[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PROTECTING CHILDREN FROM LEAD-TAINTED IMPORTS
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE,
AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 19 AND 20, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-65
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
44-255 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
David L. Cavicke, 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
----------
September 19, 2007
Page
Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, opening statement................................. 1
Hon. Cliff Stearns, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Florida, opening statement.................................. 3
Hon. Jan Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, opening statement................................. 4
Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Texas, opening statement....................................... 6
Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Michigan, opening statement................................. 7
Hon. Joseph R. Pitts, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................ 9
Hon. John Barrow, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Georgia, opening statement..................................... 9
Hon. Lee Terry, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Nebraska, opening statement.................................... 11
Hon. Charles A. Gonzalez, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, opening statement.............................. 12
Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, opening statement.............................. 13
Hon. Darlene Hooley, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Oregon, opening statement................................... 15
Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Tennessee, opening statement.......................... 17
Hon. Diana DeGette, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Colorado, opening statement................................. 18
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Hon. G.K. Butterfield, a Representative in Congress from the
State of North Carolina, opening statement..................... 21
Hon. Edolphus Towns, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New York, opening statement................................. 22
Hon. Mike Ross, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Arkansas, opening statement.................................... 23
Hon. Jim Matheson, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Utah, opening statement........................................ 24
Hon. Mike Ferguson, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New Jersey, opening statement............................... 24
Hon. Jane Harman, a Representative in Congress from the State of
California, opening statement.................................. 26
Witnesses
Nancy A. Nord, Acting Chairman, Consumer Product Safety
Commission..................................................... 27
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Answers to submitted questions............................... 78
Thomas H. Moore, Commissioner, Consumer Product Safety Commission 33
Prepared statement........................................... 34
Answers to submitted questions............................... 95
Robert A. Eckert, chairman and chief executive officer, Mattel,
Incorporated................................................... 63
Prepared statement........................................... 64
Answers to submitted questions............................... 102
Submitted Material
Ruth Ann Norton, executive director, Coalition to End Childhood
Lead Poisoning, Baltimore, MD, submitted statement............. 110
September 20, 2007
Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, opening statement................................. 113
Witnesses
Dana Best, M.D., American Academy of Pediatrics.................. 114
Prepared statement........................................... 117
Olivia D. Farrow, assistant commissioner, Division of
Environmental Health, Baltimore City Health Department......... 130
Prepared statement........................................... 131
Answers to submitted questions............................... 240
Michael Green, executive director, Center for Environmental
Health......................................................... 132
Prepared statement........................................... 135
Answers to submitted questions............................... 263
Lori Wallach, director, Global Trade Watch....................... 146
Prepared statement........................................... 148
Answers to submitted questions............................... 276
Mary Teagarden, professor, global strategy, Thunderbird School of
Global Management.............................................. 166
Prepared statement........................................... 168
Answers to submitted questions............................... 271
Carter Keithley, president, Toy Industry Association,
Incorporated................................................... 193
Prepared statement........................................... 195
Answers to submitted questions............................... 268
Allen Thompson, vice president, global supply chain policy,
Retail Industry Leaders Association............................ 196
Prepared statement........................................... 198
Michael Gale, Fashion Jewelry Trade Association.................. 203
Prepared statement........................................... 205
Answers to submitted questions............................... 243
Gary E. Knell, chief executive officer and president, Sesame
Workshop....................................................... 215
Prepared statement........................................... 217
Kathie Morgan, vice president, technical committee operations,
ASTM International............................................. 225
Prepared statement........................................... 226
PROTECTING CHILDREN FROM LEAD-TAINTED IMPORTS
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2007
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade,
and Consumer Protection,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
room 2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bobby L.
Rush (chairman) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Schakowsky, Butterfield,
Barrow, Markey, Towns, DeGette, Gonzalez, Ross, Hooley,
Matheson, Dingell, Stearns, Whitfield, Radanovich, Pitts,
Terry, Burgess, Blackburn, and Barton.
Also present: Representatives Ferguson and Harman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Rush. The subcommittee will come to order. The Chair
will recognize himself for the purpose of an opening statement.
It is important that this subcommittee convene on this
particular issue. It is difficult to believe that children are
still being dangerously exposed to the dangers of lead, given
that Federal law banned the neuro-toxin almost 30 years ago. It
used to be that young children, particularly those in low-
income communities, had to be protected from the peeling paint
from old houses. They were even admonished for innocently
putting paint chips in their mouths. But now, incredibly,
children face lead exposures from a far more innocuous source,
from the toys they play with.
The danger of lead to young children and their developing
brains are well known. Chronic exposure to lead can lead to
attention problems, learning disabilities, anti-social and
delinquent behavior, even mental retardation. Acute exposure
can result in severe illness and death. As such, in 2007, given
that all we know about the dangers lead poses to our children,
how is it possible that lead can still be found in the alloys
of children's jewelry and in the paint of toys? How is it that
our regulatory system has broken down? Who are the stakeholders
responsible for such a travesty? And most important, how do we
fix the problem?
This morning, in beginning our 2-day hearing, we take the
first steps toward answering all of these questions. Since
becoming chairman of this subcommittee, I have repeatedly
stated that reforming the Consumer Product Safety Commission to
better protect children is one of my top priorities. Today I
want to begin a deliberative process that eventually results in
legislation that significantly strengthens our national safety
net for children and their families. I want to work on a
bipartisan basis with our friends in the minority to ensure,
among a host of other goals, that a timely and effective recall
system is in place.
Indeed, I want to work toward a solution in which these
dangerous products never, ever make it to the store shelves in
the first place. The problem of lead in children's products
have many dimensions. First, we must start with the Consumer
Product Safety Commission. Is the CPSC adequately equipped with
the resources and underlying regulatory authority to address
lead in children's toys and jewelry? Is the Commission capable
of preventing these products from entering interstate commerce
and quickly recalling defective products that slip through the
cracks?
Second, what are the global market forces that underlie the
manufacture and importation of these lead tainted products?
Eighty-six percent of toys in the United States are
manufactured in China. Why is this? Why is China such an
attractive venue for toy manufacturers and how do health and
safety standards and their enforcement, I might add, differ
from those in the United States and other countries?
Third, who bears responsibility for these lead tainted
children's products? Retail entities seem to blame the
manufacturers or importers of these toys, while manufacturers
and importers blame their contractors and subcontractors from
China. This chain of commerce from production to retailer
clearly does not have the requisite quality controls in place,
nor is there adequate Federal oversight to ensure that all
stakeholders abide by well-defined rules and regulation.
As such, it is important that all parties in the chain of
commerce, from media companies that market popular icons such
as Elmo, to toy manufacturers and importers, to retail outlets,
to the Congress and the CPSC, take ownership of this problem
and earnestly work to fix the problem at all costs. The health
and well-being of our children is far too important for us to
tolerate needless finger pointing and petty squabbling. Our
kids can afford to be childish; we cannot.
On that note and in closing, let me express my extreme
disappointment with one invited stakeholder for refusing to
testify before this subcommittee. Dollar General is one of the
biggest retailer chains in the United States and they largely
sell their products to working class and low-income consumers.
Dollar General and other discount stores have a heavy presence
in districts such as mine in Chicago. Just as was the case with
lead paint and the disproportionate impact it had on low-income
children who live in dilapidated homes and public housing, I
fear that the current toy fiasco will likewise have a
disproportionate impact on children who live in underserved
economically disadvantaged communities where some cheap toys
and children's jewelry dominate the shelves of so-called dollar
and 99 cent stores, which have a heavy presence in poor
neighborhood.
If a company like Dollar General can sell their products to
my constituents and make money off of my constituents, one
would think they could, at a minimum, appear before this
subcommittee and answer some important questions for my
constituents. I am not pleased with Dollar General's blatant
disregard for the importance of this hearing and their refusal
to appear before tomorrow's germane panel.
With that, I want to thank our witnesses, who have agreed
to testify in front of this subcommittee today and I look
forward to hearing from all of them. With that, I yield back
the balance of my time.
The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the
subcommittee, my friend from Florida, Mr. Stearns.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFF STEARNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Stearns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me compliment
you for holding this hearing. You and I have worked together on
this project and in fact, we sent out 20 letters, together, to
20 manufacturers of toys and we have responses back from these,
and I understand you and your staff have put them on the
committee Web site, and I think that shows that this hearing
has been transparent and our efforts in working together is for
the common good.
Parents, obviously, are particularly concerned about the
amount of toys recalled for containing lead paint in excess of
the Federal mandatory standard, which is 600 parts per million.
While many of the toys recalled this year have been from
smaller manufacturers and importers, it has been more
surprising to many of us that a significant number of the
recalled products are produced by industry leaders, notably
Mattel, that obviously has the resources that perhaps the
smaller manufacturers do not have.
As the subcommittee examines this issue, we will probably
look at appropriate legislation, if it is required. But I want
to commend Chairman Nord for her thoughtful draft proposal that
she has already brought forward, the Product Recall Information
and Safety Modernization Act, PRISM Act, she developed, with
her staff, and has shared with us on this committee. There are
a number of good proposals contained within her draft proposal
and I think, Mr. Chairman, a lot of these merit our
consideration if we move forward with our own piece of
legislation.
Let me say I believe there are two problems highlighted by
the recalls. The first is quality assurance and control of the
manufacturing, design and production of consumer products,
particularly toys. The recalls have gained much attention, I
believe, because there has been a loss of trust that has
created doubt whether the products are safe for children.
Parents have relied upon many of the name brands because they
have always stood for quality. Industry professionals readily
admit that prior to the recalls, Mattel was viewed as having
one of the most rigorous quality control systems in place, yet
here we are, holding a hearing on this subject and we are left
questioning how these products made it through the production
chain, into our stores and into our homes.
What is equally troubling is what this means for the rest
of the toy industry. If Mattel was a leader, what quality
control systems do the smaller manufacturers and importers have
in place? Are we facing more problems down the line? There is
good and bad news that comes from this recall operation. The
bad news is that the problems with unsafe consumer products are
similar to our problem with both imported and domestic
contaminated foods. We do not have the resources to test every
product that comes into our shores.
The good news that toys are manufactured and reproduced in
an identical fashion. Tests of reproduction runs should
indicate immediately whether a problem exists with the entire
production run and should be detected with sampling tests. If a
problem occurs with the production run, all the products can
quickly be recalled. What I don't understand is how the testing
was done that did not initially detect these problems.
In addition to the industry response to ramp up their
testing of their products, the Chinese Government announced
last week, during a product safety summit, here, that they will
take steps to ban the use of lead paint in their toys, in all
toys. I welcome the step and would like to know how they intend
to enforce that ban. The second problem is the larger problem
of risk posed by products that do not meet U.S. safety
standards, including lead paint and lead content. When the
United States passed the current ban on lead paint in toys in
1978, the threshold became 0.06 percent or 600 parts per
million.
According to a study of the President's Task Force on
environmental health risk to children in 2000, lead paint,
lead-based paint content used in homes prior to that averaged 9
percent for interior paint after 1960, but had been as high as
74 percent, dating to the 1940s. So we have come a long way to
eradicate the harms that lead in our environment has caused us,
particularly for children who are growing up and are more
easily susceptible to elevated lead in their blood levels.
So Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing the response and
action plans of industry participants to prevent a repeat of
this summer's problem. The efforts of some to increase their
testing are a good first step and I want to hear more how they
will ensure safe products. This is an important issue and I
look forward to working through the issues and determine what
action would be required. And I thank you.
Mr. Rush. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the
gentlelady from Illinois, my colleague, Ms. Schakowsky.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAN SCHAKOWSKY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Chairman Rush. I want to
congratulate you for opening this investigation and for calling
this hearing today in perhaps the most important subject that
we deal with, which is the protection of our children. The
issue today is lead paint on toys, a clear and present danger
to the health and development of infants and toddlers. So who
would endanger our children this way? Unfortunately, all
parties bear some of the burden from manufacturers to retailers
to the agency that is supposed to protect our children and
families; the Chinese, who are responsible for applying lead
paint to Elmo, Big Bird, Ernie and other toys, including
accessories for Barbie, but Mattel was also responsible for
contracting with Chinese sweatshops to make the toys without
being willing to spend the money to supervise production.
No one believes that Mattel intentionally sold toys that
they knew were painted with lead, but they certainly didn't do
enough to stop it. Our committee staff that recently traveled
to Beijing and Hong Kong learned that it is a common practice
for foreign firms ordering goods from China to employ strict
quality control measures over the production process. These are
necessary steps that should never be left to Chinese contract
or subcontract manufacturers. It is well known that the legal
and regulatory systems of China are not to be relied upon as a
guarantee for product quality, particularly in an environment
where Chinese firms are subject to enormous price pressures.
Mattel chose to gamble with our children's health,
apparently for a few extra dollars or to meet the demands of
mega firms like Wal-Mart, that are always pushing for the
cheapest good, regardless of the human cost. Mr. Chairman, our
staff has not been able to discover what happened because
Mattel has decided to obstruct our inquiry. They failed to
arrange a visit to two of the contracting plants in China,
despite our repeated requests. They refused to make their
investigators available for staff interviews in Hong Kong,
another of our requests.
In fact, they refused to make the man responsible for
Chinese operations available for an interview in Hong Kong. We
have yet to receive an accounting of what happened in China
that caused our children to be exposed to lead paint or the
magnets that can harm young children. I believe that Mr.
Eckert, Mattel's chairman, hopes to be able to stonewall us the
way he has stonewalled the CPSC over the years, refusing to
obey the law that requires the reporting of consumer complaints
about defects in Mattel toys because he believes the law to be
unreasonable, as he recently explained to the Wall Street
Journal.
I wonder if the board of directors of Mattel has done
appropriate due diligence on the managerial failures that have
resulted in recalls of millions of unsafe toys. This is
apparently a management that tries to hide its systemic
failures. Mattel says it sells 800 million units and only a few
million are defective and dangerous and besides, they will do
better in the future. Mr. Chairman, I, for one, believe that
Mattel's management has forfeited their right to expect any
parent to trust them. Certainly, we should not until we have a
credible report on the breakdown of quality control that placed
our children in danger.
Mr. Chairman, I think we should determine whether Mr.
Eckert considers the perjury and obstruction of justice laws
also to be unreasonable. He should be reminded that attempts to
obstruct our investigation will not be tolerated. And finally,
I am looking forward to hearing from CPSC chair, Nancy Nord and
Commissioner Moore. Like parents and grandparents around the
country, I want to know why CPSC has not done a better job
protecting precious children, our most precious treasure, from
unsafe and potentially lethal products.
I hope we will hear today that the CPSC has decided not
just that it needs more resources, but that it is going to
adopt a more aggressive approach to consumer safety. I yield
back.
Mr. Rush. I thank the gentlelady. The Chair now recognizes
the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Barton of Texas.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Barton. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing and for Ranking Member Stearns' support of this
hearing. A lot of what we do up here is of intellectual
curiosity to Members, it is all-important public policy,
sometimes it is personal. Today is one of those days, for me,
that is personal. Most members of this committee are at a stage
in our lives where we buy toys for our grandchildren, our
nieces and our nephews and great-nieces and great-nephews, and
I have four grandchildren. But I have a 2-year old toddler,
son, Jack. He had his 2-year birthday party this past Saturday.
So this is personal for me.
When you can't trust Thomas the Train and you can't trust a
company like Mattel, I remember when Mattel was the advertiser
of the Mickey Mouse show in the 1950s. It is just staggering
that we have to worry about some of these issues. But to their
credit, the American toy manufacturers, as they found out that
they have got problems with some of these products, they have
done voluntary recalls and the Consumer Product Safety
Commission has instigated some other recalls.
And if we have a productive hearing, and I am sure we will,
with Chairman Rush's personal involvement and full committee
chairman Dingell's involvement, if we need to take steps
legislatively, as the ranking Republican, I am willing to
commit that I will work in a bipartisan fashion, because I want
the toys that are sold and used by the children of America to
be safe, period. Not may be safe, not reasonably safe, but
safe. My son, Jack, got a big Tonka dump truck last Saturday
and a Radio Flyer tricycle. And his mother, my wife, Terri, and
I, when we went to the toy store, we really looked at where
those products were manufactured and looked at the label,
because we want him to be safe. And with a 2-year old, if it
will go in his mouth, it is going to go in his mouth. You just
know that.
So Mr. Chairman, I have got a lengthy statement on official
policy, but just simply let me say that if you are an American
toy manufacturer, I really don't care where you manufacture
your toys. I would rather they be manufactured in the United
States of America and really prefer they be manufactured in
good old Texas, but if you are going to manufacture them in
China or Taiwan or Timbuktu, wherever, they had better meet the
American safety standards and the government officials of these
countries, especially the Chinese, better start getting it.
They seem to think that all we are interested about in the
United States is the cheapest product at the lowest cost, but
they are sadly mistaken. There are some things that price is
the predominant issue with, but the safety of our children,
there is no price you can put on that, Mr. Chairman. And
certainly, for young Jack Kevin Barton, all of 2 years old, his
safety, just like the children and the grandchildren of every
other member of this committee is paramount, so I am going to
pay real close attention and I appreciate you holding this
hearing and I would submit my full statement for the record.
Mr. Rush. I want to thank the gentleman for his comments
and his personal statement. I also want to inform the gentleman
that Radio Flyers are manufactured in Illinois, the next best
place to Texas.
Mr. Barton. Well, he hadn't figured out the pedal part of
it, yet. He is still in the scooting part of it.
Mr. Rush. OK. All right. The Chair now recognizes the
chairman of the full committee, Mr. Dingell of Michigan.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Dingell. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And I begin by
thanking you and Ranking Member Stearns for holding this
hearing today. It is an important one and it is very timely. As
I have said in the hearing of this subcommittee on May 15, our
responsibility to our children and this country's
responsibility to protect these children, is one of the most
important in our society. I am pained to note this morning that
it appears that all of us have been derelict in this matter. It
is the responsibility of this committee, the subcommittee and
very frankly, the Federal Government, to determine the
resources that are available and the sources of the lapse that
have taken place and to take all necessary steps to correct it.
It would be far too easy to attribute this summer's recall
of children's toys and other products to Chinese poorly
regulated export manufacturers. To be sure, that is true, and
China is clearly not without blame. But regulatory
deficiencies, shoddy business practices and the forces of
globalization all play a substantial role in this catastrophe.
In short, there is lots of blame to go around to everybody.
Appearing before us today are the two commissioners from
the Consumer Product Safety Commission, CPSC. As the Nation's
consumer safety watchdog, this agency bears significant
responsibility for protecting our children, yet it has remained
largely under-funded since its inception. And it should be
noted, of late, it has endured an exodus of competent staff and
an apparent significant diminution of its ability to carry out
its responsibilities. In addition, CPSC's testing laboratory is
an embarrassment. I note that there are only two of the five
authorized commissioners available and we are going to have to
find out whether they have the capacity to carry forward with
their proper responsibility.
I would expect, then, that Acting Chairman Nord and
Commissioner Moore will help our committee to understand the
situation and to strengthen the CPSC by answering some of the
following questions. (1) How has CPSC's dwindling resources
affected its ability to intercept dangerous products at U.S.
ports? (2) Has reliance on voluntary industry compliance given
rise to recent toy and other manufacturers and children's
product recall crises? Lastly, I think we are going to have to
ask that acting Chairman Nord discuss, in detail, the agreement
recently included between the CPSC and the Chinese general
administration for quality supervision inspection and
quarantine.
I would note that the Chinese have set extraordinarily high
levels of failure, not just in these kinds of consumer
products, but also in foods, drugs, cosmetics and appliances
and devices. More precisely, then, in what terms of concrete
results are we to expect that this agreement is going to
deliver any additional protection to American consumers?
I note also appearing before us today is Mr. Robert Eckert,
who is Mattel's CEO. The practices of Mattel and its role in
industry leader reflect no credit upon it, yet I am concerned
about the apparent disdain for Federal regulation and laws
present in some public statements. The front page of the
September 4, 2007 Wall Street Journal reported Mr. Eckert's
comments that Mattel discloses problems on its own timetable
because it believes both the law and CPS enforcement practices
are unreasonable.
I think he will probably want to explain these matters, but
I will want to hear a similar explanation from the CPSC about
why they are not more diligent in addressing these questions
and what they have proposed to about this or whether additional
authorities are needed from this committee and from the
Congress to address this kind of behavior and disregard the
proper responsibilities of the manufacturers or importers, and
what the CPSC is going to do to get the attention of these
people so that they will be a little more attentive to their
responsibilities to America and to its children.
I further wish to convey my great disappointment that
Mattel made little demonstrable effort to comply with the
requests of a bipartisan delegation of the Committee on Energy
and Commerce staff recently, in Hong Kong, to meet with its
internal investigators and quality control staff. That is a
poor kind of cooperation to be afforded this committee and it
will hardly be helpful in our relationship with the company. I
expect Mr. Eckert will be available to answer these questions
about the status and intent of Mattel's internal investigation
of its recalls this summer, with clarity and provision.
Lastly, I have heard that CEO's apology for lead tainted
toys, but I would seek reassurance about this pledge to improve
the safety of Mattel's products, given Mattel's past resistance
to cooperating with CPSC over the safety of another toy, Power
Wheels. I look forward to the committee's second day of
hearings on this matter, also, Mr. Chairman. In particular, I
find it prudent that we should explore the following. (1) How
should the United States structure future trade agreements to
enhance the protection of American consumers? (2) How can the
U.S. and others compel China to enforce its own regulations?
(3) What sorts of quality control practices should U.S.
businesses employ in China to assure supply chain integrity?
(4) How do cost pressures applied by large retailers to toy and
other manufacturers diminish quality control?
And last of all, what additional authorities, funding and
resources does CPSC need, as well as legal authorities, to see
to it that they are able to properly carry out their
responsibilities in matters of this kind. These questions and
others are going to inform the committee and enable us to do a
better job to improve our ability to protect our consumers and
their children. We intend to remain vigilant in this task and
produce tangible results. I will note that we will be having
legislation on this. We will shortly be introducing legislation
to address some of the problems with regard to Chinese imports
and Food and Drug in its inability to address problems at our
borders.
And I intend to do a similar thing with regard to CPSC and
we will be looking forward to answers and cooperation from CPSC
today to see what must be done by this committee and we will
anticipate that they will give us answers, both about their
authority and how they are functioning, whether they have the
resources that they need to do their job and also, what they
have to do to get enough commissioners down there to have the
quorums and to be able to conduct their business in a proper
fashion.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you and I commend you for this
hearing and I thank our good friend, Mr. Stearns, also, for his
participation.
Mr. Rush. I want to thank the chairman. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts, for 5
minutes of an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. PITTS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Pitts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won't take all that
time, but first of all, thank you for holding this important
hearing on protecting children from lead tainted imports. Our
children, as it has been said, are our future, and therefore we
must ensure their protection in all ways possible. The
documentation describing the deaths of children from lead
painted toys, as well as from swallowing magnets from toys is
disturbing and unacceptable. And of course, our sympathies go
out to the families who have lost children due to illnesses
related to the issues we are discussing today.
It is vital that toy manufacturers, as well as the U.S.
Government, where appropriate, be assertive in enforcing
standards and safety inspections at all points of the
manufacturing process. Manufacturers must hold contractors and
subcontractors accountable for upholding production standards.
And the U.S. Government must hold Chinese and U.S. companies
accountable for the safety of their products. Recent steps by
toy manufacturers are welcome, but there must be a system in
place to monitor local contractors in China and other nations
in which enforcement of regulations may be lax or entirely
nonexistent.
It is in the best interest of our Nation's children, as
well as the toy companies and their contractors and their
subcontractors, to abide by safety standards. And so I look
forward to hearing our distinguished witnesses today, what they
intend to do to ensure the safety of their products and I thank
you for and commend you for holding this hearing.
Mr. Rush. I want to thank the gentleman. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barrow, for 5
minutes of opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARROW, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Mr. Barrow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ranking
Member Stearns, for having this hearing. Everybody knows the
difference between somebody who don't know about a problem with
this product and don't care, and someone who does know about a
problem with the product and don't care to tell folks about it.
It is as old as the story they tell back home about the guy
that bought a mule from somebody only to discover, a couple of
days after he bought it, that it was blind. Went back to the
guy that sold him, said why did you sell me a blind mule and
the guy said well, the guy that sold it to me didn't tell me
about it and I sort of felt he wanted it kept confidential.
Well, I sort of feel like the manufacturers in this country
that don't know or don't care, but there is no difference in
terms of the impact to the consumer. If the product is
dangerous and you don't know, you should know. The impact is
just the same as if you do know and suppress that knowledge. We
are all going to be held to the standard of what people, what
reasonable people know or should know about their products and
how they are affecting folks in the stream of commerce.
And I think that applies to us, to the Government, as well.
If we know, because we have discovered things that are going
wrong with stuff that is coming into the stream of commerce, we
have got to act. Now, Ranking Member Stearns made an allusion
to the food situation. And me, I don't know, maybe taking a
broad view of history, maybe food is going to kind of wake us
up to some of the problems of globalization and the way that
exporting and outsourcing our clothes and just about everything
else hasn't. Certainly, that was the experience of this country
when the FDA was adopted in the first place.
