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.058

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.066

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.067

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.068

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.069

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.070

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.071

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.072

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.073

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.074

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.075

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.076

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.077

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.078

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.079

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.080

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.081

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.082

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.083

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.084

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.059

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.060

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.061

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.062

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.063

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.064

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2256.065

                           Statement of David Asselin

         The NAM Coalition on CPSC (Coalition) represents
    manufacturers, distributors, importers or retailers of consumer
    products. All of the members of our Coalition are committed to
    ensuring the safety of consumer products sold in this country.
    The Coalition would appreciate your including this letter in
    the hearing record, and I will be sending the names of
    Coalition members wishing to be added as cosignatories.
         The Coalition supports the important mission of the CPSC.
    The marketplace needs to be free of unsafe consumer products
    that could pose a risk of injury to consumers, particularly to
    our most valuable population, our children. Over the years, the
    agency's budget has not grown as fast as other regulatory
    agencies with comparable authority. CPSC has compensated by
    taking measures to ensure it uses its resources efficiently,
    just as so many manufacturers have had to do in recent years.
         We support increased funding for the CPSC to increase
    import surveillance and compliance, upgrade technology,
    laboratory renovation and for bolstering the staff,
    particularly in technical areas and where retirements are
    impacting the Commission's mission. We believe that the CPSC
    has sufficient authority to carry out its critical mission if
    it is properly resourced.
        The Coalition understands that your subcommittee will hold
    a hearing June 6th on several bills concerning the Consumer
    Product Safety Commission. Two of these bills, H.R. 2474 and
    H.R. 1699 are of concern to the Coalition. H.R. 2474 seeks to
    increase the maximum civil penalty for violations under the
    Consumer Product Safety Act. H.R. 1699 would require certain
    manufacturers to provide consumer product registration forms to
    facilitate recalls of durable infant and toddler products.
        H.R. 2474: Civil penalties actually apply to any violation
    of one of 11 prohibited acts under Section 19 of the CPSA.
    Failure to file a report under Section 15(b) is but one of the
    violations enumerated. The statute needs to be clarified to
    distinguish between instances that involve a failure to report
    incidents that evidence a defect with injury and those that
    involve sale of product that violates a per se requirement.
         Civil penalties are assessed up to $7,000 per violation.
    The maximum civil penalty for any related series of violations
    is currently $1.825 million. Congress has directed the
    Commission to adjust the maximum penalty amounts every five
    years to account for inflation. Originally the maximum amount
    was $500,000, which has more than tripled because of the
    adjustment escalations in the existing enabling statute.
         H.R. 2474 would substantially increase the maximum civil
    penalty for failure to report or violations of section 19.
    Under the bill, any related series of violations would carry a
    maximum penalty of $20 million, or an increase of more than
    1,000 percent from current penalty levels. Such an increase
    could actually prove to be counter-productive to the mission of
    the CPSC.
        Current penalties are more than adequate to deter companies
    from failing to report serious product defects. Companies do
    report defective products, as evidenced by hundreds of
    voluntary recalls conducted each year with the support of the
    CPSC, versus the handful of civil penalty actions announced by
    the Commission. Companies that fail to report not only face
    substantial civil penalties, but also risk bad publicity and
    increased product liability exposure. These factors are
    significant deterrents to any failure to report.
        Increasing the cap on civil penalties to the level
    contemplated by H.R. 2474 could be counter productive. Rather
    than encouraging prompt reporting, it could act as a deterrent
    to companies when they are contemplating a voluntary recall. It
    would change the nature of the present voluntary compliance and
    penalty process to be more adversarial, with more defensiveness
    and pre-litigation maneuvering and less emphasis on getting
    unsafe products out of the marketplace quickly. Such a move
    could also be a financial and administrative burden on the CPSC
    because costly and time-consuming litigation would replace the
    current, almost entirely voluntary, non-litigation process.
         There is no evidence that the current $1.825 million
    penalty cap frustrates enforcement. The Commission has yet to
    impose the current maximum cap of $1.825 million on any company
    for a violation of Section 19. Moreover, in cases involving
    violations of the Flammable Fabrics Act or the Federal
    Hazardous Substances Act, or in cases where the CPSC alleges a
    series of unrelated violations, the Commission has sought
    penalties substantially in excess of $1.825 million. For
    example, in a 2001 lawsuit against Wal-Mart and Icon Health &
    Fitness for alleged failure to report defective exercise
    equipment, the CPSC was able to seek civil penalties of $9
    million for six counts involving various models (applying the
    $1.5 million cap then in effect.) Applying similar multipliers
    to the penalty levels proposed under H.R. 2474, the CPSC could
    have sought penalties of $120 million in the Wal-Mart case, or
    could pursue similar penalties in any case alleging failure to
    report multiple defects, such as cases involving different
    product models. The prospect of such astronomical penalties,
    which could bankrupt many companies, could lead to enforcement
    policies out of all proportion to actual violations.
        H.R. 1699. Manufacturers have been providing consumers with
    product registration cards for years. These cards require the
    consumer to be pro-active. FMVSS 213, the Federal standard for
    child restraint systems, requires manufacturers to instruct
    consumers to register child restraint systems for use in motor
    vehicles upon purchase. Statistics show that approximately 12
    percent of consumers do so. Such products are fairly expensive
    (usually costing upwards of $50) and are associated with
    protecting and saving the lives of children. One would think
    that this would be a strong incentive to register them, but, as
    noted above, that is not the case.
         The low response rate is not the only factor to look at
    when considering product registration cards. The data collected
    and the utility of the information deteriorates over time.
    Census studies indicate that 40 million people change addresses
    annually in the US. The utility of a database is even more
    limited with children's products because they are often
    donated, handed down or sold to other consumers at thrift
    stores and yard sales. The information collected becomes
    ineffective at that point, since the manufacturer has no way of
    contacting the secondary consumer.
         A study conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety
    Administration in 2002 on product registration cards for child
    safety seats found that the usefulness of the database
    maintained for child safety seats had declined to 10-13 percent
    after only three years.
         The Commission studied this issue in depth for several
    years and concluded that mandating such a card is not
    beneficial. Every recall is different depending on specific
    circumstances and each recall campaign needs to be seen as an
    individual entity, with an action plan developed by the
    manufacturer and CPSC working together to make it the most
    effective as possible. An over-reliance on product registration
    cards will not improve overall recall effectiveness.
         It would be a much better use of resources if the CPSC
    were to continue to work with manufacturers to come up with
    ways to improve overall product recall effectiveness, using the
    power of the Internet and other innovative techniques, rather
    than have the Commission dictate a system that is marginally
    effective.
         In conclusion, the CPSC is considered the global leader in
    the area of product safety due to its domestic programs and
    international initiatives. Other nations are setting up
    programs based on the CPSC model. Coalition members have, in
    the past, been good partners with the CPSC, to institute the
    two reference proposals would be a step back at a time when we
    should be looking forward.