But as the only Member of Congress, on both the Agriculture
Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee, I can share
with my colleagues and report to you all what we learned on the
Agriculture Committee about how things are done differently in
two different models we got in this country for regulating
imported food. You got the model that the FDA uses when they
are trying to monitor the importation and the quality of
specialty crops that are being imported in this country getting
mixed up with our domestic specialty crops, and what the USDA
is doing in the cases of meat.
Now, the USDA does not rely on the kindness of strangers to
determine whether or not the meat that is coming into this
country is safe. We send inspectors abroad, the USDA sends USDA
inspectors to the packing facilities abroad to inspect the
conditions there at the packing facilities. This is in marked
contrast to the policing policy followed by the FDA for
monitoring the quality of specialty crops, the vegetables that
are getting mixed up on our shelves.
What we do with imported specialty crops is very different.
What we do is we monitor the subject population and wait and
see if someone gets sick in the test group. And after someone
in test group has gotten sick, we try and figure out where it
comes from and we flag stuff and we can trace it up the stream
of commerce. The test group is 350 million Americans. We are
all guinea pigs for the FDA's method of compliance, of
monitoring folks' compliance with the quality and safety of
food that comes into this country. Now, we don't do that with
the USDA. We take an affirmative, proactive stance to try and
make sure the imported meat is safe before it gets here.
We need to take the same approach with respect to
commodities that are manufactured abroad for use in this
country. We haven't just got our toys mixed up, domestic stuff
mixed up on the shelves with stuff that is made abroad. It is
something like 86 percent of the toys in this country are
manufactured in China. So we have to make sure that we don't
just interdict this stuff after it enters the stream of
commerce, but before it lands on our shores. I think we ought
to think about trying to adopt the model of the USDA and try
and stop manufacture, the wholesale manufacture of unsafe
products in our trading partners to begin with.
If the idea of letting this stuff get into the stream of
commerce and match the flows and then trying to stop it after
it reaches our shores is impractical. It is what the FDA is
doing and that is why people are getting sick from eating crops
and they are not getting sick from eating meat. Now, that seems
to me to be a model that we can build on. Certainly, we need to
know that what is going on now is not behind the scenes, it is
not somewhere unaware of. Now that we know about it, we are all
tasked with doing something about it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Rush. I want to thank the gentleman. The Chair now
recognizes, for the purposes of opening statement, Mr. Terry
from Nebraska.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LEE TERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA
Mr. Terry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to express my
appreciation to you for holding this hearing, not only because
lead on our toys is an important issue for our families and
because I have three children, although the youngest is now 7
and probably doesn't chew on too many toys. Certainly, though,
I think this is a matter that we need to be vigilant. There is
a variety of information in discussions about how to properly
handle this. I agree with the gentleman from Georgia that if we
could do a better job at the source, the supplier, the
manufacturer, to adopt the best practices, to make sure that
the product is safe once it is packaged, to be exported to the
United States.
I think the move by the Chinese Government is positive, but
as the full committee chairman has said, unfortunately, China
has a history of not following through with its promises, so I
want to hear from Mattel especially how they feel the Chinese
Government is going to react and enforce what they have
promised in tightening up the procedures in China. What we have
heard, from others that have testified in past testimony in the
Senate, one of the issues with the Chinese manufacturers is for
one run of the manufacture of a toy and spraying on paint, that
batch of paint meets the standards, but the next buckets of
paint they pour in don't. And so literally, you can have the
same batch of toys with some meeting the standards and some
not.
So you really have to be able to rely on the Chinese who
basically run these factories over there to crack down,
otherwise I am going to agree with my colleagues on the other
side that says that maybe the importers of these toys that are
slapping their name on it should look to different countries to
set up a new shop for manufacturing. I also want to
congratulate the chairman on holding a hearing on lead
contamination. One of the reasons why this issue is important
to me, personally, is that I am from Omaha, Nebraska. One-third
of my city is a Superfund site for lead contamination.
Now, that is soil. That is from several of our factories
from the 1800s up until the mid-1950s and 1960s before they
closed down. But what lead does when it is ingested by a child,
especially a toddler like Mr. Barton's son, Jack, what it does
is it retards the development of the brain so that you have, as
they develop into young adults, have a more difficult time of
learning. That is the lesser of the symptoms, as we have
learned from an incident in Minnesota, in ingesting a lead toy
or medallion, is that it can also lead to death.
So I appreciate, I guess the one silver lining from these
hearings and all of the news media attention on these toys, is
that the public has become educated on lead poisoning. That has
been the single most difficult part of our Superfund site in
Omaha, is educating people in the Superfund site, especially
those with children, on what they need to do to reduce the risk
of lead contamination. So in one fell swoop, Mattel and others
have helped educate an American public, because as Mr. Rush can
certainly testify to, when we represent urban areas, like I do,
almost every house is contaminated with lead paint.
And we need to have, I think, broader discussions in this
country about lead poisoning in our urban areas and so I am
going to keep bringing up lead throughout here as a way to
educate the public on lead poisoning, because we have an
epidemic of lead poisoning in our own country that we need to
deal with, as well. So Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you holding
this hearing. I think, overall, we are going to do good for
this country by this hearing.
Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gonzalez, for the
purpose of an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your
leadership on this issue and I want to remind everyone that
this is not the first hearing that you have conducted where we
have had the chair of the Consumer Product Safety Commission
and we should have learned, at that hearing, basically what set
the stage for what we are experiencing today regarding the
lead-based paint toys that were contaminated.
I think I came away from the last hearing, because I know
that the chairman has made her best effort. She has sought us
out. I think she even has some proposed legislative remedies
and such. But what I learned from that hearing was that we have
a commission that is under-staffed and overworked. Congress is,
I think, party to some of that condition by cutting its
funding, historically. So I don't think that we actually come
into this with clean hands. And the other thing I learned that
I really thought, that the industry was pretty much self-
regulated, that we had a watchdog with a muted bark and no
bite.
Now, Mr. Dingell has indicated we are going to have some
legislation. I know that the chairman is going to make some
recommendations today. I am hopeful and I think that she will,
and we need to be acting on it. The American people truly
believe that the Government is there to protect them,
especially from unsafe products. But I am here to tell them
that is not the fact. And you have heard some of my colleagues
allude to the situation. We are faced with the reality that it
really is industry driven. You have already heard references to
basically a toy company can make a determination when it feels
it may be imperative to take some action regarding a toy that
has been placed in the stream of commerce that poses a danger
to Americans and their children. That is not the way it is
supposed to work.
So where is the Government's responsibility? And it is not
solely Government, but it has to be the toy company, it has to
be the retailer and even the consumer has a role to play. As
Mr. Barton pointed out, when he and his wife went to buy the
toys for their son, there was due diligence exercised by the
consumer. So I think there is a role for all of us, but I tell
you, it definitely will start with the commission and it ends
with the commission. But it will take a joint effort, a
collaborative effort, and that is what we should be seeking
today.
I will tell you now, there was no doubt this was going to
happen. If you were here for the last hearing, we were just
waiting for an incident. It just so happened that it was toys
and it was Mattel, which is obviously one of the most prominent
toy distributors, manufacturers. And we are going to get into
design and we are going to get into manufacturing and we are
going to see what is the duty of someone that supplies toys,
that designs them and then off-shores and the manufacturing of
those toys, to make sure that whoever is manufacturing them, in
China or in any other country, is abiding by those standards
that we are going to apply to that finished product when we
bring it onto our shores.
Again, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Rush. I want to thank the gentleman. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Burgess, for 5
minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate you
holding the hearing today. Now, most of us, with the increasing
number of recalls that we have seen, are extremely concerned
about the safety and security of really, what we consider
rather mundane, normal household products, and now, especially
in regard to our children's toys and as a parent, the last
thing you would ever want to do is give your child something
that could cause them harm. However, that determination seems
to be getting harder and harder by the day to make, as more and
more recalls are announced.
In a lot of ways, America has the safest products in the
world, but after a summer of recalls, the confidence of the
American consumer is severely undermined. And what most of us
are concerned about is the safety of imported goods, especially
those imported from the People's Republic of China. And what
that leaves us with, as far as we are trying to discriminate is
something harmful or not harmful to bring into our home, we
look for that country manufacturer, and I will just tell you,
in my household, if it is made in China, it does not come home.
In July, my friend and colleague, Mr. Greg Walden, who is
on the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee with me, we
sent a letter to the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee
asking for an investigation regarding for the many food and
consumer product safety recalls from the People's Republic of
China. In August, in response to the Thomas the Train recall, I
sent yet another letter to the O & I subcommittee. Once again,
I urged them to embark on an investigation regarding the
increasing number of consumer product recalls from the People's
Republic of China. I have yet to receive a response back from
the subcommittee, but Chairman Rush and Ranking Member Stearns,
I thank you for your leadership on this specific issue in
calling for this hearing today.
I have given those two letters to the majority counsel and
ask unanimous consent that they be included as part of today's
record.
Chairwoman Nord, I am glad you are here with us today. I
know that you and your colleague, Commissioner Moore, will
provide some much needed insight regarding the recalls of the
Consumer Product Safety Commission. In some ways I am
disappointed in how the committee handled the hearing in June
and I think the committee could have benefited greatly from
your testimony 3 months ago, when we were just on the cusp of
discovering the severity of this problem. Obviously, the head
of any Federal agency should be treated with respect,
regardless of one's political affiliation. I am grateful that
you have graciously agreed to be here with us today.
You can't turn on the television at 6 o'clock at night in
Washington, DC without hearing Lou Dobbs talk about this, and I
was watching him, because I wanted to see what my e-mails and
letters are going to look like the next day. And the media,
rightfully so, has spent a lot of time and attention on the
issue of recalls this summer and we are all concerned about the
number of recalls. But it is also important that we step back
and think about some of the things that are being done
correctly and make certain that we don't do anything to
undermine those things.
Chairwoman Nord, even though you specifically note, in your
testimony, that the Consumer Product Safety Commission has not
historically engaged in international activities and does not
have direct authority to handle imported products at ports, you
and your agency have made some significant progress in regards
to the issue of Chinese imports and last week's agreement with
China's general administration of quality supervision
underscores this. I am grateful that your agency was able to
get China to agree immediately to implement a plan to eliminate
the use of lead paint. I will have to say people in this
country already expected that their toys be painted with lead-
free paint, but this is clearly a step in the right direction.
And certainly now, as Chairman Dingell has pointed out, we
have got to hear, going forward, what is going to happen as far
as the enforcement. I am also grateful that members of industry
and manufacturing are here today. I am extremely interested in
what happens to all of the volume of recalled product that is
going to be returned. Do we burn it and put the lead into the
atmosphere? Do we bury it and put the lead into our groundwater
or do we just simply resell it on eBay and continue the
problem?
I would also like to briefly mention the voluntary recall
system versus the mandatory recall system. Right now
manufacturers bear a legal responsibility to report to the
Consumer Product Safety Commission if there are problems. This
is existing Federal law and manufacturers must play by the
rules. Now, Chairman Dingell talked about a mandatory system of
recalls. I am concerned that if we go to an exclusively
mandatory system of recalls, we will extend the timeline. I
think it is important that the chairwoman has the flexibility
to ask for a voluntary recall. I cannot imagine anyone in
industry ignoring that call for a voluntary recall and that can
happen in a couple of weeks.
If we go the mandatory route, we have to go through the
courts, involved lawyers and you know what happens there. It is
a couple of years before we get something resolved. Now, in my
district back in Texas, a local television station, Fox 4, has
documented a problem with sandals, flip flops, that cause a
severe localized dermatitis. I cannot imagine what the cause
for that might be, but again, we need to get to the bottom of
that. And the CPSC is not just to protect consumers, it is to
protect manufacturers, too, because when the confidence of the
American public is undermined, the manufacturer is ultimately
the one who is going to suffer. Again, we will not buy a
product in my household if we see that it was manufactured in
the People's Republic of China.
Mr. Chairman, I will submit my entire statement for the
record. I do understand Chairwoman Nord has some draft
legislation that bears us looking at that. We also need to talk
significantly about the funding. I am concerned, with all the
talk about funding, and we had that discussion earlier this
summer, that the House Appropriations Committee, really, the
increase in funding was rather modest for their budget this
year and I will be interested in hearing from both Chairwoman
Nord and Commissioner Moore about their opinion of the House
level of funding that was sent by the Appropriations Committee
and I will yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Rush. I want to thank the gentleman. The Chair now
recognizes, for the purposes of opening statement, the
gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Hooley, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DARLENE HOOLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Ms. Hooley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
important hearing and thank you, Chairwoman Nord and
Commissioner Moore for being here today and providing your
testimony. Like Representative Barton, this is very personal.
Last week, my district director, who just had a baby, found out
that her baby's favorite teething ring had lead in it. Now, I
wonder how many other parents are out there that have given
their children teething rings with lead in it. When it says
safe for children, people have expected that it is going to be
safe for their children.
Hopefully, it is no longer news to anyone that we have a
serious problem with the influx of dangerous lead-tainted and
faulty children's products flooding our shelves. So far this
year, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has issued 113
recalls, 43 due to excessive lead. I would like to believe this
number won't go up, but I know that it will. Not enough has
been done to make sure that toys that reach the shelves across
this country are safe and there is plenty of blame to go
around.
Manufacturers have not been as vigilant as they could have
been in monitoring and testing their complicated off-shore
supply chains. To prevent the introduction of dangerous toys
and other children's products into the marketplace,
manufacturers should be required to have independent, third
party tests certifying their products are safe before they
reach our shelves. I commend the Toy Association to agreeing
that this needs to happen.
Recent recalls have highlighted safety problems with
Chinese imports. An overwhelming majority of the recalls have
been from China. China is now our second largest trading
partner and yet, last year supplied the United States with 86
percent of its toys. Currently, it is almost as we are relying
on China's weak safety regime to make sure that products we
import for them are safe. We can all agree that this isn't
enough.
Consumer Product Safety Commission is another piece of this
puzzle. The CPSC is charged with the enormous task of
protecting the public, including children from unreasonable
risk associated with consumer products. Right now we are trying
to do this with 400 employees in contrast to the thousand they
had in 1981. Clearly, this is not sufficient. They also lack,
in some areas, statutory authority to protect the consumers. By
the CPS's own admission, the 1950s facility they are using to
test potentially dangerous products don't even meet the code.
Moving forward, I sincerely hope the CPSC will be as
constructive and proactive as possible in addressing this
multifaceted and complicated issue. I also hope that we quickly
and thoughtfully pass legislation, giving them the resources
and the authority to be more effective in performing their
vital duties. We have to be careful, though. In the process of
addressing the problems with CPSC, we should not replace the
testing by the private sector. The CPSC needs to establish
uniform testing rules that the private sector has to adhere to.
It is vital to our children and economy that parents are
confident that when they purchase, off the shelves, that
product is safe. I look forward to hearing from both panels
today and working with my colleagues on addressing this very
serious problem. And I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. Rush. I want to thank the gentlelady. Now the Chair
recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Whitfield, for the
purposes of opening statement. The gentlemen from Tennessee and
from Kentucky left. Now the Chair recognizes the gentlelady
from Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn, for the purposes of an opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Ms. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for
holding today's hearing and I do want to welcome our witnesses.
We are looking forward to hearing from you and exploring some
of these issues that do relate to consumer product safety and
the quality of imported products. As a mother, as a retail
industry veteran, and also now as a Member of Congress, I have
different lenses through which I can look at and evaluate this
issue. I think all of us also look at it as a consumer, as we
purchase and use these products. And it is something that I
think is of deep concern to us as we evaluate the safety of the
products that have made their way into the U.S. retail
mainstream. It is something that affects every single
socioeconomic level.
And I think it is of concern to us that we see an up-tick
in the occurrences of products that contain toxins and it is
going to be imperative that this subcommittee carefully examine
these problems that have been brought on by both the recent and
the not-so-recent recalls that are in this industry and to look
for a solution that is going to give peace of mind to the
American consumers. There is no substitute for a safe
marketplace and I know that our witnesses today are going to
talk with us about effective policy and what they see is
effective policy for ensuring that marketplace.
Now, I hope that, as we approach this, that we have an eye
towards solving the problem and not pointing fingers because a
solution is what we need to this, whether it is the potential
inadequacies that the Federal Hazardous Substance Act or the
regulatory structure at the CPSC or companies that are
importing, let us agree to isolate the problem and then agree
to work toward a solution on addressing that. And I hope that
nobody is going to be tempted to blame all businesses and start
to paint with a very broad brush and I know that there is going
to be some that say we need more money and we need a bigger
regulatory regime and we need new Government programs.
And many times that will happen, but I think we have to
ask: Will millions of dollars and new Government spending and
hundreds of new bureaucratic inspectors prevent willful
negligence on the part of some of the Chinese regulators? Or
will they prevent those with the different sets of standards,
those foreign contractors and those local officials that have
different sets of standards from ours, those in developing
nations, from preventing shoddy quality control of product
manufactured in their country?
Now, on the issue of funding, knowing this would come up, I
went back and looked at this. The current budget authority and
the appropriated funding levels for the CPSC are nearly $10
million higher for fiscal year 2007 than it was in the final
year of all Democratic government in 1994 and that is in the
term of 2006 dollars and that is taking inflation into account.
So we have got more money that is there for the CPSC than in
1994. And clearly then, it is hardly a direct correlation
between additional funding and new employees and a hazard-free
marketplace.
So then we have to say what is the problem and looking at
the 43 toy recalls that we have had this year alone and the 14
separate instances related to unsafe exposure levels to lead
paint, we have to say that is 43 too many and I know that many
responsible industry leaders, certainly one in my home State of
Tennessee, are already acting above industry standards and are
testing imported products for toxic components at levels that
exceed the Federal standard, whether it is lead or otherwise.
And it seems to me that these actions are instructive and that
we can learn from these companies who have taken the
initiative.
We all know that the private sector is a partner with the
Federal Government in determining that the U.S. marketplace is
safe from toxic products and we want to be certain that
everyone lives up to their responsibility and then see if there
are additional steps that are needed. Mr. Chairman, I thank you
again for the hearing. I am looking forward to hearing from our
witnesses. We welcome you and I yield the balance of my time.
Mr. Rush. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from
Colorado, Ms. DeGette, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIANA DEGETTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Ms. DeGette. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will
submit my full statement for the record, but to avoid trying to
be redundant, I just want to say the parents of this country
right now really feel like they are under siege and if you had
to ask me, when I ran for Congress 10 years ago, would I be
sitting in a consumer protection hearing in 2007 talking about
lead paint in toys, I would have laughed and frankly, most of
the parents of America would have laughed because they thought,
maybe 30 years ago, that the problem of lead paint in toys had
been resolved.
But what has happened in the meantime is about 86 percent
of our toys are coming from China and obviously our regulatory
scheme, both the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the
independent toy manufacturers and others, are simply not
stepping up to meet the oversight demands that that increased
number of imports is bringing on us. The reason I say the
parents of America feel like we are under siege is it is coming
at us from all sides. We buy spinach for our children thinking
that we are feeding them healthy foods and then they end up
with E. coli or salmonella because of our food safety
inspection system.
We buy, as the ranking member, Mr. Barton, said, Thomas the
Tank Engine for our nephews or our sons and we have to worry
about whether those toys are contaminated by lead. So with all
due respect to my friend from Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn and
others, I think that we need to take a long, hard look at the
consumer product review, the entire situation in this country,
and see why we are having such extreme lapses. Last week, my
staff wrote, in my statement, I am a parent of two daughters
and I remember buying them toys, as kids, but in fact, last
week I found a princess crown and some other things, some rings
and earrings and things in my car that my 13-year old daughter
had bought. I guess that says something about my 13-year old
daughter.
She brought this stuff home and it was manufactured in
China and I was sitting in the car looking at it, trying to
decide should I put it in the bag for Goodwill or should I put
it in the bag of paint and paint thinner that I was taking to
the toxic waste disposal site. That is really kind of sad when
parents are thinking about that, Mr. Chairman, and it turns out
that my concerns were probably well-founded. Ms. Hooley talked
about how there were 15 recalls by the Consumer Product Safety
Commission last year, but before 2007, there were an average of
four recalls a year. So obviously, it is skyrocketing up.
And what is even worse, the Consumer Product Safety
Commission found that of the 113 recall notices for children's
product, 42 were for toys and 71 were for other children's
products like jewelry. And in fact, of these, 38 percent had to
do with excessive lead. So in fact, 7 million pieces of
children's jewelry last year, like the ones that were in my
car, were contaminated with lead and these are things that
little girls are putting on their heads and in their mouths and
on their fingers and on their ears. We can't accept that and we
can't accept a regulatory scheme that allows that.
So Mr. Chairman, I think that this 2-day hearing is one of
the most important things we can do in Congress this fall
because many of my colleagues have said, accurately, that the
blame is well spread around and the solution is not simple. I
will say one thing, though, and again, I need to respectfully
disagree with my friend from Tennessee, if you are not going to
have adequate and robust oversight, it is hard to see how you
can avoid some of these problems.
In fact, if you look historically, since 1981, the Consumer
Product Safety Commission has shrunk from 1,000 employees to
about 400 today. President Bush's budget that he has submitted
would actually cost the Consumer Product Safety Commission 19
more employees. So in truth, while throwing money at problems
never works, you have to have a regulatory scheme that is
robust and that is adequately enough staffed. And I think that
is part of the solution, but industry has to step up as well,
and we all know that.
With that, I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ms. DeGette follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Diana DeGette, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Colorado
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this 2-
day hearing.
The fact that this hearing is 2 days shows how important
the topic is--protecting the interests of children. Children
are our most precious resource, for they are the future of this
country. If we want a bright future for them, and for us, we
have to make sure they are made healthy, through appropriate
health care, provided a first class-education, and be kept
safe.
We have a long way to go in all of these areas, but this
past year has shown acute failures in our ability to protect
children from dangerous toys. In particular, they have been
exposed to millions of products with dangerous levels of lead
paint and lead content.
Protecting kids from lead is not some wild-eyed notion.
Lead is contaminant which can cause serious health problems and
even death. Lead builds up in the blood stream overtime and
causes developmental and behavioral problems in children. For
example, studies have shown that lead in the body can reduce a
child's IQ. Acute lead poisoning, caused when one quickly
ingests a large amount of lead, can cause serious injury or
death. Kids get exposed to lead by chewing on or swallowing
toys covered in paint or otherwise tainted by lead.
I'm a parent of two daughters I remember buying them toys
as kids. Simply put, parents want to feel secure that when they
do something nice for their kids they aren't unknowingly giving
them a toy that could be deadly. Hard-working and busy parents
shouldn't have to figure out which products have lead; and, in
fact, that would basically be impossible because there is no
way to know if a toy has lead or lead paint just by looking.
Parents have to rely on industry and government to prevent
these dangerous toys from ever getting into the hands of kids.
On that score, we are failing at an alarming rate.
According to the prepared testimony of Mr. Thomas Moore,
Commissioner of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC),
prior to 2007, the CPSC had been averaging four recalls per
year for children's toys with excessive levels of lead paint.
This year there have already been 15. Overall, the CPSC has
issued 113 recall notices for children's products this year, 42
for toys and 71 for other children's products, like jewelry. Of
these 38 percent had to do with excessive lead. In terms of raw
numbers that comes to 7 million pieces of children's jewelry.
Some of these recalls were pretty high profile. Mattel
alone had three separate, massive recalls, including ones which
covered such popular products as those involving Sesame Street,
Dora the Explorer, and Barbie. It wasn't just Mattel either--
RC2 Corporation had to recall 1.5 million Thomas the Train toy
cars.
Most of these toys were made abroad, particularly in
China, and much has been made of that fact. China is now our
second largest trading partner; our trade with it has grown to
$343 billion per year. We get 86 percent of our toys from
China.
Relying on imports from China to such a large extent
creates significant problems, not only with respect to toys but
food safety as well. Getting business in China means keeping
costs low, which some do by cutting corners and using cheaper
lead paint or lead products. Its consumer protection laws are
weak and, most importantly, at many levels there is a lack of
enforcement. Corruption is a significant problem. While I think
relying on China alone to combat this is foolhardy, we do need
to work with the Chinese to improve their regulatory
enforcement. I am pleased that that is being worked on by the
CPSC.
But, at the end of the day protecting American consumers
is the duty of American companies and the American government.
Americans need to step up and get the job done. Over the years
we have seen more and more American companies move
manufacturing overseas in search cheap labor and a lower cost
of doing business. Regardless of the merits of the behavior, it
is no excuse for weakening safety protections.
These companies use contractors, who in turn use
subcontractors, who in turn use other subcontractors. I know
companies are trying and have rules to prevent the use of
unsafe materials. But such a confusing and complex supply chain
makes it difficult to ensure their own rules are being
followed. Rules are useless if they are routinely being ignored
or flouted. These companies need to show more active
involvement and quality control. They need to have sufficient
numbers of their own people there at plans, monitoring
contractors and subcontractors to ensure compliance.
I know today we are talking about lead-tainted imports and
manufacturing issues abroad, but I think its worth nothing that
a recent study found that over 75 percent of all toy recalls
since 1988 have been due to design defects. Just this year, one
of the Mattel recalls included products which had small
magnets. The design of the product was so poor that the magnets
could fall out and be ingested by children, causing serious
injury. So, not only do companies need to look at manufacturing
practices, but design practices as well. It is their
responsibility to design and create products that are safe.
Simply relying on industry to police itself is also not
enough. We need third party verification that standards are
being followed. That is why I have cosponsored H.R. 3499, the
``Children's Products Safety Act of 2007'' sponsored by my good
friend and colleague Representative Hooley. This bill would
require all products for kids five and under to have a
certificate, issued by an independent third party lab, that
these products comply with our safety standards. And, it would
prohibit imports that do not have such a certificate.
Finally, there is a significant role for government and
the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), which has the
mandate to protect consumers from harmful products. Of course,
that is hard task without sufficient resources.
The CPSC has shrunk over time, declining from 1,000
employees in 1981 to about 400 today. Its budget is a paltry
$62 million in fiscal year 2007. Again according to
Commissioner Moore, this lack of resources is, not
surprisingly, negatively impacting the ability of the CPSC to
do its job. For example, it has only 15 people to work in our
ports and inspect the thousands of products we import every
day. What was President Bush's solution to this? A budget that
Commissioner Moore says would cost the CPSC 19 more employees.
My friends on the other side of the aisle like to talk about
cutting big government and its wasteful spending, but I think
saving money at the expense of children's safety is wrong.
As I was cleaning out my garage the other day, I was
organizing all of my kids' old toys. After the recalls of this
past summer, I started to wonder whether or not I needed to
separate the toys into ones I could give to charity and ones
that amounted to hazardous waste. Parents should not have to
wonder whether or not their kids' toys are deadly. America can
do better.
I look forward today to hearing from our witnesses and
discussing how we can get this system back on track. With that,
I yield back the balance of my time.
----------
Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentlelady. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Radanovich, for 5
minutes for an opening statement. I want to thank the gentleman
for waiving. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from North
Carolina, Mr. Butterfield, for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. G.K. BUTTERFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. Butterfield. Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to thank you
very much for holding this important hearing today on
protecting our children and protecting our consumers from lead
tainted imports. The prevalence of lead tainted products has
been a serious problem in the United States for many, many
years and this issue has not received the attention it clearly
deserves and so this hearing today is very timely. I want to
commend you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to commend the committee
and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for your strong
commitment to protecting this Nation's most vulnerable
population, our children.
Research reveals that contact with lead tainted products
can seriously impact the health of children. Repeated exposure
to lead is accumulative and detrimental to the blood system.
Regular contact can cause reduced IQ, learning disabilities,
attention deficit disorders, behavioral problems, stunted
growth and impaired hearing and kidney damage. Further, at high
levels of exposure, a child may become mentally retarded. He or
she may fall into a coma, may eventually die. Children can come
in contact with lead through various sources, one of which is
toys. And so this is a very, very serious issue.
In reading the material, it appears that 86 percent of all
toys sold in the United States are manufactured in China. Major
toy manufacturers rely on their relationships with contractors
in countries abroad to ensure the product being manufactured
meets U.S. standards. Sometimes the highest quality components
do not go into these products manufactured overseas and the
safety of children is compromised. And it appears that some of
our manufacturers are knowingly engaging in this conduct and if
that happens to be true, and these hearings today will help us
in that quest for knowledge, then they should be held
accountable.
In an effort to combat the potential safety issues that
arise from contractors with little oversight, the Toy Industry
Association has proposed new testing requirements which require
all toys manufactured for sale in the United States to be
tested by our standards and also standardizes procedures to be
used industry-wide to verify product compliance with U.S.
safety standards.
Mr. Chairman, this is a very good step. It is a very good
first step in ensuring that products used by our children are
safe. Our constituents demand that we do our part to oversee
these industries with the help of the Consumer Product Safety
Commission. The CPSC, who is charged with protecting the public
from unreasonable risk of serious injury or death for more than
15,000 types of consumer products under their jurisdiction, is
experiencing strained resources, that is obvious. They are
experiencing very significant backlogs. And I support an
increase in funding for this agency, but also believe that the
agency needs a strategic plan in place to ensure consumers
continue to be protected.
I am particularly looking forward to the testimony of
Commissioner Moore, who shares my deep concern for the need to
reinvigorate and better fund the Consumer Product Safety
Commission. On that note, Mr. Chairman, I would like to welcome
the witnesses today and commend them on their dedication to
this issue and their work for the American people. I look
forward to their testimony and working with my colleagues and
stakeholders on this and other product safety issues. This is
an important dialog that must continue. Our children are our
future and we must protect them.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my 1 minute and 15
seconds.
Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and now
recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Towns, for an
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Towns. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me begin
by thanking you, Chairman Rush, and Ranking Member Stearns for
holding this hearing on protecting our children. I have a
statement; I would like to submit it for the record, but I want
to make just a few comments. First of all, the blame game is
not going to be the solution. I think we should have an open
and honest discussion, recognizing the fact that if it requires
additional resources, that we put the resources there. We need
to make certain that we have a solution. I have a lot of
concerns. First of all, even in the recalls, nobody seems to
know whether they are successful, unsuccessful or anything.
They just announce recall and then after they announce recall,
they go about another recall and then another recall. But
nobody seems to know, in terms of whether the recall was
successful, how many happened to have been returned. Nobody
seems to know.
I think, in this day and age, in 2007, and I think that we
should be in a position to assess and to determine, in terms of
what is really going on. So I am hoping that in this discussion
today, that we will look at every aspect and be open about it
and talk about what we can do to make certain that we move in a
different direction. We are talking about our children, we are
talking about the safety of our children and we are talking
about parents who work real hard to try and purchase these toys
for their children and all of a sudden they find out that the
toy is creating a problem. And I think that we owe them more
than that.
So I am hoping that this committee will come to grips with
the fact that if more resources are needed, let us make certain
that they have the resources. And I am hoping the agencies will
be honest and tell us if they need. Sometimes agencies will
come here and knowing that they cannot do the job because they
do not have resources and will sit at the table and never make
the request. You know why? And I think that the time has come
that we must get over that, get past that, because this is a
very serious situation. We are talking about life and death.
That is what we are talking about today.
So I am hoping that you understand and that we can move
forward with that in mind. And on that note, Mr. Chairman, I
would like to submit my entire statement that I have for the
record. And I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentleman for his comments
and now recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Ross, for
purposes of opening statements.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE ROSS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS
Mr. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
expansive hearing on the recent recalls of products containing
lead. These recent recalls of contaminated toys and other items
highlight the fact that consumer safety is at risk in America.
It is especially troubling that these items are used by the
youngest and obviously, most vulnerable members of society. I
am troubled that we have reached the level of congressional
hearings to determine why, in this day and age, in this 21st
century, our children's health has been put at unnecessary risk
by contaminated toys, of all things.
We have a responsibility, a duty, to provide our children
with the best start in life. Parents deserve answers. We know
that exposure of lead content can prove to be dangerous, if not
deadly, to individuals, especially children. And it is my hope
that over the duration of this hearing we gain a better
understanding of existing Federal and State limits on lead in
consumer products. We must further explore the role of the
Consumer Product Safety Commission's activities to establish
lead limits for children's products.
And we need other hearings, Mr. Chairman. Today it is the
Consumer Product Safety Commission, which we have basically put
this agency in place, as a Congress, to protect consumers. In
my opinion, this commission has failed our children and we need
to determine if a legislative remedy is needed. But in fairness
to them, it is not just this one agency, but we need to look at
all the agencies that protect us, as consumers. We raise a lot
of catfish in Arkansas; it is a big part of our economy. And I
recently learned that for all the fruits, vegetables and
seafood coming into America, to all the ports in America from
all over the world, there is something like 70 FDA inspectors.
Not per shift, not per port, 70 for all the ports in America,
for all the fish, seafood, fruits and vegetables coming in. So
it is another example of how, from a consumer advocacy
standpoint, we are failing consumers.
I think it is also important that we review how retailers
have responded to the current toy crisis and how all industry,
manufacturers and retailers, can work best with the Government
to ensure that we have the most robust safety systems in place
in the United States. As both a parent and an elected official
representing many parents in Arkansas, I remain committed to
taking steps to prevent further unnecessary exposure of
dangerous products to our children. Hopefully, the testimony
and discussions today and tomorrow will provide us greater
insight towards possible legislative remedies.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Rush. I want to thank the gentleman. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Matheson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JIM MATHESON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Matheson. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. I know
a lot of opening statements have covered the relevant points to
be made in opening statements here today, but I guess I would
just point out that globalization creates both opportunities
and challenges and today we are talking about addressing one of
the challenges of globalization, and that is you have a much
wider supply chain and much more complex set of distribution
channels to come up with how products are in this country now.
As I would echo comments on this panel, as a parent, I have
great concern about making sure, when I buy a product in the
store, that it is safe and I think a lot of people in this
country are looking to Congress and to the industry to work to
come up with the solution that ensures the integrity of when a
consumer in this country buys a product, they can feel like it
is safe. And that is the objective we all ought to keep in mind
as we have these hearings today. Mr. Chairman, I really applaud
you for scheduling 2 days of hearings on this. I know we will
have additional work on this as we go forward and I look
forward to working with you to achieve that goal. Thanks so
much. I yield back.
Mr. Rush. I want to thank the gentleman. Now, the Chair
asks for unanimous consent that two members of the full
committee, but not members of the subcommittee, be recognized
for opening statements and to participate in this hearing. So
the Chair asks for unanimous consent. Is there any objection to
the Chair's request? Hearing none, the Chair now recognizes the
gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Ferguson, for the purposes of
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE FERGUSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Ferguson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad to be able
to return to the subcommittee for a brief time. I want to thank
you and Ranking Member Stearns for holding this hearing to draw
attention to this issue that affects every parent and every
child across our country. I want to thank our witnesses for
coming today, I look forward to their testimony.
In recent weeks and months we have been bombarded with
reports of toy recalls from well known toy manufacturers from
across the country. In recent months, we all know that Mattel
has recalled millions of toys representing popular and beloved
children's characters like Dora the Explorer and Barbie and
Elmo and Thomas the Tank Engine, toys just like this one. We
have all seen these. My wife and I have four young kids in our
house. We went through of all of our toy boxes and found some
toys. My wife reminded me, just yesterday, that some of the
toys in our very house, we had to go through and clear them out
and throw them in the trash.
Millions of parents across the country are doing the very
same thing that my wife and I are doing in our house and that
many of our constituents in New Jersey are doing in their very
homes, as well. In the past 6 months, nearly 21 million
Chinese-made toys have been recalled. Eighty-six percent of all
toy and game imports come from China. As I say, I am sure every
parent in the country had the same reaction that my wife and I
did when we began reading these news reports. We have toys like
these, our kids have put toys like these in their mouths all
the time. No parent in our country should ever have to worry
about whether their children's toys are toxic or could make
them sick.
If toy companies choose to manufacture their products in
China, they need to take every precaution that those toys meet
U.S. safety standards. If they don't, I believe Congress must
give Federal regulators the authority to ensure that our kids'
toys won't actually harm them. America's moms and dads
shouldn't be worried that the health of their children could be
put at risk when they play with something so simple as the
Thomas the Tank Engine or Dora the Explorer backpacks. They
expect that established safeguards are in place to protect
their kids.
It is our responsibility, as lawmakers and parents and
educator and law enforcement, to do everything possible to
protect our children at all costs. We will not settle for un-
enforced standards or lax inspections when our children's
safety is at stake. And that is why I, along with my friend
from New York, Mr. Towns, have introduced H.R. 3477, the Safe
Toys for Kids Act. This bipartisan legislation would ban
uncertified imports from entering the United States by
requiring that all imported children's products be tested and
certified by an independent group.
This bill is the House companion to legislation that
Senators Durbin and Nelson have introduced in the Senate. In
light of these national recalls, I am pleased to see that
companies like Toys R Us and Disney have stepped up to announce
that they intend to recheck and increase checks on products on
store shelves. Currently, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission allows manufacturers to inspect their own children's
products. However, this is clearly, as we have learned, is not
enough. Our bill would require an independent group to test
both imported and domestic toys geared toward children 5 years
and younger.
This legislation will go far in ensuring that parents can
buy toys for their children with the peace of mind that what
they are bringing into their home is only of the highest
quality. Now, we know that our parents and our children deserve
nothing less than that. While this is not a cure-all, I believe
it is a good framework to begin a discussion on what we can do
to prevent these dangerous and sometimes even deadly toys from
falling into the hands of our Nation's children.
I look forward to hearing our witnesses' testimony. I am
anxious to hear their ideas on how we can work together to
solve this problem. I want to thank the committee and the
chairman and the ranking member once again for holding these
hearings and again, thank you for allowing me to participate. I
yield back.
Mr. Rush. As stated before, the Chair extends the unanimous
consent request to the gentlelady from California, Ms. Harman,
who is recognized for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANE HARMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Harman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to Mr.
Stearns for extending me this privilege. I am a member of the
full committee and I have watched attention paid to this issue
with great interest. There were Senate hearings last week and
the hearings that you are planning for today and tomorrow are
obviously critical. I came down here for several reasons. Like
many on this committee, I am a mother, in my case, of four
children. I am a grandmother of one with two more on the way.
My granddaughter, Lucy, is a fanatic for Elmo, her favorite
toy, who is all over her room and in my own office upstairs, I
have a collection of Barbie dolls, one of them is Barbie for
President. Why not?
My other reason for being here, however, is that in my
district is El Segundo, CA, the home of Mattel, and we will
hear from Bob Eckert on the second panel. He is, in addition to
the chairman and CEO of the largest toy manufacturer in the
United States, he is also the employer of 2,000 or so of my
constituents and it is of great interest to me that they
continue to be productively employed in a company that
continues to be the largest manufacturer of toys in the United
States.
Kids die from lead. Everyone has made this point. That is
our first obligation. But employees lose jobs if manufacturers
don't behave responsibly and I believe that Mattel is complying
with the requests of this committee and going to make even more
efforts to behave responsibly and this mother is on the case to
assure you that that happens.
Let me just make a couple of additional comments. In my
personal conversation with Bob Eckert last week, I was
impressed by the steps he wants to take. I did listen to his
Senate testimony where he said he took personal responsibility
on behalf of his company for the actions it had taken and the
actions that it will take. I applaud that. I think those steps
that he wants to take are useful. I also suggested that he
consider taking over ownership of all of Mattel's plants in
China; Mattel owns 50 percent of those plants, but taking over
ownership of all of them so that he can more effectively
monitor the paint used and other safety issues, but also
consider moving some of his manufacturing back to the United
States.
It occurs to me that that could be a win-win since, as we
all know, the United States and the Consumer Product Safety
Commission has banned lead paint on toys and children's
furniture since 1978 and it is obviously easier to make sure
those standards are observed here. My bottom line is that this
hearing matters. Additional Federal regulation matters. But the
taking of responsibility by those who run America's big
corporations is also central to solving this problem and I am
watching closely, as we all are, to make certain that Mattel,
in particular, takes personal responsibility and does the most
it can do to solve the problem that will protect the
professional livelihoods of its workers and it will certainly
guarantee that Lucy Peck, my granddaughter, can buy more Elmo
dolls and enjoy the toys that she obviously loves.
And it will finally protect this enormous legacy of Barbie,
which I think has in, a kind of interesting way, been a symbol,
both for some of the excesses of America, but also some of the
goals of American girls and women, and I am pleased that we are
having this hearing and look forward to participating.
Mr. Rush. I want to thank the gentlelady. There is a vote
that has been called on the floor. We have one 15-minute vote
and two 5-minute votes. It is the intent of the Chair to ask
our two witnesses of panel I to come and give us an opening
statement and that after they conclude their opening statement
of 5 minutes apiece, we will recess to go to vote and then we
will come back for questioning.
So now the Chair invites the two witnesses, the one
witness, the Honorable Nancy A. Nord, the Acting Chairman of
the Consumer Product Safety Commission; the other witness on
panel I is the Honorable Thomas H. Moore, the Commissioner of
the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
We certainly thank you for appearing before this
subcommittee, taking the time out from your busy schedule to
engage in this deliberation. Please keep your opening
statements to 5 minutes because we do have to get over for this
vote. The Chair now recognizes the Acting Chairman of the
Consumer Product Safety Commission, Ms. Nord, for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF NANCY A. NORD, ACTING CHAIRMAN, CONSUMER PRODUCT
SAFETY COMMISSION
Ms. Nord. Chairman Rush, Congressman Stearns, thank you for
the opportunity to again come before the subcommittee, this
time to discuss the important issue of lead exposure to
children. Lead poisoning in children can cause learning
disabilities and behavioral problems and because it often
occurs with no obvious symptoms, it frequently goes
unrecognized. In high enough concentrations, lead can also be
fatal. While it is critical to understand the dangers of lead,
it is also important to recognize that the United States has
made tremendous progress in reducing the blood lead levels of
children.
The percent of children aged 1 to 5 having excessive blood
lead levels declined from an astonishing 78 percent in the mid-
1970s to just under 1.6 percent in 2002. This achievement was
due primarily to the phasing out of leaded gasoline and the ban
on lead-based house paint in the 1970s. Still, an estimated
300,000 children continue to have excessive blood lead levels
and many of them are low-income and minority children. In fact,
the overwhelming source of lead exposure to children today is
lead house paint and lead contaminated dust found in old,
deteriorating buildings.
As outlined in my written statement, the CPSC has a long
and active history in eliminating lead exposure from consumer
products. But it is important to recognize that the CPSC must
have a legal basis for taking action to remove any product from
the marketplace. Our governing statutes set out certain
criteria that we must, by law, follow. With respect to the
Federal Hazardous Substances Act, which governs most children's
products. The law requires a finding that the lead in the
product is accessible to the child before we can legally act.
That is not merely that the lead is present, but there is
actual exposure to the lead in the product.
An example of where we have found the needed exposure to
justify regulatory action is children's metal jewelry. This is
because when it is ingested, the lead in the jewelry can leech
into the child's system. In 2005 the CPSC issued an enforcement
policy stating that we would recall any children's jewelry
containing more than trace amounts of lead and setting out how
we would test for that lead. This was followed last year by the
initiating of a rulemaking to permanently effect a ban. In the
meantime, we have initiated an aggressive market surveillance
testing and recall program for children's jewelry containing
lead that since 2004 has resulted in over 170 million units
being removed from the marketplace, more than any other product
category in the history of the agency.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to briefly address the
topic that has thrust our small agency into the spotlight and
that is this summer's recalls due to lead-based paint. Here we
are not so much concerned about exposure to the lead, because
there is a statutory ban on lead-based paint, so it is a per se
violation, regardless of exposure. What happened, why the
sudden rash of recalls for violation of this ban. Well, the
first point is that this year's recalls are not unique. Every
year there are at least a few lead-based paint recalls.
This June, however, we had an unusually large recall of the
popular Thomas the Tank Engine toys manufactured in China. This
came on the heels of some very high profile recalls of Chinese-
made pet food, toothpaste and other food and drug products. But
even before the media attention began, due to the size and the
scope of the Thomas recall, we immediately began a sampling
program to test for lead paint on other toys. This, coupled
with the publicity of the toy train recall, caused Mattel and
other companies to closely examine their own toy inventories.
The result were the additional recalls that we announced over
the last 2 months.
While it may appear that we are undergoing an epidemic of
lead paint on toys, these recalls have served their intended
purpose. Not only are they getting violated products off the
shelves and out of consumers' hands, but they have caused the
entire toy industry to change practices to prevent such
violations from occurring in the future.
But finally, Mr. Chairman, as members of the subcommittee
have pointed out, it is really critical to prevent unsafe
products from reaching consumers in the first place and our
China program is an important step. And last week we signed an
agreement with the Chinese Government which pledged, for the
very first time, to undertake a series of concrete steps to
reduce the export of unsafe consumer products to the United
States. While I am cautiously, and I underscore the word
cautiously, optimistic that this agreement will help reduce
violations of our standards, I also recognize that follow-up is
critical.
I note that the agreement is not a one-way street. The CPSC
has also agreed to undertake a number of educational, training
and communication activities to make sure that the Chinese
Government and exporters fully understand and adhere to U.S.
safety requirements. These activities, if they serve their
intended purposes, I think the effect will be much more
significant and much more long-lasting than simply putting a
few more inspectors at the U.S. ports.
Mr. Chairman, far from shrinking from the recent publicity
that the CPSC has faced, sir, I welcome it. Our small agency, I
think, has been ignored by the Hill and by the public for way
too long. I have sent to you some proposals and I would again
ask that you seriously the legislative proposals I have made
because I think they would significantly strengthen our
responsibilities. Sir, everyone at the CPSC, myself, we are all
parents and we take our responsibilities very seriously. I
applaud you on this hearing. I look forward to helping you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Nord follows:]
Statement of Nancy A. Nord
Mr. Chairman:
Thank you for inviting me to testify today on the critical
issue of protecting the American public from unsafe consumer
products, including imported children's products that contain
lead. Eliminating children's exposure to lead in consumer
products has consistently been among the highest priorities of
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and has been
part of our core mission since the inception of the agency in
1973.
The history of the CPSC'S actions to abate lead hazards is
well-known and well-respected. When products that expose
children to lead are discovered in U.S. distribution channels
in violation of our laws, the CPSC acts decisively. We have a
very active lead program, both to enforce the statutory ban on
lead paint for home use and to analyze and act upon accessible
lead in a variety of other products.
While the issue of lead exposure to children unquestionably
continues to be a serious one, the United States has made
dramatic progress on this front. A Federal study of the issue
estimated that the percentage of children aged 1 to 5 years old
with blood lead levels in excess of 10 micrograms per deciliter
had declined from 77.8 percent for the 4-year period starting
in 1976 to 1.6 percent for the period 1999 to 2002.
While the phase-out of leaded gasoline and the CPSC ban on
lead paint are key factors behind this progress, deteriorating
lead paint in older dwellings remains the primary source of
lead intake for children. The CPSC has been and continues to be
ever vigilant and assertive in this ongoing war against
children's exposure to lead in products under our jurisdiction.
Examples of the actions that the CPSC has taken over the
last decade include:
1996--CPSC staff found that certain vinyl mini-blinds
deteriorated when exposed to heat and sunlight, creating lead
dust that could be ingested. At the Commission's insistence,
the industry ceased manufacture of vinyl mini-blinds that posed
the risk.
1998--The Commission issued a policy statement urging
manufacturers to eliminate lead in all children's products and
published this guidance in the Code of Federal Regulations.
2000--CPSC staff discovered lead in certain candy wrappers
on candy imported from Mexico, and at CPSC'S insistence, the
importation of such candy was terminated.
2003--The Commission promulgated a regulation banning
candles having candlewicks containing more than 0.06 percent
lead.
2004--CPSC'S lead hazard reduction efforts were further
expanded with an initiative focused on children's metal jewelry
after staff tested samples and found a significant number
contained high levels of accessible lead. That initiative
resulted in the recalls of more than 150 million pieces of
inexpensive children's metal jewelry.
2005--The CPSC issued a new enforcement policy and testing
protocol specifying how to test for accessible lead in
children's metal jewelry and recommending screening under CPSC
test procedures. Since that time, importers and retailers have
recalled millions of additional potentially unsafe children's
metal jewelry products.
2006--The Commission commenced a rulemaking that may result
in a regulation effectively banning lead in children's metal
jewelry.
2007--The CPSC is currently engaged with ASTM, a standards
development organization, to develop a new product safety
standard to eliminate or significantly reduce children's
exposure to lead in children's vinyl products.
The Commission acts on a product hazard, whether through
recalls or regulation, under the legal authority that Congress
has provided in our governing statutes. The Commission banned
lead paint on toys and children's furniture in 1978. The agency
has vigorously enforced that ban ever since, including through
the highly publicized toy recalls this summer.
This ban on lead paint contrasts with our statutory
authority for dealing with lead and other heavy metals that
might be found in children's products. The popular notion that
CPSC has the authority to issue a rule that bans any lead in
all ``children's products'' is erroneous; the law requires that
the agency consider exposure and risk by the product.
The Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA) does not
authorize CPSC to regulate lead in a product unless it may
cause ``substantial personal injury'' or ``substantial
illness'' under ``reasonably foreseeable'' conditions of use.
That statute itself bans ``any toy or other article intended
for use by children, which is a hazardous substance, or which
bears or contains a hazardous substance in such manner as to be
susceptible of access by a child to whom such toy or other
article is entrusted.''
I underscore this distinction because the significant
recalls that the CPSC has announced this summer with regard to
lead involve two distinct classes of children's products, that
is, those that bear banned lead paint, such as Thomas the Tank
Engine, and those that have accessible lead content, such as
children's metal jewelry. As noted above, lead paint in
children's products has been banned since 1978, and the
Commission has initiated a rulemaking to ban on lead in
children's metal jewelry.
The Congress was farsighted when it crafted the CPSC'S
governing statute. When the law was written in 1973 (and I
would note Chairman Dingell's key role in authoring and
enacting this important legislation), Congress recognized that
this new agency could not impose U.S. law on foreign
manufacturers, so our statutes hold everyone in the stream of
commerce in the U.S. responsible and potentially liable. In
brief, the American importer, as well as the domestic
distributor and retailer, is held responsible for complying
with U.S. rules.
However, what the Congress could not foresee 34 years ago
was the reliance on imports that we are now facing. That is one
reason that I believe it is in the best interests of consumer
product safety to modernize CPSC'S statutes and to strengthen
the agency's hand in protecting the American public.
As you know, the CPSC was last reauthorized by Congress in
1990 for a period of two years. The marketplace has changed
dramatically in the seventeen years that have passed since
Congress last revised our statutes. Not only are there new
technologies that have emerged, and continue to emerge, in
creating and manufacturing products, but also technology has
significantly changed the way that consumers shop and purchase
goods and the way that the public receives information. Most of
America's consumer products, not just toys, now come from
overseas manufacturers. Much has changed in the marketplace, in
technology and in communications since 1990.
The result is that the inspection and enforcement tools at
the agency's disposal with respect to imported products are not
as strong as they need to be. This is one of the key reasons
that several months ago I sent to Congress legislative
proposals aimed at improving the safety of both imports and
domestically produced products through a variety of means. Many
of these proposals are reflected in various bills that have
been introduced in both the House and the Senate.
In addition to the dramatic shift from domestically
produced consumer goods to imports, other challenges require
the modernization of the CPSC'S statutory authorities. For
example, I have proposed that in instances of direct-to-
consumer sales from overseas manufacturers (including those via
the Internet), the foreign manufacturer or exporter be the U.S.
importer of record.
My legislative proposals are the first part of a multi-
pronged approach that the agency is pursuing to address the
issue of Chinese imports. In addition to modernization of our
governing statutes, the CPSC'S initiative includes dialogue and
initiatives with the Chinese government; working with the
private sector including Chinese manufacturers directly; and
increased surveillance and enforcement activities at the
borders and within the marketplace.
Historically, CPSC has not actively engaged in
international activities. However, in 2004, recognizing the
continuous and significant increase in the number of imported
consumer products entering the American marketplace from China,
my predecessor became the first Chairman of the CPSC to travel
to that country. That first step was the genesis for a formal
relationship between the CPSC and the General Administration of
Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ), our
counterpart agency in China, and it resulted in the signing of
a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between our two nations
later that year. Since becoming Acting Chairman last year, I
have viewed the task of building upon that foundation as one of
my highest priorities.
In 2005, at the first U.S.-Sino Product Safety Summit, the
CPSC signed an Action Plan on Consumer Product Safety with
AQSIQ. The Action Plan created Working Groups to address issues
in four priority areas' fireworks, lighters, electrical
products and toys.
The tasks of the Working Groups are to develop strategies
to address safety problems; to be able to respond quickly to
urgent product safety issues; to exchange information on
changes to safety standards; and to exchange laboratory and
inspection personnel in each other's respective facilities.
At the beginning of this year, we identified and
communicated to our Chinese counterparts specific problems and
proposed actions to address these problems with respect to each
of the four product categories covered by the Working Groups.
One of the problems we flagged was the use of lead paint on
toys in contravention of our ban. In May 2007, I traveled to
China with a delegation of top CPSC officials for in-depth
discussions of the issues identified by this process.
This hard work culminated last week at the U.S.-Sino
Product Safety Summit held here in Washington between the CPSC
and our Chinese counterpart agency, AQSIQ. I am pleased to
report that we reached an important agreement with AQSIQ, under
which China will immediately implement a plan to eliminate the
use of lead paint on Chinese manufactured toys exported to the
United States. They are going to make sure there is no lead in
the paint through inspections of U.S. destined toys and a
certification system for paint suppliers.
Since China has a weaker standard for lead paint than the
United States, it is really quite extraordinary that the
Chinese agreed to enforce the stricter American standard.
China also agreed to broad cooperation with the CPSC in the
four major product areas that I mentioned above. In each of the
four work plans, China has agreed to cooperate with the CPSC to
ensure that its producers understand and comply with U.S.
safety standards for all of their exports to the United States.
The work plans provide a roadmap to improve the safety of these
products through five main avenues:
First, in cooperation with the CPSC, AQSIQ has agreed to
increase its inspections of products destined for the U.S. and
to undertake other activities to ensure that exports meet all
applicable safety standards. They have even pledged to
encourage Chinese manufacturers to meet UL ``voluntary''
standards for electrical products.
Second, AQSIQ, again in full cooperation and participation
with the CPSC, will expand the knowledge and understanding of
U.S. product safety standards among Chinese manufacturers and
exporters.
Third, the CPSC and AQSIQ have agreed to various technical
personnel exchanges and training activities to ensure full and
mutual understanding of our respective laws and systems,
including product testing methodologies.
Fourth, we have respectively agreed to establish regular
and systematic exchanges of information about emerging product
safety issues, including monthly discussions of recall
activities and trends.
Fifth, AQSIQ has agreed to specific steps to assist the
CPSC in tracing products with identified safety problems to
those Chinese firms involved in their manufacture, distribution
and export. This will enable both of our agencies to better and
more quickly address safety issues as they arise.
This is significant achievement, and while it is in China's
economic interest to enforce U.S. safety standards, we will
nonetheless be following up to assure that the Chinese
government fully implements this commitment. The CPSC will need
to stay engaged with the Chinese in order to get the follow
through that we are looking for. I am committed to that.
The third prong of our plan to address Chinese imports is
to work with the private sector, both here in the U.S. as well
as in China, to educate the Chinese manufacturers and exporters
not only of the content of U.S. product safety standards, but
also the importance of adhering to those standards, including
adhering to consensus or what we commonly call ``voluntary''
standards.
As part of our plan to address this problem, in 2005 the
CPSC published the Handbook for Manufacturing Safer Consumer
Products underscoring our message that safety must be designed
and built into consumer products in conformance with safety
systems planned, established and implemented at the direction
of executive management. The Handbook presents a comprehensive
systematic approach to manufacturing safe products and has been
published in Chinese and distributed throughout China.
In 2006 CPSC facilitated the translation of the summary
provisions of nearly 300 U.S. mandatory and voluntary consumer
product safety standards into Chinese to assist Chinese
manufacturers in understanding what U.S. product safety
standards require when manufacturing various products. CPSC
determined which standards would be translated primarily by
analyzing what imported Chinese products were recalled in the
largest numbers and selecting the corresponding U.S. mandatory
or voluntary standards for translation. The translation of
these provisions of U.S. product safety standards facilitates
Chinese manufacturers' understanding of what is required of
them when they manufacture products for the U.S. market.
The CPSC has also conducted industry-specific safety
seminars and retail and vendor training seminars in China.
Staff has conducted a number of other safety training
activities in China dealing with toy safety, electrical product
safety, fireworks safety and a supplier safety seminar for
retailers.
Finally, we are undertaking conversations with specific
industry groups to encourage testing and certification
programs. For example, ANSI and other standards, industry and
retail groups are considering the development of testing and
certification programs. The toy industry has already announced
plans to move forward with such a program.
The fourth prong of our plan of action for Chinese imports
is increased surveillance and enforcement activities. Although
the Commission was without a quorum for over six months, the
agency has been active in addressing the challenge of imported
products, not only directly with the Chinese government, but
also here in the United States. In Fiscal Year 2006, the CPSC
announced an all-time record number of recalls of defective
products. These recalls represented a wide range of consumer
products and product hazards. Over two-thirds of these recalls
were of imported products, primarily from China.
CPSC'S Compliance staff working in conjunction with U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) undertakes both routine and
targeted surveillance and sampling of products at U.S. ports of
entry. CPSC recently began participating in the Automated
Commercial Environment (ACE). ACE is the new U.S. CBP
processing system that strengthens our ability to identify
likely shipments of non-compliant products before they arrive
at U.S. ports. Our early experience with using the ACE system
indicates that it will provide us with better data at an
earlier point in the process so that our port inspection
activities can be precisely targeted and thus more effective.
CPSC obviously attempts to keep dangerous products from
entering into the country in the first instance. However, in
the event a defective product does enter the stream of
commerce, CPSC has been taking stronger measures to effectively
remove such products from the marketplace. For example, after a
product has been recalled, CPSC has stepped up the number of
recall verification inspections of the recalling firms to
ensure the product is being removed from the marketplace. CPSC
has also adopted a new practice of notifying major retailers of
all CPSC recalls, as well as routinely conducting internet
searches for sales of recalled products.
In contrast to the Food and Drug Administration or the
Department of Agriculture, the CPSC is a small agency without
the resources or authority to perform overseas pre-inspections
or large-scale port screening for all of the items under our
jurisdiction. In fact, CPSC has no direct authority to handle
imported products at the ports, much less to detain or seize
them. Our statutes recognize that Customs and Border Protection
has the direct authority to deal with imported products at the
ports of entry.
We are committed to our mission, and within the constraints
of our authorities and resources, the staff at the CPSC
enforces the law aggressively. In view of the recalls that the
CPSC has announced this year, parents and caregivers are
understandably concerned. The Commission and the CPSC staff
respect this concern, and whether the product is manufactured
overseas or here in the United States, our goal is to keep
unsafe products out of the stream of commerce and out of
America's homes, yards and recreation areas.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify this morning and
I look forward to answering your questions.
----------
Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the acting chairperson. Now, the
Chair recognizes the Honorable Thomas H. Moore, a commissioner
of the Consumer Product Safety Commission for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS H. MOORE, COMMISSIONER, CONSUMER PRODUCT
SAFETY COMMISSION
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and
ranking member and members of the subcommittee, thank you for
providing me with this opportunity to present testimony at this
hearing on the important issues surrounding protecting children
from lead-tainted imports. Recalls of children's products
containing lead or lead paint have received an enormous amount
of attention. It is very encouraging for me to see that our
lawmakers are dedicating themselves to working with the
commission to define real solutions to resource and authority
issues that may be at the root of these kinds of and other
product safety problems finding their way into the stream of
commerce in our country.
The key to an effective regulatory and enforcement body is
sufficient resources to carry out its responsibilities and
mission. The CPSC is a staff-intensive organization. I have
always expressed that at the heart of CPSC's operation is its
staff, without question, our greatest and most important asset.
Over the last few years, because we have achieved our budget
required staff reductions through non-targeted means, such as
attrition, early outs and buy-outs, we have lost some very key
staffers. Over time, we hope to be able to train replacements,
but the experience that we have lost will take years to
recover. Moreover, the lack of sufficient resources has
severely limited our ability to do succession training,
planning and severely limited our ability to have depth of
personnel behind our key positions.
This summer has most definitely been the summer of the
recalled toys made in China. There have been several highly
publicized recalls of children's products made in China for
importation and sale by well-established and long trusted
domestic toy manufacturers. The safety issues associated with
the increase in imports have created new challenges for our
commission. The commission is currently looking at ways to
address the developing issues surrounding imported consumer
product safety. We are involved in some activities, such as
dialog and initiatives with foreign governments and the private
sector, including domestic and foreign manufacturers.
For example, last week the commission signed a joint
statement in which our product safety counterparts in the
Chinese Government proposed to stop the use of lead paint in
the manufacture of toys they export to the United States.
However, we must be cautious in our dependence on foreign
governments to make sure that products exported from their
countries comply with our safety standards. Other countries
expect, as we do, that the receiving country's regulators of
the marketplace will find and address problems with products
within their own borders.
Our own statute makes it clear, as does legislative
history, that it is not the commission's concern whether a
product made in the U.S. for export meets the mandatory or
voluntary product safety standards of other countries. It may
be a bit unreasonable for us to realistically expect more from
other countries than that which we expect of ourselves. We, at
the commission, are also working with interested Members in
both the House and the Senate to modernize our governing
statutes to give us more leverage through the regulatory
process and our enforcement activities.
This subcommittee, in particular, has been tremendously
engaged in our issues from the very beginning of this Congress
and must be given credit for providing the impetus for
recommendations for legislative action submitted by members of
the commission to the House, the Senate and the administration.
Some of the highly publicized recalls this summer have involved
children's products that contain lead or contain paint that has
lead in it. Toys or other articles intended for use by children
that bear lead containing paint are banned, hazardous products.
It is a prohibited act to introduce or deliver this
introduction into interstate commerce of banned, hazardous
substances. Any person who violates this law could be subject
to both criminal and civil sanction. As far as children's
products, such as jewelry or vinyl babies bibs containing
accessible lead, I wish that the commission had the authority
to find it unacceptable for any amount of lead or any other
toxic substance to be in a children's product. However, our
statute requires us to assess the accessibility of the lead and
this is the key measure under the Federal Hazardous Substances
Act, the FHSA.
We know that exposure to lead can elevate blood lead levels
and that such exposure could bring about developmental----
Mr. Rush. Commissioner, we do have a vote and the time is
up, and we have got a little over a hundred Members who haven't
voted and that is what I am looking at, so if you could bring
your comments to a close so we can run over to vote, I
certainly would appreciate it and I apologize for the
inconvenience.
Mr. Moore. That is all right. I am hopeful that we see
significant results from all of our efforts and I thank you
very much for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moore follows:]
Statement of Thomas H. Moore
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for providing me with this opportunity
to present testimony at your hearing today on the important
issues surrounding ``Protecting Children from Lead-Tainted
Imports.'' Recalls of children's products containing lead or
lead paint have received an enormous amount of attention during
recent times. It is very encouraging for me to see that our
lawmakers are dedicating themselves to working with the
Commission to define real solutions to resource and authority
issues that may be at the root of these kinds of, and other,
product safety problems finding their way into the stream of
commerce in this country.
As I have indicated to this House subcommittee and to the
Senate, I am gratified by the very clear signals given by both
the House and the Senate Authorizers and Appropriators that
they understand the very difficult position that the Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) finds itself in. For the first
time since I came to the Commission, over twelve years ago, I
have the sense that there is a realization of the need for both
a substantial and sustained increase in our funding level as
well as the need for real and important changes to our statutes
which could give us new authorities and clearer direction in
achieving our mission.
In March of this year, in a written statement to the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, I
spoke about the problems associated with any perception of our
modern, sophisticated marketplace of today effectively
regulating itself for product safety. ``Simply stated,
competition and voluntary actions of today's businessmen do not
always suffice to safeguard the public interest. Competition
does not and will not inevitably take the form of a rivalry to
produce the safest product. The role of the CPSC in today's
consumer product marketplace remains compelling, substantial
and relevant.''
As if on cue, we now sit here less than 6 months later
facing the growing alarm about possibly unsafe consumer
products, some produced in violation of current, longstanding
regulations, cheaply manufactured in foreign facilities and now
flooding our marketplace and providing a risk of harm to those
consumers who purchase them. I think it is extremely important
that you have engaged the importer community in the discussion
of this problem. I will be very interested in their response as
I believe that they are a key link in protecting consumers.
Everyone wants to know who is to blame and what steps we
can now take to address this problem. The short and easy answer
to the first question is that we are all to blame - the
Administration, the Congress, the Regulators, the
manufacturers, importers and retailers, and anyone else who may
have been active or inactive participants in enabling the
policy decisions and priorities that have led us to this point.
And certainly, those who stood by and quietly acquiesced while
the Commission was being reduced to a weakened regulator,
largely relying on the regulated to regulate themselves, must
examine and correct the role that they played in putting the
Commission in its current state. The only blameless ones are
the unsuspecting consumers who unwittingly place their
confidence in a system designed to protect them from the
unreasonable risk of harm from the products that they find in
their marketplace.
The second question does not have as short or easy an
answer.
Resources, Resources, Resources
The key to an effective regulatory and enforcement body is
sufficient resources to carry out its responsibilities and
mission. The CPSC is a staff intensive organization. I have
always expressed that at the heart of CPSC's operation is its
staff, without question, our greatest and most important asset.
Over the last few years, because we have achieved our
budget required staff reductions through non-targeted means
such as attrition, early-outs and buy-outs, we have lost some
very key staffers. We did not want to have to do a reduction-
in-force (RIF) to accomplish the staff reductions and, having a
number of older employees, we felt it was likely we would have
enough employees willing to take advantage of incentives to be
able to avoid a RIF, which was in fact the case.
Over time we hope to be able to train replacements, but
the experience that we have lost will take years to recover.
Moreover, the lack of sufficient resources has severely limited
our ability to do succession planning and severely limited our
ability to have depth of personnel behind our key positions. In
addition, dwindling resources and staff reductions have had
some negative impact on our agency's ability to attract high
level qualified candidates for our critical vacancies as well
as our ability to retain some of our own top level employees.
The result is that the Commission is at a crossroads. Any
additional reductions in staff or resources will ultimately
place the Commission in a position where it will no longer have
any effective force in consumer protection. The first step that
must be taken is to reject the administration's staffing and
budget proposal for fiscal year 2008 which requires an
additional reduction of 19 FTEs. Fortunately, Congress, both
the House and the Senate, have done just that. This Congress
has sent clear signals that it understands that the Commission
needs more funding to increase its staff and to be able to do
work on rulemakings and other projects that have been shelved
or slowed down because of lack of resources. It is crucial that
we have a period of stability, to move away from what has been
a pattern of trying to see how we can manage with less and to
begin a process of determining what more we need to have in
order to ensure that we do our job more effectively.
However, I must point out that it would not serve the
Commission or the public well to just indiscriminately throw
resources at the Commission in response to the public alarm
surrounding some highly publicized recalls. It has taken years
for the Commission to get to its present position and it will
take years to correct. I support an incremental approach to
increasing our budget and staff. Since we require a yearly
increase of about three to four percent to keep current with
increases in salaries, rents and other operating costs, yearly
increases in the range of 10 to 15 percent would, in my mind,
provide the Commission with a good growth pattern. This growth
pattern would also allow the Commission to do a yearly
assessment of where the areas of needs most exist at the
Commission therefore allowing the Commission to address its
needs in the light of the current consumer product safety
problems.
Import Product Safety
Again, in March of this year, I informed the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation about my
concerns with the growing numbers of possibly harmful imported
consumer products coming into our country. ``In the future, the
problems associated with increasing numbers of possibly
dangerous imported products will present the Commission with
more and more of a challenge. Increasing numbers of U.S.
companies are either importing finished products or component
parts made in other countries or establishing their own
production plants outside of the U.S. In most cases, domestic
companies are not going to have the same degree of control over
these products as they would have if their products were being
made in this country. This inability to have constant hands-on
supervision can result in products entering this country that
do not meet U.S. safety standards.''
This summer has most definitely been the summer of the
recalled toy made in China. There have been several highly
publicized recalls of children's products made in China for
importation and sale by well established and long trusted
domestic toy manufacturers. Thus far in 2007, CPSC has recalled
a record number of hazardous imported products from China
including a wide variety of toys and children's jewelry. The
safety issues associated with this increase in imports have
created new challenges for our Commission. The Commission is
currently looking at ways to address the developing issues
surrounding imported consumer product safety. We are involved
in some activities such as dialogue and initiatives with
foreign governments and the private sector, including domestic
and foreign manufacturers.
For example, last week the Commission signed a joint
statement in which our product safety counterparts in the
Chinese government proposed to stop the use of lead paint in
the manufacture of toys they export to the U.S. However, we
must be cautious in our dependence on foreign governments to
make sure that products exported from their countries comply
with our U.S. safety standards. Other countries expect, as we
do, that the receiving countries' regulators (or the
marketplace) will find and address problems with products
within their own borders. While our agency's attempts to go to
the source before the problem products arrive on our shores are
necessary and admirable, our own statute makes it clear (as
does the legislative history) that it is not the Commission's
concern whether products made in the U.S. for export meet the
mandatory or voluntary product safety standards of other
countries. It may be a bit unreasonable for us to realistically
expect more from other countries than that which we expect of
ourselves. We should consider whether this policy is still
appropriate today. If we export our safety standards along with
our products, we take an important step in harmonizing
standards in what is increasingly a global marketplace.
In addition, to engaging in activities intended to elicit
cooperation from manufacturers and foreign governments, the
Commission must advocate for additional resources to increase
surveillance and enforcement activities at the borders and in
the marketplace. I note here that in a recent Time Magazine
article it stated that the Food and Drug Administration has
1,317 field investigators and inspects just 0.7% of all imports
under its jurisdiction. CPSC has perhaps a total of 15 people
(out of a total field investigative staff of less than 90) to
visit those same ports of entry to inspect for the more than
15,000 product types under our jurisdiction. I think those
numbers speak volumes about why products under our jurisdiction
that violate our mandatory safety standards keep finding their
way into the marketplace.
We at the Commission are also working with interested
Congressional members in both the House and Senate to modernize
our governing statutes to give us more leverage through the
regulatory process and our enforcement activities. This
subcommittee, in particular, has been tremendously engaged in
our issues from the very beginning of this Congress and must be
given credit for providing the impetus for recommendations for
legislative action submitted by members of the Commission to
the House, the Senate and the Administration.
However, I think that it is very important that in
whatever we do collectively--through efforts at the
Administration level, Congress and the Commission--to address
import product safety, we must send a clear, unequivocal
message to manufacturers, importers and retailers who bring and
offer for sale in this country products which present a
substantial product hazard or that do not comply with a U.S.
product safety standard. That message should be that, ``your
actions are unacceptable and you will be held accountable.''
The Commission must have the sufficient resources, the adequate
authority and the internal willingness to deliver that message
with no hesitation.
Statutory and Other Modernization
Some of the highly publicized recalls have involved
children's products that contain lead or lead containing paint.
Toys or other articles intended for use by children that bear
``lead containing paint'' are banned hazardous products. It is
a prohibited act to introduce or deliver for introduction into
interstate commerce a banned hazardous substance. Any person
who violates this law could be subject to both criminal and
civil sanctions. Prior to 2007, we had been averaging four
recalls a year for children's products with ``lead containing
paint.'' This year we have already had 15. This regulation
banning children's products that have ``lead containing paint''
has been on the books for 30 years and there is absolutely no
excuse for a violation of this regulation. Violators should be
held accountable to the maximum extent for their non-
compliance.
As far as children's products such as jewelry or vinyl
baby's bibs containing accessible lead are concerned, I wish
that the Commission had the authority to find it unacceptable
for any amount of lead to be in a children's product. However,
our statute requires us to assess the accessibility of the lead
and this is the key measure under the Federal Hazardous
Substances Act (FHSA). The Commission did issue a guideline
document back in January of 1998, which went so far as to urge
manufacturers ``to eliminate lead in consumer products.'' In
response to that guidance, in August of 1998, the Toy
Manufacturers of America pledged to eliminate lead from their
products. Yet here we are, nearly 10 years later, facing the
same problems.
We know that exposure to lead can elevate blood lead
levels and that such exposure could bring about developmental
problems in children. I am absolutely certain that parents
would agree that if we could require the elimination of lead in
children's products, we should. I understand that some members
of Congress are interested in this issue and I hope that
through their efforts we can address this problem and get it
resolved in favor of thoroughly protecting our children from
unnecessary exposure to products containing lead.
Testing of products on the market to determine compliance
with safety standards is also an important part of our
responsibilities. I can't tell you how troubling the picture of
our toy testing facility in the New York Times article was to
me. We have been trying to obtain funds to modernize our lab
since before I arrived at CPSC in 1995, yet we have never
received any significant funding for that goal. We have been
working with GSA on a modernization plan since at least 1999.
The Lab Modernization Feasibility Study, completed jointly with
GSA in 2005, formed the basis for a capital project submitted
to OMB by GSA as part of their FY 2007 Budget. However, other
national priorities precluded the project from being funded.
There certainly has been a level of frustration associated with
the process. We have been forced to accept a band-aid approach
to fixing the lab, when what we really need is a major
modernization commitment.
I have seen other testing labs, such as those at
Underwriters Laboratories, which are much more sophisticated,
spacious and up-to-date than our lab. Given that we are the
Federal agency designated to protect consumers from product
hazards and that our laboratory testing plays a key role in
making hazard determinations, I think the state of our lab
should concern everyone. However, whenever I go to our lab I am
constantly amazed at the ingenuity of our lab staff in
overcoming space and resource limitations. We often talk about
the agency making do with what it has and nowhere can that be
seen more strikingly than at the lab. I would like to see a
real investment made in upgrading our lab so that we can do
more testing in our own facility rather than having to contract
the work out and so that tests don't stack up because of a lack
of adequate space or other resources, which prevent us from
doing simultaneous testing on various products.
We are currently looking at different ``real estate''
solutions with GSA that would give us a better physical plant.
However, these solutions may or may not allow us to function at
the same capability we currently have and they would not
include any modernization of equipment. It was estimated back
in 2005, that the cost to truly modernize our lab, if we were
to stay on the current site, would be somewhere around thirty
million dollars. This would expand our capabilities plus give
us new equipment and a physical plant that is both energy
efficient and an effective use of space. A modern facility
would also put us in a better position to deal with emerging
technologies, such as nanotechnology. It is difficult for us to
even contemplate how we would assess potential product-related
nanotechnology hazards when we struggle to provide the basic
lab capabilities to meet our current needs.
Even before several recent highly publicized recalls,
members of both the House and the Senate had indicated an
interest in reinvigorating the Commission through the
reauthorization process. I have strongly supported increasing
our staff and facilities resources and various changes to our
statutes over the years. I have submitted to both the House and
the Senate proposals for consideration during this process of
looking at reauthorization of the Commission. Acting Chairman
Nord has also put forth her proposals, many of which I agree
with, some of which (in one form or another) I have advocated
for years. Thus, for the first time in a long time, there is
bi-partisan support on the Commission to make major changes to
the Commission's statutes. Some of the suggested changes could
help the Commission's enforcement efforts with respect to the
type of problems we have been seeing with the safety of
imported products.
Last week, Senator Mark Pryor introduced legislation with
Commerce Committee Chairman Senator Daniel Inouye that will
severely test the real will of Congress to provide the
Commission with the necessary tools it needs to be an effective
force in protecting consumers from product safety hazards. Many
of the provisions of the legislative package come from the
recommendations submitted by Acting Chairman Nord and myself.
The CPSC Reform Act of 2007 authorizes additional funding to
increase staff levels to 500 employees by 2013, improve our
antiquated testing facilities, engage in nanotechnology
research and increase our staff's presence at U.S. ports of
entry. The legislative package also strengthens the agency's
enforcement powers by increasing civil and criminal penalties,
requiring third party certification on all children's products,
banning the use of lead in children's products, requiring
labeling of children's products with tracking information to
facilitate recalls, making it unlawful to sell recalled
products and by streamlining the product safety rulemaking
process. There are other provisions as well and, as I said,
most of which were endorsed by me or Acting Chairman Nord.
This House subcommittee has also addressed some of these
issues and, I understand, is working on its own comprehensive
reauthorization bill. I am gratified by the attention that
Congress is paying to the Commission and I am hopeful that we
see significant results from all of our efforts.
I know that the American public, especially parents and
their children, will be thankful.
----------
Mr. Rush. Thank you so much, Mr. Commissioner. The Chair
intends to reconvene this subcommittee immediately,
immediately, I might add, emphasize, after the last vote takes
place on the floor. The subcommittee stands in recess.
[Recess]
Mr. Rush. The committee will reconvene. The Chair will
recognize himself for 5 minutes of questioning, and the Chair
wants to ask Chairman Nord the following question.
Chairman Nord, I have actually four questions and I have 5
minutes and I want to kind of keep these questions and answers
as succinct as possible. And during the year 2007, this current
year, the CPSC has issued approximately 30 recalls for lead
content in approximately seven million pieces of children's
jewelry, overwhelmingly manufactured in China.
Pertaining to the joint agreement that you signed with the
Chinese last week, this agreement only covers lead paint on
toys. Why doesn't it also cover lead content? What exactly do
you expect to get out of the agreement with the Chinese? Can
you provide to the subcommittee copies of the ``work plans''
that detail the initiatives that is encompassed in this
agreement? And how will you know if these efforts with the
Chinese are really bearing fruit?
Ms. Nord. OK. With respect to the agreement with the
Chinese, first of all, understand that there was an overarching
general agreement that the U.S. Government and the government
of China reached, whereby the Chinese Government agreed to
implement a plan to take immediate steps to eliminate lead
paint from products destined to the United States, and they did
that because we asked them to do that. And we have put in place
a number of processes or we will put in place a number of
processes to monitor how they comply with that. But sir, the
lead paint agreement is not the extent of our agreement with
China. Please understand that this effort started in 2004 and
it has been ongoing. We identified four areas where we were
concerned about imports and those areas were lighters,
fireworks, electrical products and toys.
So what we did was reach agreement with the Chinese on a
number of very specific things in each of those four product
categories, in addition to lead paint. Now, the question of how
do we know whether they will be complying with the agreements
that they made with us, sir, that is like the critical question
here, because if they don't comply, then what we have done
isn't particularly meaningful. But right now the Chinese
Government has indicated that they want to work with us to
solve this problem and believe me, our agency is going to take
advantage of that. We have put in place a system whereby we are
going to be closely monitoring the implementation of the
specifics in each of the various work plans, and if we see
divergence from what they agreed to, then we will be going back
to them and calling them on it. Part of what we also did was
set up a process for having very close, actually monthly,
consultations with them so that we could bring to their
attention issues that we see if things are not going the way we
would like to see them go.
Mr. Rush. I wanted you to specifically address the work
plans.
Ms. Nord. Yes.
Mr. Rush. All right. Will you extend to the subcommittee
the details or the copies of the work plan?
Ms. Nord. Well, of course I will and in fact, I have got a
fairly extensive summary of the work plans here and I would be
more than happy to submit that as part of my formal statement
to you.
Mr. Rush. From your testimony you seem to rely solely on
the ``goodwill of the Chinese Government.'' Presently, the
Chinese standards for lead is much greater, much more stringent
than the American standards. However, the issue is one not of
the standards, not of the willingness, but the enforcement of
the standards and the enforcement of the regulations. How can
you assure the American public and the members of this
subcommittee that you and the CPSC will engage the Chinese
Government and demand that they enforce, not only the elements
of the agreement, but also that they will live up to their own
standards, in terms of lead content?
Ms. Nord. The Chinese, as I understand, the internal
Chinese standards with respect to lead paint are not
necessarily more stringent than the U.S., but Mr. Chairman,
they are different from the United States. They are much akin
to what the European Union has, in that they go to the whole
question of accessibility of the lead to the person using the
product, whereas ours just have a flat-out ban.
But be that as it may, obviously enforcement of any
standard is the key here. What the Chinese and the U.S.
Government have agreed to do, or what the Chinese Government
has agreed to do is insist on increased testing and inspections
of the facilities where the products are being made. They have
also agreed to qualify paint suppliers to the U.S. market, so
that those paint suppliers are going to have to register with
the Chinese Government, and if we find products, then the
Chinese Government will have an administrative way to deal with
that.
As I mentioned, the Chinese standard is much closer to the
European standard than it is to the U.S. standard, so they
agreed to try to put in place a system which will distinguish
between products that are being exported to the United States,
as opposed to those products that are destined for export to
Europe, so that we don't end up getting our various standards,
products meeting various standards going to the wrong place.
And then, finally, we have agreed to have regular status
discussions to assure that the program is indeed being
implemented. Part of that involves, of course, doing checks
here in the United States and I will tell you that we have
underway right now what we refer to as a blitz, looking at
incoming product and examining it very, very closely to make
sure that the leaded paint is not on those products.
Mr. Rush. Chairman Nord, I am really kind of confused and
you can help me. In your opening statement, you seem to put a
lot of emphasis on devaluing the need for inspectors. OK. But
now, in response to the questions, you are switching now and
saying that we really want to concentrate on inspectors. Which
one is it? Do we need more inspectors or do we need less
inspectors? Give us a clear picture of what it is that you are
intending to do in terms of implementing this agreement?
Ms. Nord. Surely. I think that inspecting, doing our spot-
checks, our blitzes, if you will, are important to make sure
that the Chinese are complying with the lead paint agreement.
But stepping back, sir, with respect to the question of how do
you do effective inspections, I think it is very, very
important for the committee to have a context here. At the end
of the day, the very best thing we could have for the American
public is to make sure that the product is manufactured in the
first place and we have got underway a program, which I
described in my written statement. It is a four-part program.
We have to work with the Chinese manufacturers in China. We
have to work with the Chinese Government and that is the point
of these agreements.
Mr. Rush. Chairman Nord, do you foresee a time in the
immediate future where there will be American inspectors, who
are authorized by the CPSC or some other Governmental entity,
to go to China at the manufacturing level, at the factory, and
be able to inspect the production of the manufacturing of these
toys, and other products, to ensure the American public that
lead is not in, is not a part of the paint? Can you assure us
of that at this point in time?
Ms. Nord. Sir, that is not what the CPSC is doing. We have
never done that. If that is what the Congress wishes us to do,
then you are talking about a very, very different agency. You
are talking about an agency that is larger than what we are
right now in orders of magnitude. You are talking about an FDA,
USDA-type agency and if indeed that is something that you wish
to see accomplished, then that is fine. We will work with you
to accomplish that. But our agency has never had personnel
overseas. We don't have that capacity. If you are talking about
CPSC inspectors in foreign ports, sir, that would be a very,
very significant departure from the operations of this agency,
as they have existed up to this point.
Mr. Rush. My time is up. I recognize now the ranking
member, Mr. Stearns.
Mr. Stearns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I have just
basically two questions for the chairlady. I think we all are
trying to understand an ounce of prevention prevents a pound of
cure here. And in this case, the two questions I have are based
upon what has happened, the toy recalls this past summer. The
companies themselves, as I understand it, quickly recognized
the potential problem. You folks got involved. The Canadian
Government was also involved. I understand they detected some
of these problems. We have hearings today. And to put that in
perspective, that Mattel makes 800 million toys this year and
that is just one toy manufacturer. So with that kind of volume
from Mattel, not to mention the other ones, is it more
effective to have the manufacturers ensure the products are
tested or the CPSC?
Ms. Nord. Well, the CPSC has never done pre-market testing
of products entering the marketplace. In fact, I think, in the
very, very early days of the agency, there was a provision like
that and Congress specifically removed it because it was really
unworkable.
Mr. Stearns. Right now that is not your mission?
Ms. Nord. That is not what we do, but----
Mr. Stearns. But you will promulgate standards?
Ms. Nord. Absolutely.
Mr. Stearns. Now, the ASTM standard, the industry-wide
standard, regarding the use and abuse of toxic substances, when
the industry develops the standards, do you believe that that
standard is sufficient to conform with a national standard? In
your mind is the ASTM standard satisfactory?
Ms. Nord. No. What happens is that the CPSC, in the case of
toys, has issued a toy standard which sets out certain
requirements. The ASTM standard has been layered on top of the
CPSC standard to give added protection.
Mr. Stearns. Yes. And so in your opinion, then, the
standard is satisfactory? It is your standard plus, and do you
think it is being implemented across the board, adequately?
Ms. Nord. Well, that is what our job is, is to make sure
that that happens.
Mr. Stearns. And do you think it is being done? Maybe
another question would be, looking at your employees, you have
about 400.
Ms. Nord. Yes.
Mr. Stearns. When this agency was actually put in place, I
guess, in 1972, you had more employees in 1972.
Ms. Nord. Yes.
Mr. Stearns. In 1981 you had a thousand employees, but it
is cut down to a little more than 600 employees 2 years ago and
now you are at 400, with a budget of $62 million. So the
question is, do you have enough people to enforce the mission
of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, in your opinion?
Ms. Nord. I would always like more.
Mr. Stearns. So you don't have enough people is what you
are saying?
Ms. Nord. I would prefer to have more people.
Mr. Stearns. OK. The other question I have is, how serious
a problem is this now? On the basis of lead in the paint and
these magnets and the lead in the jewelry, how many children
have actually been affected by this? Do you have any statistics
to show? We all know what the standard is, but I am trying to
understand how significant the problem is in terms of actual
fatalities or injuries or sickness. Can you give us some kind
of broad perspective on this?
Ms. Nord. Surely.
Mr. Stearns. I say this in light of the fact that there was
lead in houses before 1978 and there is lead in the ground. And
I just wondered, should the American people, the families, the
mothers and fathers of children be alarmed, yes, but is this a
problem that historically is very serious or is it something
that we are still monitoring?
Ms. Nord. With respect to the lead in the toys, we are not
aware of any injuries flowing from the products that have been
recalled. However, saying that, we also recognize that lead
exposure is cumulative, so we don't want children being exposed
to lead. However, Congressman, as I said in my opening
statement, and I would like to reemphasize here in the
strongest possible terms, the most effective, the best way to
address lead poisoning in children is to look at old
deteriorating paint in houses and lead contaminated dust. That
is where the bulk of the problem is. Now, the CPSC deals with
consumer products and when we find consumer products like the
children's jewelry, we act and the children's jewelry is a good
example of where this agency stepped up to a problem and took
very, very aggressive action, is taking aggressive action to
deal with it.
Mr. Stearns. Commissioner Moore, I just have a question for
you, if I could. You stated that the Commission has been
weakened, I think, in some of your testimony, if I am not
correct. And has any violator avoided punishment, any reduction
in the Commission's authority, in your opinion?
Mr. Moore. I can't say specifically that I can identify a
particular violator, but the fact that there is this
possibility and it does happen over time, that is a risk that
we prefer not to take, in terms of trying to protect the
consumers' interest.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair now
recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky, for 5
minutes.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As one who has
been working with a constituent of mine for a long time to deal
with yo-yo balls, I just want to say that aggressive is about
the last word I would use for the CPSC. The question I have,
Commissioner Nord, the Wall Street Journal this month had an
article, safety agency and Mattel clash over disclosures, and
it listed multiple times when Mattel has defied the
Commission's reporting rules, and that was a quote; failing to
disclose hundreds of consumer complaints about the hazards
their toys pose to children, including magnets and fire hazards
and motorized cars. So what can we do to make sure that no one
feels free to flout the law continuously? And if Mattel feels
free to flout the law, then why should we think that China is
going to comply with this agreement?
Ms. Nord. Well, I read that article as well, with a great
deal of interest and I have to say I scratched my head. I think
that if that is correct report of what the Mattel CEO said,
that is an incredibly reckless thing to say. I can also assure
you that we have an ongoing investigation open into this matter
and if a company feels that they can flout the law or if they
think that we are not going to take action, they are sadly
mistaken.
Ms. Schakowsky. Well, how would we know that, if hundreds
of customer complaints have been sent? What evidence would
consumers see at the CPSC to convince them that you really
aren't going to let that happen? Has the 24-hour reporting
requirement been met by Mattel, by other manufacturers?
Ms. Nord. Again, when we do a recall, that is in and of
itself an example of the fact that we are serious about our
job. If the company does not report to us in a timely manner,
then we bring an enforcement action against them and if you
look at----
Ms. Schakowsky. And has that been done?
Ms. Nord. Oh, absolutely.
Ms. Schakowsky. Absent Mattel?
Ms. Nord. It has been done to Mattel in the past.
Ms. Schakowsky. How many times?
Ms. Nord. Gosh, Mattel paid a fine, I believe, in 2006 or
2005. I don't recall the year where they paid a considerable
fine for doing exactly----
Ms. Schakowsky. If you could provide to me, and the rest of
the committee, examples of Mattel, what happened.
Ms. Nord. Indeed. Why don't I give you a whole list of all
our enforcement actions, really.
Ms. Schakowsky. OK. And you said in your testimony, since
China has a weaker standard for lead point than the United
States, it is really quite extraordinary that the Chinese
agreed to enforce the stricter American standards. Then is the
report in the New York Times on September 11, it says, on the
books, China's paint standards are stricter than those in the
United States, it has 90 parts of lead per million. By
comparison, American regulations allow up to 600 parts per
million.
Ms. Nord. Yes, I think that the standard is a different
standard and it is my understanding that the Chinese standard,
it is 90 parts per million, but it goes to the accessibility.
Is the person exposed to the lead? Our standard is a bright
line per se standard, so we don't look at, with respect to lead
paint, whether there has been exposure. We just look to see if
the lead paint is there and if it is, it is a violation. So the
standards are different.
Ms. Schakowsky. But you say ours are stronger? The
difference between 90 and 600, I understand that you do this
kind of accessibility issue. But you know, there is a
constituent of mine, a Marilyn Furer, who actually went to the
trouble of doing her own testing on bibs that she had bought
for her grandchildren and reported this excessive amount. Is
that how we rely on getting this information? Who is supposed
report?
Ms. Nord. Well, under the law, the company has an
obligation to report to us if they have reason to think that
one of their products contains a defect that will cause
substantial harm, and that is section 15(b) and that is a
section that we vigorously enforce. Also the agency goes into
the marketplace and does investigations in order to try to find
violators as well.
Ms. Schakowsky. I have been interested to know that you
have, let us see, we have--978 as the number of the former CPSC
staff. It is now down to 401. The budget is half of what it was
three decades ago, in inflation adjusted terms. Its toy testing
department, I understand, consists of one man, Bob, who drops
toys on the floor in his office.
Mr. Rush. Will the gentlelady please bring her----
Ms. Schakowsky. Well, if I could just finish this question,
I would appreciate it.
Mr. Rush. Sure, sure.
Ms. Schakowsky. So, what if Bob takes a day off?
Ms. Nord. May I answer that question?
Mr. Rush. Sure.
Ms. Nord. The toy testing that goes on in the CPSC
laboratory is not limited to one person who drops toys. That
has been widely----
Ms. Schakowsky. How many?
Ms. Nord. There is an agency staff at our laboratory and I
guess it is, at this point, 34 people, perhaps, in our
laboratory and many of them have different responsibilities
with respect to lead testing of toys. We have a number of
people who do lead testing of toys. With respect to testing for
electrical issues, we have a number of other people that do
testing for that.
With respect to Bob, as I mentioned to Congressman Stearns,
one of main parts of our toy standard is labeling to assure
that it doesn't have small parts. The way you determine whether
the small parts exist is to do a drop test to see if the
product breaks apart. Bob does drop tests. If the agency
laboratory director tells me he needs other people to do drop
tests, then we will take that request under advisement and try
to fulfill it. But he has not done that and frankly, I would
like our resources to be focusing on testing for lead and
testing for other substances and that is where we have----
Ms. Schakowsky. Well, if I could----
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady's time is up. The chairman
recognizes now the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton.
Mr. Barton. I thank the chairman. I would be happy to yield
a little of my time to Ms. Schakowsky, if she has got one more
question.
Ms. Schakowsky. Is that all right, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Rush. Yes.
Ms. Schakowsky. If I could get a breakdown, in writing, of
the toy testing department and who does what.
Ms. Nord. I would be happy to supply that to you. Surely.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
Mr. Barton. Is it the CPSC's view that the Chinese
Government is as cooperative as it could be on this issue?
Ms. Nord. We are aware that the Chinese Government now
thinks it is in their best interests, economic and otherwise,
that they address this problem and we were very pleased that
they were willing to come to the table and negotiate a set of
pretty specific agreements. Congressman, the proof is in the
pudding. What we need to do on a going forward basis now is
hold their feet to the fire. We negotiated the agreement last
week. Our next meeting with them is scheduled for early October
and we have got meetings scheduled month after month after
month with them. And what we are going to be doing is saying to
them, OK, you agreed to do this. Let us see the results. And
frankly, if we don't get results, then we will know something,
but we have got to try to it. They are part of the key to the
solution here, so we really need to----
Mr. Barton. Well, how do you guarantee compliance if you
don't have something close to full inspection? The Chinese are
past masters at taking the heat off and good intentions, but
not really following through. So what is the way that the
administration and the Congress can work together to be sure
that they comply with whatever the agreement is that they have
agreed to?
Ms. Nord. Well, again, the Chinese manufacturer of the
product, the exporter, and the American importer have the
obligation to assure that the product that comes into this
country is safe. The Chinese Government has said that they will
step up and increase inspections, require licensing, a number
of thing like that to assure that the Chinese----
Mr. Barton. But they wouldn't let our staffs, Chairman
Dingell and Chairman Stupak, send an oversight committee group
to China in August, with minority support and participation and
they gave us the run around, that something with the visas were
improper for what they wanted to do.
Ms. Nord. That is what I understand.
Mr. Barton. That doesn't show me too much good faith. I
used to be the Oversight Subcommittee chairman and we had
problems with the Chinese, in terms of FDA drug issues. You had
to schedule an inspection 6 months in advance and by the time
the inspectors got there, everything looked like it was ready
for a chief of state visit or something. So how do we ensure
that they really do follow through?
Ms. Nord. I think that the very best way that our agency
and the Congress can ensure that is to amend our statutes to
require that product sellers certify that the products that
they sell comply with U.S. safety standards, because what that
does----
Mr. Barton. So you want a change in Federal law?
Ms. Nord. Yes.
Mr. Barton. OK. What about the U.S. manufacturers that
license their products? Chairman Dingell, in his opening
statement, was somewhat less than positive about Mattel. How
have they reacted to this latest rash of recalls and problems?
Ms. Nord. Well, the toy industry seems to be very
interested in addressing this and they are stepping up to the
plate. The toy industry, as an industry, is now, as I
understand it, putting in place a process that would require,
in licensing, license testing facilities to make sure that the
tests were done properly. I have also noted that Disney and
some other large leaders in the industry have indicated that
they will be doing third-party independent testing of their
products as well.
But I think you put your fingers on an important issue
here, sir, in that we have got to address this from a number of
different perspectives. It is very, very important that U.S.
companies that sell products here, insist on compliance from
their Chinese exporters. And the examples I just gave you are
at least two examples of where they are doing that. We, as a
government, need to be talking to the Chinese Government to
make sure they understand their obligations and then we need to
be able to police the marketplace.
Mr. Barton. And now my time has expired, but my last
question and I don't know if this is literally true, but I
read, in some press report, that your organization, the CPSC,
only has one inspector to inspect toy imports. Is that true?
Ms. Nord. No, the press that you may have read is that we
have one toy tester or one toy safety inspector and that is not
correct. That references the same individual that I was just
discussing with Congresswoman Schakowsky. We have an individual
whose responsibility it is to do the testing for small parts
and labeling requirements. There are other people that do
testing. But with respect to inspections, we have a field staff
that goes out into the marketplace.
Mr. Barton. I believe that this committee and the Congress
would come together and scrounge a few more dollars to
compliment and beef up. We are putting thousands of people on
the border between the United States and Mexico. We ought to be
able to put a reasonable increased number of people to make
sure that the toys our children play with are what they are
supposed to be.
Ms. Nord. Right now we have, oh, between 85 and 95 field
investigators and a number of them do go to the ports on a
regular basis. Congressman, the CPSC has never had people
stationed at the ports full time. We have just never done that.
And obviously, we would like to be spending more time
concentrating on what is coming in from outside the United
States, but having a person at the port is not going to make a
dent on this issue. The issue is huge. There are just thousands
and thousands of containers of consumer products coming into
this country from overseas.
Mr. Barton. Well, let us be creative and think of a way to
use the resources and complements so that we target--if you
ship a piece of clothing, sportswear for adults, into the U.S.
market and the seams aren't straight, it is really no big deal.
It is a quality problem, but nobody is going to die from it. If
you ship toys that have contaminated lead product and five
children put them in their mouths and get lead poisoning; in
one child it is so severe that it hurts them mentally or
perhaps they have an impairment that is life threatening, that
is a little bit different. I understand the need to be
competitive in world markets, but I do think we can put more
resources into protecting the safety of our children and I
think, I am in the minority, but I think I am in the majority
on the committee and in the Congress in saying we will work to
do that. You help us come up with the plan.
Ms. Nord. I would welcome that and I think you are
absolutely right, we need to be creative. Part of this is----
Mr. Barton. My time is expired.
Mr. Rush. I just want to say, Mr. Ranking Member, I have
been really----
Mr. Barton. You were very generous for letting me have that
time.
Mr. Rush. And we will have a second round, but right now
your time has expired.
Mr. Barton. I understand.
Mr. Rush. And we need to move on to the full committee
chairman, Congressman Dingell, for questions. Congressman
Dingell is recognized. Chairman Dingell.
Mr. Dingell. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and I want to
commend my good friend and colleague, Mr. Barton, for his very
helpful questions.
Chairman Nord, welcome to the committee. Your agency, in
its budget this year, requested a 2 percent increase in net
funds and a reduction in full-time equivalents amongst the
employees, from 420 to 401. Would you tell us, please, if that
is true?
Ms. Nord. I believe so, yes.
Mr. Dingell. OK. What was your agency's request for funds
and personnel to the Office of Management and Budget? How many
people did you ask?
Ms. Nord. I cannot tell you that off the top of my head. I
would need to respond in writing.
Mr. Dingell. All right. If you don't know it, we will wait.
I want it to be known that we are submitting to you a letter,
on which I will expect a prompt response. And Mr. Chairman, I
ask unanimous consent that that letter be inserted into the
record, as well as the response, when received.
We need to know what your request was for funds and
personnel. Now, Madam Chairman, would you tell us how many you
are going to need to meet the agreement which you have recently
concluded with the Chinese General Administration for Quality
and Supervision, et cetera?
Ms. Nord. I am not asking for any additional staff to do
that.
Mr. Dingell. I understand that. What do you need to do that
job? Obviously, you have seen a reduction from 420 to 401. That
is a total of 19 personnel lost. How are you going to get the
personnel that you are going to need to see to it that this is
properly enforced and to address your business at the border so
we don't have any more lead painted toys and things like that
coming in from China?
Ms. Nord. From the standpoint of the administration of the
agreements, within the CPSC, we have created an office of
international programs, which we are increasing the staff of by
at least one individual. The responsibility of that office is
to monitor this program. We will be working very closely with
Customs and Border Protection to make sure that any----
Mr. Dingell. This is fine, but it is not answering. I am
asking how many you need and this is not answering my question.
Now, please inform me of what cooperative agreements you have
with other agencies to put personnel at the borders to see to
it that your regulations, with regard to safety of products
entering this country, are properly enforced? Do you have any,
for example, with Customs, with Food and Drug, with Immigration
or with any other agency that is charged with these
responsibilities?
Ms. Nord. We have a longstanding memorandum of----
Mr. Dingell. Would you submit those agreements to the
committee?
Ms. Nord. Of course. I would be happy to, sir.
Mr. Dingell. How many people do you have at the borders who
are responsible and seeing to it that goods that come into this
country are safe and meet the standards of your agency? How
many?
Ms. Nord. As I indicated, the Commission has never had----
Mr. Dingell. You don't have any?
Ms. Nord. No.
Mr. Dingell. OK.
Ms. Nord. We have inspectors that go to the border.
Mr. Dingell. I am beginning to understand why it is that
you are having these difficulties in seeing to it that the
Chinese don't bring in lead painted toys and other things of
questionable safety. Now is it your understanding that the
Chinese regulations, with regard to consumer safety and exports
and things of that kind, are adequate to protect American
consumers? Yes or no.
Ms. Nord. I don't know.
Mr. Dingell. You don't know?
Ms. Nord. I am sorry.
Mr. Dingell. Very well. Would you please inquire and come
back and give us a report as to whether or not those laws are
adequate to protect American consumers? Would you also tell us,
then, when you make that submission to us, what it is that you
propose to do to ensure that we get the necessary assured
safety for our consumers, with regard to imports from China?
Ms. Nord. I will be happy to.
Mr. Dingell. Would you submit that to us?
Ms. Nord. Of course.
Mr. Dingell. Now, I would note that you have said that the
Chinese are going to make sure there is no lead in the paint,
through inspections of U.S. destined toys and a certification
for paint suppliers. What is going to happen to ensure that
that takes place? And what concrete steps have the Chinese
taken to ensure that this promise will be kept?
Ms. Nord. They made the promise last week.
Mr. Dingell. They did, but promises are wonderful. We got a
fistful of promises from the Chinese on safety and they don't
seem to do anything. It reminds of the song we used to sing
when I was in the Army: ``I am always signing the payroll, but
I never get a goddamned cent.'' So what are the Chinese going
to do to ensure that this is essentially a self-enforced
agreement?
Ms. Nord. They have indicated that they will increase
testing and inspections. They have indicated that they will be
licensing paint suppliers who handle products destined for the
United States and we will be going back to them to ask them how
they intend to do that.
Mr. Dingell. All right. Now, what steps are you, at the
Commission, taking to ensure that the Chinese are going to
honor this agreement in a full and effective and proper
fashion? And what are you doing to ensure that you will have A,
the resources, and B, the regulations and personnel that you
need to do that? I will ask that you submit this to the
committee, for purposes of the record.
Ms. Nord. OK.
Mr. Dingell. And that will be included in the letter, which
you will be shortly submitting to us. Now, I am informed that
CPSC has prevented approximately 83 shipments of noncompliant
toys from entering the United States' stream of commerce with
them. Would you give us a statement of what those 83 rejections
were and why? Would you also submit to the committee what
percentage of the shipments sent to the United States by China
were? And would you also please submit to us why it was that
these were rejected and whether or not they constitute all of
the shipments that should have, in fact, been rejected?
Ms. Nord. I would be delighted to.
Mr. Dingell. All right. And Madam Chairman, does CPSC have
data about the number of toy shipments, either of compliant or
noncompliant products which are stopped at U.S. ports of entry,
so far in 2007, by CPSC?
Ms. Nord. I am sure if we do, I will be happy to submit it.
Mr. Dingell. Would you please submit that to the committee?
Ms. Nord. Yes.
Mr. Dingell. Now, does CPSC have performance goals for
scrutinizing the number of shipments at the borders and for
halting those at the border, for 2000 and beyond, if and when
necessary? Do you have any rules, regulations or anything of
that sort, with regard to assuring that these things are done?
Ms. Nord. Our rules require compliance with U.S.----
Mr. Dingell. Would you submit that then, please, for the
record, to the committee? Mr. Chairman, I note that I am 2
minutes and 44 seconds over. I thank you for your courtesy to
me. And I thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Rush. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska,
Mr. Terry.
Mr. Terry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Following up on the
ranking member and full committee chairman's comments on how we
can assure that the product that is being put on shelves in
America meet your criteria, the safety criteria. I think we
have to start with China and we have to make sure that the
product that is being produced there, manufactured there, meets
the standards at that exact point in time when that product is
finished. As I understand, just in trying to educate myself for
this hearing, that some manufacturers or companies like
Mattel--I am not sure they are the exact manufacturer or if
some entity manufacturers it for them. But they do their own
inspections there on site. I don't know the frequency of which,
but we will ask. I will ask. And the other companies choose to
hire outside entities, private sector companies. I think they
are all European-based, like Norske Veritas, Intertech, and
SGS, to do the testing for them. Do you have an opinion, from
your experience with CPSC, about whether these three companies,
independent companies that do the testing and verifications and
certifications, are more reliable than companies that do their
own inspections?
Ms. Nord. I would hesitate to say that a company that does
its own inspection is not going to do it in a reliable way. I
don't know that to be true and I think that paints a blanket or
makes a blanket statement that I am not willing to make.
However, having said that, I do believe that third-party
independent testing is the best way to assure that the testing
is done credibly, reliably and competently, so I am a big fan
of that. Also, especially with respect to smaller companies
that don't have the resources to do testing, independent third-
party testing is a very good tool. And please understand that I
said independent. I did not say governmental. I don't think
that the United States or the government of China should be
doing testing that would then be what we would rely on.
Mr. Terry. Are you aware of those three firms that I read
off, Norske Veritas, Intertech, and SGS?
Ms. Nord. Yes, of course.
Mr. Terry. What is your opinion of the companies?
Ms. Nord. They all do very credible jobs.
Mr. Terry. Those are private sector companies. Like I said,
they are European-based. Am I correct in that understanding?
That is all right. That is kind of trivia, anyway.
Ms. Nord. Yes.
Mr. Terry. You are well aware of the work of these
companies?
Ms. Nord. Absolutely.
Mr. Terry. I would tend to agree with your observation, and
no offense to companies that do their own inspections, but
there seems to be, for me, a little bit more credibility when
an independent company does the testing and then the
certification. What would you think of adopting rules or maybe
even Congress adopting legislation that would require the
independent third-party testing?
Ms. Nord. I think independent third-party testing should be
done. In my proposal, I have asked for certification, a
requirement that companies certify.
Mr. Terry. Yes, testing and certification. The
certification is a key point. Thank you.
Ms. Nord. And what I had in mind there was an independent
testing regiment. I know that Congressman Ferguson, Congressman
Towns, some members of the Senate, have introduced legislation
along those lines and again, I think any way that we can
encourage companies to test and verify the results of those
tests is a very good thing.
Mr. Terry. All right. Thank you very much. I will yield
back my 20 seconds.
Ms. Nord. Thank you.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Gonzalez.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Chairman
Nord, my impression from your testimony in the past and today
is that you are working with what you have. Unfortunately, I
don't think it really is adequate and I am talking about the
model itself. And one very telling statement you made was, in
responding to some questions about expanding your
responsibilities and meeting them, you said you would be
looking at a very, very different agency. That is for Congress
to determine, actually. I don't think that is what you are
going to be able to create and I think you have to do the best
you can with what you have. I want to ask, rather, some
practical questions regarding the agreement that you reached
with AQSIQ, which is your counterpart or compliment in China.
It is still going to be up, basically, to the Chinese to
conduct the inspections and make determines as to compliance.
It is a yes or no.
Ms. Nord. Yes.
Mr. Gonzalez. OK. So there is no way for us, because there
is no mechanism in place, within this agreement, that allows
for a representative of the United States to be part of that
inspection compliance and so on.
Ms. Nord. The agreement doesn't contemplate that U.S.
employees would be inspecting Chinese manufacturers, no. What
the agreement does, though, is it tries to get at it in a
number of ways. For example, if we have concerns about a
particular type of product, we would be notifying the Chinese.
They would then be coming back to us with what they intend to
do about it and then, obviously, as a part of the
conversation----
Mr. Gonzalez. We are not part of that process. We don't
grade their papers. It is one of those things. It just has to
be good faith. And in this respect, maybe blind faith. But
regardless, that is what we are going to have here. What is the
consequence if they fail? Let us say you identify a product,
you put them on notice, they go through their process and we
have something coming into the United States that harms a
consumer. Now, they clearly have failed. Now, we don't know if
it was intentional or otherwise, negligence, whatever. What is
the consequence to them?
Ms. Nord. The consequence to them is what has been
happening in the marketplace. People don't buy their products.
They are very concerned about that and frankly, at the end of
the day, economics counts for everything.
Mr. Gonzalez. So it is just going to be market forces.
There is no mechanism there that there is any penalties. I
think that, basically, everything is just based on good faith
and good intentions. My experience has always been, if you
don't have consequences, you probably don't have responsible
behavior. And that is human nature, whether it is in the United
States or in China. But again, I commend you for doing as much
as you can with the limited resources that you have.
But Commissioner Moore, in his testimony--I will read it.
For example, last week the Commission signed a joint
statement, in which our product safety counterparts in the
Chinese Government propose to stop the use of lead paint in the
manufacture of toys they export to the United States. However,
we must be cautious in our dependence on foreign governments to
make sure that products exported from their countries comply
with our United States safety standards.
So I will ask you, Commissioner Moore, what is the
alternative to the agreement that was reached by CPSC with its
equivalent in China, if you are saying that can only go so far,
and I agree with you, but I am just saying OK. Well, what would
be the alternative under the present configuration of the
Commission and your resources?
Mr. Moore. We would have to focus on enforcing our
standards with the companies based on the United States. Those
who order the products, those who import the products, we have
to rely on them not to bring products into our country. Not so
much the Chinese, but you rely on them.
Mr. Gonzalez. Well, in theory I am going to agree with you.
I am just not sure how we do that in practice and I think we
are going to learn more from Mr. Eckert and maybe explore what
is the responsibility of the United States-based toy
manufacturer/distributor to the consumer, and that is going to
be a really interesting topic, I promise you. Well, I am over
my time and I yield back. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Burgess, for a round of questions.
Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairwoman Nord, can
you expand a little bit on the difference between voluntary and
mandatory recalls and what that means to you and your agency?
Ms. Nord. Surely. The vast majority of our recalls are what
we call voluntary recalls and when I say voluntary, what that
means is that we haven't gone in and ordered that a recall take
place. Instead, the company has worked with us and the two, the
agency and the company, jointly agree that a recall will take
place and it does.
Mr. Burgess. And over what period of time will that happen?
Ms. Nord. Well, about half of our recalls are what we refer
to as fast-track recalls and with fast-tracks, basically, we
try to get the recall accomplished within 20 days of being
informed that there is an issue. And that is rather
extraordinary. No other Government agency is able to act that
quickly to effect a recall. Twenty days is a very short period
of time, but----
Mr. Burgess. I would agree, 20 days is extraordinarily fast
for any Government agency, in my short tenure here.
Ms. Nord. But the point is, is to get the recall out there
to get the consumer informed of what is happening and then try
to get the product out of consumers' hands. So it is important
that we act quickly.
Mr. Burgess. But if you go to a mandatory, how long will
that take to accomplish the same goal?
Ms. Nord. The last time we did that, it was several years.
Mr. Burgess. Well, now, in a voluntary recall, do people
generally comply? If you are notified, and I assume I am
correct on this, the manufacturer is under an obligation to
come to you and say, we have discovered a problem.
Ms. Nord. Yes.
Mr. Burgess. And you say, you better get that thing back
from the public. Does that work? Do people come forward and
confess the sin, admit the problem and then get on about fixing
it, or do people tend to hide and obscure it?
Ms. Nord. I think our recall process works very well.
People do take their responsibilities seriously. They come
forward and we work together to effect a recall. If for some
reason a company, though, is recalcitrant, is not willing to
help us work through a solution to this, then we do have some
tools in place that we can bring to bear to achieve a result. I
think that our last tool of resort is to go into a judicial
proceeding to order a recall. That just takes a lot of time.
Mr. Burgess. Can you think of any examples of where it
hasn't worked, where there has actually been a bad actor who
has refused to participate in the process?
Ms. Nord. Yes, the last time we did a mandatory recall was
in the Daisy air rifle case. That was back in 2001 and I think
it extended for 2 years.
Mr. Burgess. OK. Commissioner Moore, in your testimony you
state that you need an additional 10 to 15 percent in funding
every year to make up for the shortfall. Currently you get 3 to
4 percent, but because of the increase in the cost of living
and the cost of doing business, that 3 to 4 percent is
essentially consumed in the increased expenditure for doing
business every year. But I notice in this year's appropriation
bill that was passed out of Financial Services, the increase
was about 6 percent. Did you talk with the Subcommittee on
Financial Services? Did you converse with Subcommittee Chairman
Serrano on what you felt the budgetary requirements of your
agency would be?
Mr. Moore. I am afraid not. That is not a part of my role
at the Commission.
Mr. Burgess. OK. So do you all then develop a budget
internally that is voted on by the commissioners? How do we in
Congress get that number from you? Do we just make this up
every year?
Mr. Moore. The budget comes through the Commission's budget
comes through the chairman's office. Yes, it is the Commission
and we see it after it is done, but we don't really--and we can
have some input in the process, but we don't directly control
the amount of the--what the numbers are.
Mr. Burgess. Did you vote for the budget, in favor of the
budget that passed for this year, for example?
Mr. Moore. Yes.
Mr. Burgess. When you say you have an opportunity for
input, did you recommend that, instead of a 6 percent increase,
that this year we might want to, with perhaps a more favorable
climate in the subcommittee, appropriations?
Mr. Moore. I have asked for more, yes.
Mr. Burgess. And give us kind of an idea of the dollar
figure that you would have liked to have seen for this year.
Mr. Moore. At least----
Mr. Burgess. I guess, at some point, what I am saying is--
and I am not trying to pick on you, but at some point----
Mr. Moore. Yes.
Mr. Burgess. And I don't sit on the Committee on
Appropriations, but I understand very completely the difference
between an authorizer and an appropriator. When you go out to
the NIH, the buildings are named for appropriators. There is
not a single one named for an authorizer. So I understand what
the difference is and I am sensitive to that.
Mr. Moore. Yes.
Mr. Burgess. But we, as the authorizers, need you to help
us identify what is the funding level and if you say you need
an increase of 10 to 15 percent a year but you have been living
with 4 percent a year for a while, I got to believe that there
is going to have to be an initial plus-up that is perhaps in
excess of 10 to 15 percent. And I don't like to spend money any
more than the next person, but if this Federal agency is going
to function properly, then we are obviously going to need to
fund it at a level where it can function, otherwise, what is
the point?
Mr. Rush. The Chair would like to inform the gentleman that
his time is up. The witness will be allowed to answer his final
question.
Mr. Burgess. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Moore. Well, we try to get the most effective number.
So for instance, right now we certainly favor the increases
that are being talked about over here. I think it is somewhere
around $68 million or $69 million.
Mr. Burgess. It is $68 million.
Mr. Moore. OK, $68 million. And then the Senate is talking
about $70 million. Certainly that would help us to be more
effective in terms of increasing our staff and reaching the
needs of consumer safety protection at a higher level, and that
is the point. We have to adjust to it. If the money is not
there, then we have to make that adjustment. We have to cut
back. And that is not always the best service presented to
consumer safety interest, but we have to deal with it. That is
the best we can do.
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady from Oregon is recognized.
Ms. Hooley. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Chairman Nord
and Commission Moore, for being in front of our committee
today. I have a series of very short questions and I would love
short answers. What percent of the toys that you have recalled
this year have been due to dangerous lead content? OK. While
you are getting that answer, what other the toys and children's
products have been recalled?
Ms. Nord. Thirty-two percent of our total recalls have been
because of lead. What was the second piece?
Ms. Hooley. And what is the other reason for toys and
children's products being recalled?
Ms. Nord. Oh, many. Suffocations, small parts violations,
choking hazards, frankly, are the biggest. The most dangerous
product with respect to children, in terms of fatalities, is
balls, children choking on balls.
Ms. Hooley. A couple people have mentioned Bob in your
testing lab that tests for toys and you said you have got 34
other people testing in the laboratory. I am assuming that is
testing for all products not just toys.
Ms. Nord. Yes.
Ms. Hooley. And so Bob really is the only toy tester?
Ms. Nord. No. No, that is not correct.
Ms. Hooley. He is the only designated toy tester. They
test----
Ms. Nord. No.
Ms. Hooley. You have 34 people testing on toys?
Ms. Nord. No, what I said was Bob is not the only
designated toy tester.
Ms. Hooley. OK. But you said you had 34 people in the lab.
Ms. Nord. In the laboratory.
Ms. Hooley. And they test for everything?
Ms. Nord. Yes.
Ms. Hooley. OK. You have labs that are fairly old and you
have got 34 people working in the labs.
Ms. Nord. Yes.
Ms. Hooley. We have hundreds of millions of consumer
products. Is that adequate?
Ms. Nord. Our laboratory desperately needs to be modernized
and we have had a number of conversations with this committee
and our appropriators about that problem. We need to modernize
our laboratory.
Ms. Hooley. Chairman Nord, in your talks with the Chinese
officials, in terms of banning lead in toys, what exactly did
they agree to?
Ms. Nord. I am sorry?
Ms. Hooley. What exactly did the Chinese agree to in your
talks with lead in toys, banning lead in toys?
Ms. Nord. The general agreement that we reached, they
agreed to implement a plan that would immediately eliminate
lead from products, children's toys destined for the United
States.
Ms. Hooley. We talked a little bit and it has been brought
up by other people, realistically, if you are given the
resources, how quickly could the CPSC expand? How long does it
take to hire and train an employee?
Ms. Nord. It takes an awful long time and I am afraid I
can't, sitting here, tell you an average amount of time, but it
takes several months, because once we go through the hiring
process, which is highly regulated, we have to also go through
a security clearance process.
Ms. Hooley. Do you have any idea of how many employees you
think it would take to fulfill the mission of the CPSC? How
many employees would it take?
Ms. Nord. Well, we put a budget in. The Appropriations
Committee has upped it and told us to hire up to 420, so that
is what we are going to be doing, assuming that the
appropriations bill passes.
Ms. Hooley. Do you think that will fulfill your mission?
Ms. Nord. That will be better than 400.
Ms. Hooley. Have you ever requested additional resources or
authority?
Ms. Nord. I have only gone through this process once and
yes indeed, I have got standing before the committee a long
comprehensive list of proposals of things I would like to see.
Ms. Hooley. How long has the CPSC been in direct contact
with the Chinese Government regarding unsafe products being
exported to the United States?
Ms. Nord. We signed a memorandum of understanding in 2004.
In 2005, we had the first U.S.-Chinese safety summit in
Beijing. We have been in contact with them, in regular contact
since then. That contact has really intensified at the
beginning of 2007 and it culminated in the second U.S.-China
safety summit last week.
Ms. Hooley. So 3 years?
Ms. Nord. Yes.
Ms. Hooley. OK. And 3 years before you got an agreement
with them, too, is that right?
Ms. Nord. We signed a memorandum of understanding in 2004.
Ms. Hooley. OK. It has been reported that the Chinese
Government has 210,000 people and 1,800 labs dedicated to
product safety. In your estimation, are the lab and employee
figures accurate?
Ms. Nord. I have no reason to think that they are
inaccurate. That is what the Chinese told us.
Ms. Hooley. Have you visited any of their labs?
Ms. Nord. I have been to their headquarters. I have not
visited an AQSIQ lab. I have visited other laboratories in
China.
Ms. Hooley. Can you speak to the quality of their
facilities and their testing methodology?
Ms. Nord. I really can't.
Ms. Hooley. OK. All right. I am looking forward to getting
your answers from the different requests that committee members
have made. Thank you.
Mr. Rush. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from
Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Ms. Nord and
Mr. Moore, I thank you for patience and your endurance this
morning. When you get down to Ms. Hooley and you are getting
kind of toward the end of the line on these questions that are
coming at you. Ms. Nord, I want to be certain that have a good
understanding of basically what you have presented to us. You
have a problem or your work basically should be constituting
pre-market, which is your offshore work, and post-market, which
would be onshore work. Pre-market would be as they are tested
as they are manufactured and then tested and then products are
labeled that they are safe for transport to the U.S.
And then your post-market is what you are dealing with once
a product makes it into our product stream, into the market
stream and a problem arises. And if I am understanding you
correctly, what you have said is, pretty much, the current
structure of the CPSC doesn't meet the current needs; that you
need to do some changing with your structure; that just putting
more people in is not going to necessarily solve the problem.
And then I think I heard you say that--we talked about the
three companies that primarily do much of the private sector
testing and you mentioned the testing and certification and
then you alluded to having penalties that go with that so that
there is a stated consequence for companies that continually
violate the law.
So very quickly, just to be certain I have understood, in
trying to define the problem and put the laser on the problem
and get this so that we don't have bad products, we don't have
43 recalls in a summer, that we, as a committee, have a good
understanding of basically where you are and then begin to look
at how we best fix this for you.
Ms. Nord. OK.
Mrs. Blackburn. So am I right? Is my understanding pretty
much right? Would you contest any of that or agree with that?
Ms. Nord. Well, I think you, as you set it out, pre-market
and post-market, I think that is a very apt description of the
process. Now, with respect to pre-market, please understand
that the Commission's authorities and existing regulations are
not as comprehensive as perhaps the committee thinks.
Mrs. Blackburn. Correct. I understand that and that is why
I said your current structure doesn't necessarily accommodate
your current needs.
Ms. Nord. But one of the things that I think would address
this issue, both on a pre- and a post-market basis, is
requiring that product sellers certify that they are meeting
U.S. safety standards. That requires them to pre-market test
and it gives us an ability to do a better sense of inspection
because we would have the documentation.
Mrs. Blackburn. Right. They would test, they would certify
and then tie a penalty to that. OK. Now let me ask you
something. Voluntary product recalls. How often does that
happen with a company, that they just have a voluntary product
recall and have you ever had to fine somebody for initiating a
voluntary recall without working with you?
Ms. Nord. Companies are supposed to work with us.
Mrs. Blackburn. OK.
Ms. Nord. I am not aware that we have ever fined anyone for
doing that on their own.
Mrs. Blackburn. All right. Now let me ask you this. Mattel
is going to make nearly 800 million toys this year and other
manufacturers, large and small, are going to make toys that are
coming into the market. So is it the most effective thing, is
it to have these manufacturers test their products for safety
and then report this to the CPSC? Or do you need to develop
something new, where you all would be the one that would be
testing and then certifying these? Is it better to leave that
with the private sector?
Ms. Nord. I believe that if you were to require our agency
to do the actual testing, again, you would be creating a very
different agency than the one that exists now. If we have a
requirement that the company certifies that they meet U.S.
safety standards, that will force them to do pre-market
testing, and I believe that independent third-party testing is
the best way to go. The other thing that is very important here
is who is doing the testing and we need to make sure that the
laboratories that do the testing are certified to a standard
that we would set, so that you have got real accredited
laboratories doing high-quality testing. If you have that and
then you have a certification process, I think that really goes
a long way to addressing this problem.
Mrs. Blackburn. Excellent. Thank you. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Rush. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Massachusetts, Mr. Markey.
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Nord, the
situation at the Consumer Product Safety Commission that you
find yourself in reminds me of the beloved children's story,
The Little Engine That Could. But in this case, the CPSC is
unfortunately the little agency that can't. The CPSC can't
ensure that children are safe from harmful substances, like
lead in toys. The agency's failures are not the result of poor
performance by CPSC's dedicated employees. They are dedicated.
They are diligent. They are hard working. But the Bush
administration has starved the agency of the resources it needs
to perform its important work. That little engine in the
children's book kept chugging, I think I can, I think I can, I
think I can. But the Bush administration has put the CPSC in an
impossible situation. The challenge is just too steep for an
undersized, under-resourced agency. And as a result, American
consumers are put at risks and parents are left to wonder
whether the toys they buy for their children are toxic. The
parents play toy box roulette with each toy, wondering whether
or not it has lead in it. Let me begin by asking, when was the
last regulation that your agency promulgated?
Ms. Nord. Last week.
Mr. Markey. Last week?
Ms. Nord. Yes. We have got a vote out there for another one
as soon as the commissioner votes. I have already voted.
Mr. Markey. Excellent. So your budget is small. The Bush
administration doesn't really want to increase the agency's
budget in a significant way, historically. But on the other
hand, you can promulgate regulations. You don't have a lot of
money, but you have a lot of power. You can promulgate
regulations. So inspecting such a tiny percentage of toys
overseas leaves children dangerously vulnerable to injury or
death from toxic toys and other products. Now, this is a hand-
held analyzer made by a company in my congressional district,
Thermo Scientific, which, in just a few seconds, has the
capacity to analyze whether or not a toy has lead, which can
endanger children in our country.
Ms. Nord. Yes.
Mr. Markey. How many of these types of devices does the
CPSC own?
Ms. Nord. We have an open procurement right now to buy a
number of them.
Mr. Markey. And how many are you attempting to buy?
Ms. Nord. I think, at this point, I am not sure. Can I get
back to you?
Mr. Markey. Are you talking about a hundred or you talking
about two?
Ms. Nord. No, we are not talking about a hundred. These
things cost like $25,000. We could never afford that.
Mr. Markey. Not under the Bush administration you can't.
Ms. Nord. No.
Mr. Markey. So if you get two of these guns, China is a big
country. This is a big country. Two analyzer guns to determine
whether or not there is lead in toys really isn't a lot that
your agency will have.
Ms. Nord. No, of course it isn't.
Mr. Markey. But in turn, you could pass a regulation and
you could mandate that every company in the United States that
imports toys has to buy analyzer guns and has to deploy them.
Ms. Nord. This is from your district.
Mr. Markey. Not this one particularly, any analyzer gun.
Ms. Nord. OK.
Mr. Markey. Anything that advances the ability to serve as
a deterrent, a detector. I don't care which one you mandate,
although this seems to be a very good product. I just wonder,
would you consider promulgating a regulation that every company
has to purchase these kinds of technologies so that you can
just zap in a second the little toy duck and determine whether
or not it is dangerous for children?
Ms. Nord. We would not have that authority under out
statute and indeed, Congress has specifically said we can't do
that.
Mr. Markey. You can't do what?
Ms. Nord. Specify that kind of a procurement. The Congress
has said that our standards have to be cast in performance
terms rather than in that specific a way. So what we can do is
say that you can't have lead. What I would like us to have the
authority to do is say a company needs to certify that there is
no lead. Right now that authority doesn't exist for us. And
then the company needs to figure out how they are going to go
about certifying to the fact that there is no lead in their
products and that is where----
Mr. Markey. Are you presently testing by scrapping?
Ms. Nord. I assume so, yes.
Mr. Markey. You assume so or you don't know?
Ms. Nord. Yes, we are doing x-ray fluorescents and
scrapping.
Mr. Markey. I think you should learn a lot more about what
your agency is doing and exactly how you are testing, otherwise
I think we are going to wind up in a situation where it is
heads, the Bush White House wins, and tails, the children of
America lose. There is no regulation and at the same time,
there is no funding. And so inside of the regulatory black hole
play all of the children of America and I just don't think it
is something that should be allowed to continue and I would
recommend very strongly that you begin a regulatory process to
put, as specifically as possible, the protections for the
children of our country. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
Mr. Rush. Thank you. The Chair wants to inform the members
of the subcommittee that we will engage in an additional round
of questioning, one additional question per member, for those
who have a question. Then, at the conclusion of this round, we
will recess because there will be four votes on the floor. And
at the conclusion of those four votes, we will return,
reconvene and we will have testimony from Mr. Eckert from the
Mattel toy company.
Commissioner Moore, you have told this subcommittee that
you are concerned that the law allows U.S. companies to export
products that are not compliant with U.S. safety standards and
I share that concern. It is like recycling the recalls. And
what should we do about it? Do you have any recommendation for
legislative reforms in that particular area?
Mr. Moore. I think we might want to give some consideration
to requiring them to at least inform the CPSC of their
intentions to ship these products abroad and then we can
determine whether that is permissible in a particular case.
Mr. Rush. Are you aware of a current practice now? Is that
current problem that we have in terms of recall?
Mr. Moore. A problem?
Mr. Rush. Yes.
Mr. Moore. Yes, it is a problem.
Mr. Rush. It is a problem?
Mr. Moore. Yes, it is a problem, and in fact, some
companies do tell us that they are exporting. Some of them do.
Mr. Rush. They are exporting defective and dangerous----
Mr. Moore. No, they don't tell us that. But if the products
turn out to be defective, we try to prevent it as best we can.
I don't think we have sufficient authority at this point.
Mr. Rush. Thank you. The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Texas for one additional question.
Mr. Burgess. OK, one question. It is going to have five
parts.
Mr. Rush. One question and one part.
Mr. Burgess. I would like to make the observation, Chairman
Nord, that I agree with you completely that it is the consumer
ultimately who will punish any manufacturer or any importer who
brings something into this country that ultimately is proved as
unsafe, and I know. I talk to people in my district every day
who feel just as I do, that no longer can they trust the safety
of products when it says made in the People's Republic of
China, and they are not purchasing those products.
So I hope the manufacturers and importers are listening to
that message and hearing that message from the consumers. On a
very local level back in my district, there has been a news
story about some sandals, flip-flops that have been sold in one
of the big chains down there, that have caused a really
significant dermatitis in the people that have worn them and it
is obvious, just in the configuration of the strap itself,
where the contact has occurred. Are you aware of this? Has the
manufacturer contacted you with this information and have you
issued the voluntary recall for this product?
Ms. Nord. Yes, we are aware of it. We actually are in the
process now of testing that. Unfortunately, we haven't been
able to get the actual consumer sample that caused the problem.
That would be very useful if we could see the actual product
involved. But we do have testing underway and I would like to
be able to come back to you with what our tests show.
Mr. Burgess. OK. Well, this is one of those examples where
things should proceed expeditiously. And I all I knew was what
I saw on the news report, but it looks pretty dreadful and they
seem to have a variety of feet that were affected and if it is
that pervasive with one retailer, it would just seem to me that
it would behoove us to act quickly and get this product off the
shelves until we find out the relative safety or the commission
of non-safety of this product.
Ms. Nord. OK.
Mr. Burgess. I thank the chairman for his indulgence and I
will yield back.
Mr. Rush. You have remarks?
Ms. Nord. Well, I wanted to just expand or answer the
question that you had asked Commissioner Moore, if I might,
because I think it is important, it is a terribly important
issue and I think it deserves if I could give an answer as
well.
Mr. Rush. Sure.
Ms. Nord. The Consumer Product Safety Act addresses the
export of consumer products and the Commission put in place a
number of years ago, gosh, in the late 1970s or early 1980s, a
policy statement and regulations setting on how we deal with
exports. It has in there a blanket statement that says that if
a company manufactures a product and it is distributed in the
United States and it does not meet U.S. safety standards, it
may not be exported out of the United States.
So there is that blanket policy statement that the
Commission adopted. Now, with respect to products that are
manufactured in the United States for export that do not meet
U.S. safety standards, there is a requirement that the
companies notify the CPSC of their intent to do that and then
we notify the country that is destined to get the product and
we do that on a regular basis.
So if, for example, Mr. Chairman, you have got a U.S.
company that might be manufacturing a toy for export to the
European Union, which has a different toy standard than we do,
by definition, it wouldn't meet our safety standard. They would
notify us we would notify the EU and the export would take
place. We get those notifications at least once a week and we
do have a process in place that notifies the country in
question. I might add, Mr. Chairman, we are the only country
that I know of that does that with other countries. We do not
get similar kinds of notices from other countries.
Mr. Rush. The subcommittee submitted a letter to the CPSC--
--
Ms. Nord. I am aware of that.
Mr. Rush. You are aware of the letter regarding this
particular issue?
Ms. Nord. It just arrived yesterday.
Mr. Rush. Yes. Would you respond to us by Tuesday, if you
can?
Ms. Nord. We will give it our very best efforts.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky.
Ms. Schakowsky. Let me just clarify that. If a product is
recalled in the United States, recalled for being defective and
it is supposed to be either destroyed or it can be exported if
it is recalled, no?
Ms. Nord. No, the statute says that if it is distributed in
the United States and it doesn't meet a U.S. safety standard,
it cannot be exported. With respect to recalls, what we do when
we negotiate the recall is put in place a disposal plan. On
occasion you will have the company, and we will agree to allow
them to export it for disposal purposes, not for resale.
Ms. Schakowsky. Only for disposal if it is recalled. OK. I
wanted to ask about preemption and understand a little better
what States can do.
Ms. Nord. Yes.
Ms. Schakowsky. The CPSC guideline is 600 parts per million
on jewelry.
Ms. Nord. Yes.
Ms. Schakowsky. Illinois passed a law that just prohibits
the sale of jewelry that doesn't meet that standard. Do you
believe that the Illinois law should be preempted?
Ms. Nord. No, the Illinois law is not inconsistent with the
Federal laws.
Ms. Schakowsky. What if Illinois set a lower standard, that
is, there were fewer parts per million that were allowed?
Ms. Nord. I am sorry.
Ms. Schakowsky. If Illinois said, we are not going to allow
anything that is 500 parts per million in jewelry.
Ms. Nord. OK, in jewelry. Well, at this point, we only have
an enforcement policy, so it would not be preempted. If we were
to go ahead and do a ban and issue a regulation, then anything
that was inconsistent with our regulation would be preempted
unless the State came in and asked for us to waive the
preemptive effect and there is a process in our statute that
allows that.
Ms. Schakowsky. So on the one hand you are saying, though,
that the Commission doesn't have a lot of resources to do a lot
of things and yet, when States move ahead, it is possible that
they would be preempted. California and Vermont are considering
more stringent standards.
Ms. Nord. Actually, I would really disagree with, I guess,
the underlying sense of that question, because we view the
States as very, very critical partners here. And in fact, we
have got State employees on our payroll that we pay to go out
and do inspections and really be our feet on the ground. We
have got several Illinois State employees who receive money
from the CPSC.
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady's time is up.
Ms. Nord. So we look to the States to be----
Mr. Rush. Mr. Markey is recognized.
Mr. Markey. I thank the chairman very much and I love your
innovation, this whole concept of final jeopardy. One question
is just absolutely innovative, it is a breakthrough concept and
I love it. Let me again reiterate that the workers at the
agency, they do a great job. They work very hard. They are
under tremendous constraints that come down from the Bush White
House, and I appreciate all the work of all of you who are at
CPSC. Let me ask you this, Commissioner Moore. Should the
Commission be cutting staff in the midst of this children's
products crisis?
Mr. Moore. Absolutely not.
Mr. Markey. Absolutely not. And how many new staff would
you like to see, Commissioner Moore?
Mr. Moore. I would like to see us have 500 or more
staffers.
Mr. Markey. Five hundred or more staffers. And how many
would you dedicate to this issue of children's toys?
Mr. Moore. That is a difficult one to answer. I would have
to get back with you on that one.
Mr. Markey. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I
appreciate it.
Mr. Rush. Thank you and I want to thank the witnesses. You
have been more than generous with your time and we certainly
will be communicating with you again. The subcommittee now is
in recess. We have four votes on the floor and we will
reconvene with the president of Mattel as soon as we have
completed our voting. This subcommittee will reconvene promptly
at the conclusion of the four votes on the floor. Thank you.
[Recess]
Mr. Rush. Call to order. We want to welcome the second
panel of this hearing. We want to welcome Mr. Robert Eckert,
who is the CEO of Mattel, Incorporated. Mr. Eckert, would you
please be seated at the witness table. Mr. Eckert, first of
all, on behalf of the subcommittee, we want to thank you for
the generous use of your time. You have been here for quite a
while. I think I saw you when you first came into the room and
that was hours ago and you are still here and so we really
appreciate it. We will ask that you give us an opening
statement, if you have an opening statement, and we ask that
you confine it to 5 minutes, please. So you can begin at your
convenience.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. ECKERT, CHAIRMAN AND CEO, MATTEL, INC.
Mr. Eckert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to
appear before the committee today. My name is Bob Eckert and I
am the chairman and CEO of Mattel. I am the person responsible
for making sure all our systems and all our people are
dedicated to safe toys for our kids to enjoy without worry or
concern.
These recalls should never have happened, especially at
Mattel. Our standards were ignored and our rules were broken.
We were let down and we let you down. My job is to find out
what happened and make sure it never happens again. We have
worked tirelessly for the past 7 weeks to address these
recalls. We are still investigating and we are still testing
toys. If there is a needle in the proverbial haystack, we aim
to find it.
Mr. Chairman, I know your staff has also been working hard
to investigate product safety and I am aware that they didn't
get access, the access that they wanted, when they were in
China. I can assure that, going forward, Mattel will do
everything in its power to make information and people
available to you. My written testimony discusses in detail the
sequence of events. We know which manufacturers violated their
contracts with us. We know which paints were contaminated and
we know when they were used and on what toys. We have already
fired several manufacturers that purposefully violated our
rules and we continue to investigate others.
I want to use this afternoon to tell the committee how we
plan to ensure that our rules are followed, our standards are
met and our toys are safe. First, Mattel has instituted a
three-stage lead paint safety check. All products, not just
those sourced in Asia, are subject to lead paint rules
throughout the production cycle, before, during and after any
paint application. Prior to painting, every batch of paint must
be purchased only from a certified paint supplier and retested
before it is used. Second, we have increased the number of
auditors who are now in every major manufacturer, every day, to
monitor compliance with our standards, and Mattel employees
will conduct surprise inspections as well. Third, once the
product is manufactured, each batch must pass a lead test prior
to reaching store shelves, for an extra layer of redundancy.
But we are not stopping there. We have created a new
organization, reporting directly to me, that will combine all
of Mattel's principal safety compliance and reporting
functions. We believe this action will focus even more
attention on safety and quality as well as standards and
processes. For the past 7 weeks, I have been focused on
steering the Mattel organization through these issues. Now,
because I want to be able to personally assure our customers
that our processes are right and our systems are working, I
will travel back to China this month to inspect the
implementation of the new procedures, to discuss our action
plans with local managers, and to make clear my expectation for
the safety of Mattel's toys.
I am confident the steps we have taken so far will
strengthen our procedures, but I won't rely on Mattel internal
audits alone. This is one of the matters that I have discussed
with Congresswoman Harman. We are putting in place third-party
audits of our product safety and quality systems, led by an
outside expert who will review Mattel's compliance with its
safety protocols and report back to me with the findings. We
expect tough reviews and we are ready for them.
Mattel has taken extraordinary steps to notify parents
about these recalls, including extensive advertising, Web
outreach and media interviews. But we recognize that not
everyone reads the morning paper or tunes into the nightly
news, so we are working with State attorneys general and public
health officials and we will reach out to other government and
community organizations to communicate with even more people. I
have said many times in the past that Mattel doesn't compete on
safety. I can assure this committee that we will share with
other toy companies what we have learned to help improve
industry practices overall, and to ensure that children play
with safe toys regardless of who made them or where they are
made.
Mr. Chairman, recent questions about the safety of Mattel
toys have been a personal and bitter disappointment to me, as
well as to the men and women at Mattel who take great pride in
their work. I would like to conclude by reiterating my personal
apology. Parents expect the toys carrying the Mattel brand are
safe. For decades they have trusted this company to make
certain that they are, and we intend to earn back that trust,
not just with words, but with out deeds. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Eckert follows:]
Statement of Ronert Eckert
Thank you for your invitation to appear before the
subcommittee to address Mattel's recent lead-paint related
recalls and for the opportunity to reinforce our commitment to
efforts that will result in effective improvements in toy
safety.
While I am the Chairman and CEO of Mattel, I am also a
parent of four children. And like you, I and the more than
30,000 other employees at Mattel know that nothing is more
important than the safety of our children. Mattel has worked
hard through the years to earn the trust of parents worldwide,
and we know full well that we have disappointed those parents
by the recalls you have seen over the past several weeks. For
that, we are very sorry. I am proud to say, however, that
Mattel has faced up to these issues and to our
responsibilities. We have been open and forthright about them,
and we have moved vigorously to take steps to prevent these
problems from re-occurring.
In my testimony, I would like to start by providing you
some important background facts regarding Mattel and our
production of toys before the recent recalls. I will then turn
to a description of what we now know about the specific
circumstances that led to each of the recalls. Finally, I will
address the steps that Mattel has taken to prevent this kind of
problem in the future.
Mattel Operations
Founded in 1945, Mattel designs, manufactures, and markets
a broad variety of toy products. Our toys are enjoyed by
children in over 150 countries. We manufacture toys in both
company-operated facilities and through third-party contract
vendors. Mattel has been manufacturing products and using
contract vendors in China successfully and without significant
manufacturing related safety issues for more than 20 years.
Mattel and its vendors manufacture almost 800 million
products a year. Approximately fifty (50) percent of all the
toys we sell are manufactured at our own plants, a higher
proportion than other large toy makers. When Mattel does
contract with vendors to manufacture toys, our contracts
require that the vendors comply with Mattel's quality and
safety operating procedures and Global Manufacturing Principles
(GMP), which reflect the company's commitment to responsible
practices in areas such as employee health and safety,
environmental management and respect for the cultural, ethnic
and philosophical differences of the countries where Mattel
operates. The contracts and accompanying documents also require
that vendors comply with all applicable safety standards, and
Mattel specifies, for each toy, the standard that applies. As
to each standard, Mattel generally specifies the most stringent
requirement that applies anywhere in the world. The contracts
and accompanying documents also specify the tests that must be
performed to ensure compliance.
In China, Mattel, through its subsidiary Mattel Asia
Pacific Sourcing (MAPS), has contracts with approximately 37
principal vendors making our toys. Additional vendors are
involved in the production of paper products, like board games
and cards, cosmetics, inflatables, and our American Girl and
Corolle dolls and accessories. Mattel's policies provide that
approval to be a vendor for MAPS requires both a production
facilities review and an audit under Mattel's GMP.
Mattel's Pre-August 2007 Safety Procedures
We believe that, prior to August 2007, Mattel already had
some of the most rigorous safety standards and procedures in
the toy industry. With respect to paints, vendors could
purchase coatings from one of MAPS' qualified paint suppliers,
all of which had implemented pigment traceable control programs
to ensure that pigments met heavy elements requirements,
including for lead, before being released to production and
could be traced to specific containers of paint on the factory
floor. The qualified suppliers were required to test pigments
before delivery and, with each delivery of paint, provide
traceability records to the vendors linking the pigment in that
paint to pigment certificates. In addition, each container of
paint had to have a label with a date code and batch/lot
number. The vendor was contractually obligated to match each
incoming shipment with a corresponding pigment certificate and
sticker each container with traceability information. Records
demonstrating compliance with these procedures had to be
maintained and kept available for periodic audit by MAPS
auditors, which occurred approximately monthly.
If vendors needed to buy paint from other suppliers, they
could only do so if they complied with additional rules.
Incoming shipments of paint from the supplier had to be
quarantined. Samples from the shipment had to be submitted to a
MAPS-approved lab for a heavy elements test. Again, paints that
passed the test had to have a label affixed with batch number,
test number, and other required information. As with approved
suppliers, records demonstrating compliance with these
procedures had to be maintained and made available for periodic
audit by MAPS auditors.
If a vendor used a subcontractor to assist with any of its
production, our contracts required that the vendor identify
that subcontractor to MAPS. Vendors also were required to
identify all facility locations. Vendors were required to
supply all paint, obtained as described above, to be used by
any subcontractor on Mattel products.
The above procedures were designed to protect the
integrity of the paints to be used on Mattel products. In
addition, there were a number of checks built into the system
prior to August 2007 to verify that finished toys did not have
paint with lead in amounts above applicable standards. Under
the procedures imposed by our agreements with vendors, at the
commencement of production, before any product could be
shipped, samples had to be tested for compliance with all
facets of Mattel's product requirements, including the
standards for lead and other heavy elements. Product could be
shipped only after a certificate of compliance was issued.
In addition to all this testing, a majority of Mattel's
direct import customers required periodic testing of products
before export. In those circumstances, the direct importer
determined the nature or scope of the tests, including tests
for heavy elements. The testing for direct importers was
sometimes done by MAPS and sometimes done by independent labs.
In addition, recertification testing was required for products
made for direct import if production continued for more than
one year. Finally, after certification, vendors were not
permitted to change manufacturing locations, materials,
components or material sources without approval from MAPS and
recertification.
The Recalls
Mattel's safety standards and procedures had functioned
successfully for many years prior to this summer's recalls.
Clearly, however, something new arose that we had to address.
When Mattel discovered toys with noncomplying paint, we
initiated an exhaustive investigation to get to the root cause.
What that ongoing investigation has revealed so far is that a
few vendors, either deliberately or out of carelessness,
circumvented our long-established safety standards and
procedures. As a result, MAPS has terminated its business
relationships with some of the entities involved and is
continuing to investigate others. Let me provide you the
details of what we have discovered so far.
The August 2, 2007, Recall
The August 2, 2007, recall had its genesis in a direct
importer's pre-shipment test for lead in paint on a sample of
product bound for France. Specifically, Intertek, an
independent laboratory, performed the pre-shipment lead test
for Auchan, a French direct importer. On June--8, 2007,
Intertek reported noncompliant paint on a sample of toys
manufactured for MAPS by Lee Der Industrial Company, Ltd.
Mattel Product Integrity employees in Asia stopped shipment of
the item and contacted the vendor, Lee Der, requesting that it
immediately remedy the problem and provide another sample of
the corrected production for testing. On or about June 29,
2007, Mattel Product Integrity employees in China were notified
of an Intertek lead test result on another sample of the same
toy previously tested on June 8 for Auchan. The product passed
the lead test. At that point, Mattel Product Integrity
employees in Asia had reason to believe that Lee Der had solved
any lead paint issue that it had.
Independent of the test failure in China, but during the
same time period, on June 27, 2007, a consumer reported to
Mattel's call center in the U.S. a home test kit finding of
lead paint on a product also manufactured by Lee Der, a result
which Mattel was subsequently unable to replicate when testing
several samples of the same product. On June 28, 2007, Mattel
Product Integrity employees in China took additional samples of
Lee Der's products and sent them to MAPS' laboratory in China
for testing.
On July 3, 2007, a third lead test report for Auchan,
performed by the same independent laboratory, Intertek, found
noncomplying lead levels in paint on another sample of the
originally-tested toy in a different assortment made by Lee
Der. Shipment of that product was held and, on July 5, MAPS
picked up samples of 23 additional Lee Der products to test. On
July 6, 2007, MAPS' laboratory in China reported results of its
testing of the five samples of Lee Der toys that MAPS had taken
on June 28. Nonconforming levels of lead were found in the
paint on portions of three of five samples of the toys made by
Lee Der. That same day, July 6, immediately following receipt
of these results, MAPS notified Lee Der that MAPS would accept
no more toys made by Lee Der. On July 9, MAPS' laboratories
reported that 9 of the 23 additional samples of Lee Der toys
taken on July 5 contained some paint with nonconforming lead
levels.
In light of these additional test results, Mattel's
employees in Asia notified senior management at Mattel of an
issue with Lee Der products for the first time on July 12,
2007. Mattel management ordered an immediate freeze of all
shipments of suspect Lee Der products on July 13, 2007, and
expanded the freeze to apply to all Lee Der products on July
17, 2007. Mattel also launched an investigation to identify
both the root cause and potential scope of the lead paint
problem, including what toys might be affected, what dates of
production might be affected, and whether any of the affected
toys may have been shipped and, if so, to what locations.
Mattel traced the nonconforming lead levels to yellow pigment
in paint used on portions of certain toys manufactured by Lee
Der at a previously undisclosed plant located in Foshan City,
China.
Mattel filed an Initial Report with the Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC) on July 20, 2007, and a Full Report on
July--26, 2007, indicating Mattel's desire to institute a fast
track recall. Mattel recalled all products that we believed
potentially could contain some paint with impermissibly high
lead levels. Thus, the recall covered 83 different stock
keeping units (SKUs) made by Lee Der between April 19, 2007
(the date when Lee Der took delivery of the paint containing
lead from its supplier) and July 6, 2007 (the date when Mattel
stopped taking delivery of Lee Der's products).
Lee Der's use of an unregistered facility to produce
Mattel product was a violation of its manufacturing and
procurement agreement with MAPS, as was its failure to test
every batch of paint received from its paint supplier for use
on Mattel product.
The August 14, 2007, Recall
On July 30, 2007, just prior to the announcement of the
August 2 recall, a test conducted by Mattel on paint on a
different toy, the Sarge car, made by a different vendor,
failed the lead test. The test was part of Mattel's routine
recertification testing for direct importers described above.
Mattel immediately began an investigation to verify the result,
locate potentially affected product, and determine the cause
and scope of the problem. In light of the test result on the
Sarge car and the lead test results on the Lee Der-made toys,
on August--1, 2007, Mattel decided to detain from distribution
all finished products in Asia, whether made by Mattel or our
vendors, until test samples proved the toys to be in compliance
with lead standards.
On August 6, 2007, Mattel concluded that the excess lead
on the Sarge car was due to yellow pigment used by an
undisclosed subcontractor on the olive-green top. That same
day, Mattel filed an Initial Report with the CPSC. The next
day, August 7, Mattel filed a Full Report with the CPSC asking
for a fast track recall of the toy. The Sarge car was recalled
on August 14, 2007.
The olive-green top of the Sarge car that contained lead
paint was painted by Hon--Li Da Plastic Cement Products Co.,
Ltd. located in Shenzhen City, China. Hon Li Da was a
subcontractor of Early Light Industrial Company, Ltd. in Hong
Kong. Early Light incorporated the top painted by Hon Li Da in
the finished Sarge car made in its manufacturing facility
located in Pinghu, China. Early Light had not identified its
subcontractor, Hon Li Da, though it was required to do so by
its agreement with MAPS. It is not clear at this time whether
Early Light supplied Hon Li Da with certified paint, whether it
supplied an insufficient quantity of certified paint, or
whether Hon Li Da sold the certified paint it was provided by
Early Light and bought and used other paint containing lead.
The September 4, 2007, Recall
When Mattel detained all finished product in Asia on
August 1, we began to test for lead in paint on samples of each
toy. This exhaustive testing program resulted in identifying
certain parts of some additional toys with paint containing
lead in excess of the applicable standard. Specifically, Mattel
obtained some test results indicating that a few parts of
certain Barbie accessory sets (7 SKUs), a Geo Trax vehicle (2
SKUs), and the Fisher-Price 6-in-1 Big World Bongos Band (1
SKU) also had paint on some portions of the toys with lead
levels in excess of the applicable standard.
The nonconforming paint on portions of certain plastic
Barbie accessories was first detected on or about August 9 and
11, 2007. The CPSC was notified of the results of Mattel's
testing and investigation by letters delivered on August 10
and--17, 2007. A Full Report was filed with the CPSC on August
27, 2007, again requesting a fast track recall. As in the prior
two recalls, Mattel was over-inclusive in the toys we included
in the recall. In fact, the recall included some Barbie
accessories that, when sample tested, complied with the
applicable lead standard.
The affected Barbie accessory products were painted by one
or both of two related subcontractors, Dong Lian Fa Metals
Plastic Produce Factory and Yip Sing. Dong Lian's factory is
located in Huizhou City, China. Yip Sing's factory is located
in Shenzhen City, China. The lead paint affected parts were
incorporated into finished product manufactured by MAPS'
vendor, Holder Plastic, at its factory in Shenzhen, China.
Holder failed to identify its subcontractors to MAPS as it was
required to do. Holder appears to have supplied Dong Lian Fa
and Yip Sing with approved paint, and it is not yet known why
paint containing lead was applied to the toys.
The nonconforming paint lead levels on the Geo Trax
vehicle's small yellow ladder and headlights were discovered on
or about August 16, 2007. The CPSC was notified on August 20,
2007, of the Geo Trax test result, and a Full Report was filed
on August--27,--2007, asking for a fast track recall. Mattel's
recall of approximately 89,000 Geo Trax included a significant
number of compliant toys because the toys with noncompliant
ladders and head lights painted by Apex Manufacturing Co.,
Ltd.'s subcontractor, Boyi Plastic Products Factory, between
July 31, 2006, and September 4, 2006, had been mixed with
pieces of compliant production in Apex's inventory. Mattel has
recalled all 89,000 finished products that were made from the
mixed inventory.
Certain of the Geo Trax products included in the recall
were painted by Boyi in Dongguan City, China. These toys were
intermingled with other finished products manufactured by MAPS'
vendor, Apex, in Dongguan City, China. Apex violated its
agreement with MAPS by failing to identify its subcontractor,
Boyi. Apex claims that it provided compliant paint to Boyi, but
that has not been confirmed.
Nonconforming paint lead levels on portions of some 6-in-1
Big World Bongos Band were found initially on or about August
20 and confirmed in retests on August 27, 2007. Even though the
noncomplying paint is located on the underside of the Bongos'
plastic skin, Mattel decided to recall the toys by notifying
the CPSC on August 27, 2007, and by filing a Full Report on
August 28, 2007, also requesting fast track treatment. Our
current understanding, based on our ongoing investigation, is
that the affected 6-in-1--Big World Bongos Band were painted at
the request of a subcontractor, Wo Fong Packaging Co., Ltd.,
located in Dongguan City, China. The components made at the
request of Wo Fong were incorporated into finished product
manufactured by MAPS' vendor, Shun On Toys Co., Ltd., at its
factory in Dongguan City, China. Shun On violated its agreement
with MAPS by failing to identify its subcontractor, Wo Fong,
and by failing to provide Wo Fong with the paint to be used on
a Mattel product.
Mattel's exhaustive testing program to identify any lead
paint on any part of our toys continues to this day. I am
pleased to report that, thus far, this testing has revealed no
other products, beyond those subject to the September 4, 2007,
recall, that should be recalled for lead in paint in excess of
the applicable standard.
Mattel's Follow-Through on the Recalls
All of these recent recalls were initiated by Mattel as
voluntary recalls. In addition, in order to expedite the
recalls, Mattel requested that each recall be implemented
pursuant to the CPSC's ``fast track'' program. Mattel and the
CPSC have worked together closely and cooperatively to plan the
recalls and to make sure that the recalls are being clearly
communicated to parents. Thus, in agreement with the CPSC,
Mattel staffed its call center with adequate numbers of
properly trained operators, developed a CPSC-approved script,
prepared a CPSC-approved portion of the company's Web site
addressing the recall, explored means by which consumers could
be contacted directly by mail using Mattel's consumer data
base, prepared and sent to retailers a CPSC-approved notice for
retail stores, prepared CPSC-approved posters to be displayed
in retail stores, and finalized the terms of the recall. Mattel
also gave retailers advance notice of the recall, as permitted
by the CPSC, so that they could remove recalled products from
their stores even as preparations for the implementation of the
recall were being finalized.
With the CPSC's assistance, permission and approval,
Mattel also:
Issued a joint press release with the CPSC;
Set up a toll-free, multi-lingual, interactive voice
response phone line that assists consumers in determining
whether their product is subject to the recall and that allows
registration for the recall;
Placed a notice on the Mattel web site that includes a web
tool, in more than 20 different languages, that aids consumers
in determining whether their product is subject to the recall
and that allows for on-line registration for participation in
the recall;
Produced and placed prominently on our website two
specially-made videos in which I addressed these issues
directly with parents;
Mailed letters to individual consumers whose contact
information was in the Mattel Consumer Relations database by
virtue of their having called Mattel previously about any toy
that is subject to the current recalls; and
Formally notified retailers of the recalls by letter.
In order to get the news out to as many consumers as
quickly as possible, Mattel also took the initiative and ran
full-page newspaper ads in major newspapers on August 14 and
September 5, 2007. Among the newspapers that carried the ads on
one or both of those dates were USA Today, the New York Times,
the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, and the Washington
Post. We gave satellite interviews to numerous television
programs, which appeared on global, national and local
broadcasts. We also did many print and on-line interviews. In
addition, Mattel placed ads on various web sites, especially
those that we believed were likely to be visited by parents.
These websites included Yahoo!, Disney, Nickelodeon, and the
Cartoon Network. This combination of the CPSC's prescribed
measures and Mattel's further independent efforts resulted in
intense media coverage of the recalls.
With respect to the procedures for returns of recalled
products, retailers may return all recalled products in their
inventory to Mattel for full credit. Consumers are provided a
postage prepaid ``mailing label'' to use to send recalled
product back to Mattel. In most cases, when Mattel receives
recalled product from consumers, we issue vouchers redeemable
for Mattel products in an amount that is intended to be equal
to or greater than the retail price actually paid plus tax. In
some cases, we issue replacement parts rather than a voucher.
If any consumer has a proof of purchase at a higher price than
the voucher amount, Mattel will issue a voucher for the higher
price.
Mattel's Enhanced Procedures To Ensure Compliance
Mattel has acted quickly to implement new procedures
designed to provide enhanced protections against potential
future violations of our manufacturing standards and
procedures. For example, after the August 2 recall, we
immediately supplemented our contractual requirements with a
three-stage safety check related to the paint used on our toys.
The three-stage safety check applies to all plants that
manufacture toys for Mattel, not just those located in Asia.
First, every batch of paint must be purchased only from a
certified paint supplier. Even though the supplier is already
certified, samples of the paint must still be tested before use
to ensure compliance with lead standards. Those sample tests
must be performed either by Mattel's own laboratories or by
laboratories certified by Mattel. Copies of the test results
must be made available to Mattel.
Second, paint on samples of finished product from every
production run must be tested for lead by either Mattel's own
laboratories or by laboratories certified by Mattel.
Third, we have increased the frequency of random,
unannounced inspections of vendors and subcontractors for
compliance with these new procedures. In addition, Mattel has
been conducting unannounced inspections of every one of our
vendors and subcontractors worldwide.
Beyond this three-stage safety check, Mattel's vendors
must disclose to Mattel the identity of any subcontractor that
a vendor proposes to use before that subcontractor is allowed
to work on Mattel products, and any such subcontractor must be
open to audit by Mattel. Those subcontractors are not permitted
to further subcontract the work on Mattel's products. Vendors
must supply all paint to the subcontractors, and the vendors
and subcontractors must segregate all production for Mattel,
including having dedicated storage for paint used on Mattel
products. Mattel's vendors also must test the paints on a
sample of all components produced by any subcontractor for lead
before using the subcontractor's components in a Mattel
product. Review of compliance with these additional
requirements will also be part of the unannounced inspections
of vendors and subcontractors.
Through the above steps, Mattel has now implemented a
system of multiple and redundant safety checks. We certify
paint suppliers to ensure the paint they supply is good paint.
We require tests of the paint from the certified paint
suppliers before it is used, and if it fails, it doesn't go on
our product. We have increased random inspections of vendors
and subcontractors during production to make sure they are
testing paint. We require that vendors test samples of any
components that they get from subcontractors before they go
into our products. We test samples of the finished products on
a regular basis to verify that the process has worked. At the
same time, our direct importers are continuing to perform their
own testing of our products.
Other Measures
In addition to these many safeguards, we are continuing to
evaluate and, where appropriate, adopt further measures to
enhance the safety of our products and the effectiveness of the
recalls. We have made some recent announcements that will have
a direct impact on how we do business. For example, we have
created a new organization, reporting directly to me, that will
combine, in one operation, all of Mattel's principal safety,
compliance and reporting functions.
While Mattel is confident that the measures we have
adopted will go far in preventing these lead-paint problems
from re-occurring, we agree that others, including Congress,
the CPSC and foreign regulatory bodies and governments, can and
should play an important role in what we believe should be a
joint and cooperative effort with a shared objective--the
safety and well-being of our children.
Mattel supports the Consumer Product Safety Act and the
mission of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. We are
committed to working with members of Congress to strengthen the
Commission. We believe that more resources are needed for the
organization to carry out its important duties most
effectively. Mattel further supports proposals that would
ensure laboratories used for testing toys, wherever produced,
are fully qualified and are accredited by independent
organizations.
These recent lead recalls have been a personal
disappointment to me and, I am sure, to all of the men, women
and parents who take great pride in working at Mattel. But, as
I said at the start of my remarks, these events have also
called for us to act, and we have. As an industry leader often
deeply involved in setting standards for our industry, we have
adopted safety standards and procedures that we hope will be a
model for all toy companies.
I would like to conclude by reiterating my personal
apology on behalf of Mattel and to emphasize my commitment to
parents. Parents expect that toys carrying the Mattel brand are
safe. I believe the steps we have taken and continue to take
will strengthen the safety of our products and earn their
trust.
Thank you for the opportunity to address these important
issues with you today. I would be happy to answer any questions
that you may have.
----------
Mr. Rush. Thank you for your opening statement. The Chair
recognizes himself for 5 minutes for questioning.
Mr. Eckert, you and your company have apologized to the
American public for the toys with the lead paint, and you have
just recently done so in this hearing. I have a concern that in
the past Mattel has not been so forthcoming with the public.
The CPSC has twice, in 2000 and earlier this year, fined Mattel
for failure to report serious safety defects in toys, including
Power Wheels, Little People Animal Farms, et cetera. Given this
recent history, how is the public to trust your assurances and
how is it to read your apologies?
Mr. Eckert. I believe, sir, the timeliness with which we
have executed the recalls this summer are a good example of our
understanding of our obligations and our willingness to comply
with them. And if I might add, when we go backwards in time and
look at recalls like the 1998 recall of Power Wheels that
occurred before I was even with the company, and what we try
and do is not dwell on those issues but learn from them and
apply them to our situation today. And I might add, not only do
I believe our recalls were timely this summer, and I would add
that the CPSC worked very hard to execute these recalls on very
short notice. They did work evenings, they did work on weekends
and they did work over holidays to help us effect these fast-
track recalls. We had initiated a dialog with the Commission,
prior to this summer's recalls, to put in place a new system
that I believe will be gold standard for manufacturing
companies to take out these disputes of timeliness and to
automate a system and to make sure the Consumer Product Safety
Commission gets the information when they need it.
Mr. Rush. On the issue of time and timeliness, can you
comment on the recent reports in the press earlier this month
that stated that Mattel will disclose problems ``on its own
time table,'' and that the CPSC's enforcement practices are
``unreasonable.'' Should Congress interpret this as saying that
your company is above the law?
Mr. Eckert. That is not what I said.
Mr. Rush. That is not what you said.
Mr. Eckert. It is not in quotes. That is not how I feel.
And again, I believe our actions demonstrate the contrary. I am
sure you have faced situations, as have other Members of
Congress, where you might say something in a media report and
it comes back being something entirely different than what you
might have said.
Mr. Rush. I don't want to comment on that. Well, what did
you mean when you made those statements?
Mr. Eckert. I didn't make those statements in the body of
that interview.
Mr. Rush. You didn't make those.
Mr. Rush. Right.
Mr. Eckert. What I tried to communicate was what I
understand our requirements to be. First of all, I absolutely
understand the prompt notification requirement, that is, 24
hours to notify the agency when you have a reasonable
conclusion that a defect may pose, could pose a serious hazard.
What hasn't received as much attention is the provision in the
regulations which gives companies 10 business days or more to
determine if they have a reportable incident. For example, is
the product in distribution, what product is it and where is
it? We do use time, from when we first hear of a problem, to
make sure we know what products are involved. We go to the root
cause of the situation so that we recall the right products on
the right days.
Mr. Rush. Right. I have just a few more seconds and have a
couple of other questions. Mattel announced three recalls in
August and September. Are there any more coming?
Mr. Eckert. I certainly hope not, but I have learned never
to say never. And I said in my remarks, we are looking for the
needle in the haystack and if there is another needle in the
haystack, we will find it, if we at all can, and we will report
it in a timely fashion and we will have another recall. The
fact is the system worked, because we recalled these products.
Mr. Rush. Can you personally assure parents that the Mattel
toys that they might be considering buying for this upcoming
Christmas season for their children, can you assure them that
they will be safe?
Mr. Eckert. My No. 1 goal is to make sure that this holiday
season's toys are the safest ever.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the ranking member, Mr.
Stearns.
Mr. Stearns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Eckert, let me
just start from the beginning. How many products do you make
every year? How many toys do you make? What is the volume?
Mr. Eckert. We make roughly 800 million toys a year.
Mr. Stearns. And what percentage of those products have
been recalled?
Mr. Eckert. Due to lead paint, we have recalled about one
and a half million products here in the United States. It is
about one-half of 1 percent.
Mr. Stearns. OK, one-half of 1 percent.
Mr. Eckert. It is one-half of 1 percent.
Mr. Stearns. Yes. It is a very small percentage. And the
idea is that most of these recalls came from a certain area.
And where was that? They were manufactured in----
Mr. Eckert. They were manufactured in the southern part of
China.
Mr. Stearns. And this is not in the United States, the
recalls, they were products that were manufactured in the
southern part of China?
Mr. Eckert. That is correct.
Mr. Stearns. OK. And how many plants were involved?
Mr. Eckert. There were several different plants, five
different, what we call primary vendor plants out of the
roughly 37 or so vendors that we use in China, and then several
subcontractors of theirs.
Mr. Stearns. And it is your intent now to have
subcontractors in there working for you, testing, on a
statistical basis, these toys in the future to prevent this
from happening again?
Mr. Eckert. No, sir. Again, the rules are very clear to
prevent this from happening again. One, you can only use
certified paint from one of our eight certified suppliers that
have pigment tracing and have documentation on every can of
paint. Two, you must retest the paint before you use it, to
make sure it is good. Three, we now have auditors in every one
of these primary vendors every day of the week to watch what
they are doing. And four, for even more redundancy, we are
testing every batch of finished toys, samples from every batch
before they go to store shelves.
Mr. Stearns. Now, do you own these plants? Do you have 100
percent ownership of these plants?
Mr. Eckert. We do not. We own some plants. Of the toys we
make in China, about half of them come from Mattel plants and
half come from what we call vendor plants.
Mr. Stearns. The ones that were recalled, those plants, how
many of those plants did you own?
Mr. Eckert. None.
Mr. Stearns. None. So all of these are from plants you do
not own?
Mr. Eckert. That is correct.
Mr. Stearns. Do you have a 10 percent interest, a 50
percent interest?
Mr. Eckert. We have no interest. But with some of these
plants, we have had long relations.
Mr. Stearns. But how could you be sure that you are going
to be able to control the product in a company in southern
China that you have no ownership in, that is owned by ``the
communist government?'' How can you assure us that you are
going to have any control on any plant that you don't own and
you can't assure access to?
Mr. Eckert. Well, we do have access to all of those plants
and we are in those primary vendors every day and I think our
redundant level of tests provides assurance.
Mr. Stearns. But don't you think it would be better that
you own these? You say you own some plants in China.
Mr. Eckert. That is correct.
Mr. Stearns. OK. So wouldn't it be advisable for you to own
the plants where these problems were?
Mr. Eckert. I am not sure it is a question of who owns the
plants, it is: Are people following the rules?
Mr. Stearns. But the plants you own, you have had no
trouble with.
Mr. Eckert. That is correct, but again----
Mr. Stearns. So why not take the next logical step and say,
why don't we transfer this to plants we own, rather than plants
we have no ownership in?
Mr. Eckert. We are putting the same redundancies in the
plants that we do own. Again, I am not sure this is----
Mr. Stearns. So ownership is not a relevancy?
Mr. Eckert. I think what is important here is that our
people follow the rules and what got us into these recalls this
summer is that a handful of people violated our rules. They
circumvented the rules.
Mr. Stearns. I know, but you didn't own the plants, you had
no huge authority there, whereas, in the plants you own, you
did. So you are saying you are going to continue to manufacture
there and hope these subcontractors get in there and you have
no ownership in these plants, so I am not sure the guarantee is
there. Let me move along here. Why don't you manufacture these
toys in United States?
Mr. Eckert. We manufacture in markets outside of China.
First, we are one of the few toy companies that owns toy
facilities, toy-making facilities, and we manufacture in other
markets, including Malaysia, Thailand, Mexico, Indonesia.
Mr. Stearns. Are you manufacturing in China because it is
inexpensive?
Mr. Eckert. We have been manufacturing there since, I
believe, 1983.
Mr. Stearns. Yes.
Mr. Eckert. It is a good combination of quality, cost and--
--
Mr. Stearns. Inexpensive labor is primarily the reason,
wouldn't be?
Mr. Eckert. Not necessarily. We also have worked in China
for decades and had very high quality toys.
Mr. Stearns. You see a lot of Toyota or BMW come back in
the United States and they go into parts of the United States
where the standard of living is not as high as New York City,
Westchester County, Greenwich, Connecticut. Is it possible that
a lot of these companies where you manufacture in southern
China, you could come back in the United States and in some of
the regions of this country we could create jobs for Americans?
Mr. Eckert. We are always looking at where we manufacture
toys and we will continue to look. Since I have been at Mattel
for the last 7 years, we have rotated plants and made changes
several times and we will continue to do that.
Mr. Stearns. The last question, Mr. Chairman. How much of
this failure in this detection of the lead in paint is due to
fraud or to process failure?
Mr. Eckert. It is hard for me to answer. The investigation
is still ongoing. My sense is that some people made honest
mistakes and some carelessness. For example, when a vendor
outsources to a subcontractor a part, the requirement is the
vendor takes the paint that follows our rules and it goes to
the subcontractor with the part. I believe there may have been
instances where the paint went to the wrong place or not enough
paint went to the right place. That may be an issue. I also
believe there were clear cases of people intentionally
circumventing the system and those are the people we no longer
do business with.
Mr. Stearns. And I submit, Mr. Chairman, that a lot of
fraud did occur and without ownership of this, the possibility
of fraud could occur, so I think that is a relevant point.
Mr. Rush. His time is up. The Chair now recognizes the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Burgess, for 5 minutes of
questioning.
Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Eckert, I
thank you also for staying with us all day. It has been a
pretty long hearing. You may have heard me. It has been so many
hours ago, now you may have forgotten. When you do a product
recall, what do you do with all of the stuff that you get back?
Does the stuff come back to you?
Mr. Eckert. Yes. Not everything comes back, unfortunately,
which is why we work so hard with the CPSC, why we have taken
out advertising to announce the recalls, which, again, I
believe is unprecedented in our industry. We have been on
television with media interviews. We took out full-page ads in
newspapers. We bought advertising on Internet sites, like
Google and Yahoo, to make sure people were aware of it. When we
do get toys back, we quarantine them. We do not release them.
We do not export them. We do not ship them out of the country.
In the case of this summer, this is the first time we have had
lead paint on toys, so this is new to us. We are working with
environmental consultants to try to devise a plan to dispose of
them. I know one of the things we are looking at is can they be
used in cogeneration, complementing ingredients in cogeneration
or something like that. But we do not allow those products to
leave our control.
Mr. Burgess. Very well. So they are not going to end up in
a landfill or just burned in a regular furnace?
Mr. Eckert. No, they are not.
Mr. Burgess. What do we do to make sure that if you had a
product in the pipeline over in China, obviously, now that
pipeline is stopped, how do we be sure that someone doesn't,
before that product even gets to this country and gets under
your command and control, how are we sure that it is not
diverted and perhaps shows up on an eBay site? With the
interconnectivity that we have with the Internet today, you can
buy things from other countries. Are we doing anything to
monitor that? Or if someone in this country said, I better dump
my Tommy the Tank, or whatever it is, quickly and sell that on
eBay, is anyone----
Mr. Eckert. That is a concern. I don't know the answer. I
talked to a Senator just last week about that. It is a big
concern of mine. If someone were to take a toy that is not safe
for children and donate it to the Salvation Army or one of
those things, that to me is wrong and I don't know the answer
to how to prevent that, but I believe we should work and figure
out a way to do that.
Mr. Burgess. Now, Chairwoman Nord, when she was here, I
think testified that the current standard, acceptable standard
for lead in paint had to be less than 0.06 percent.
Mr. Eckert. Yes.
Mr. Burgess. I believe that is the figure that was quoted.
How high were the levels in some of the paint that you tested
that was ultimately found to be at risk?
Mr. Eckert. It varied tremendously. For example, I saw
media reports today of the toy that we identified in the letter
to the chairman and to the staff, that had 11 percent lead. On
that particular toy, the range was from 0.26 percent to 11
percent, depending on which product was sampled. But that was
the single highest number we got.
Mr. Burgess. Now, would the whole toy have been painted
with that?
Mr. Eckert. Not at all. No, what happens in this
particular, it was a stamp on the underside of a membrane, so
not exactly accessible in normal use and it is just that small
portion of the toy. In fact, in all of these toys, it is not
the big toy that is affected, it is some component. And when I
cite percentages, it is percentage of lead on the paint on that
small component. The average has been or a typical number has
been closer to 1 percent. It is still too high.
Mr. Burgess. Are you aware of any testing that has been
done on children who have been, say, in a household or an area
where they may have been exposed? Has there been any clinical
documentation that, in fact, this resulted in a higher than
expected lead level in children who may have been in an
environment where these toys were?
Mr. Eckert. No. In fact, I have read media reports
throughout this ordeal, that have suggested, from people who
are experts and--I am not a toxicologist and the like, that say
this really isn't a concern from a public health standpoint.
That being said, that is not my job.
Mr. Burgess. No. Right.
Mr. Eckert. My job is to get these toys back. They don't
meet our standards. It is not a question of how much. I want
the toys back.
Mr. Burgess. Yes, it would be interesting to see what our
water in these pitchers has as a concentration of lead, Mr.
Chairman. I tried to get Ed Markey to aim that little gun at my
pitcher, but he wouldn't do it. Ranking Member Stearns asked a
very good question. Why even manufacture overseas, because it
would seem to me, with all of the counterfeiting that goes on
nowadays and we sit everywhere, from pharmaceuticals to
Brittany Spears CDs. Don't you put your trademark at risk
somewhat by moving your production facilities overseas?
Mr. Eckert. We do manufacture in several markets. Almost
half of the toys we sell every year are not sold in the United
States, so we are a company that has operations in both sales
and marketing and manufacturing overseas.
Mr. Burgess. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think Ranking Member
Stearns also recognized that we are up to the Christmas selling
season, everything after July 17. I know, in the old days, if I
hadn't taken my Christmas lights down by July 17, I was early
for the next year and not late for the last year. So everything
that happens after July 17, now we are getting ready for the
next Christmas season. It just seems to me, with the volume of
toys that you expect to sell over the Christmas season in this
country, There has got to be people who are looking for a made
in America label on a product that they can believe. And you
heard my testimony earlier. I, for one, the only way I feel
that I have the control bringing an unsafe product into my home
is to not buy a product that is manufactured in a country where
the standards are so lax, and I have got to believe that other
people feel the same way. In fact, I have heard from a number
of my constituents during the town halls that we did during
August recess, that that was the case. So are you looking at
all to move manufacturing back into this country? As Mr.
Stearns suggested, there are lots of areas where this could be
considered and putting that made in America label, a little
American flag on the toy, I got to believe that would help
recover the branding process that you talked about.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman's time is up. The witness will be
allowed to answer this question.
Mr. Eckert. As I said earlier, we continue to look
regularly at where we make toys and what is made where and what
is made in our facilities and what is made in outside
facilities all over the world. We will continue to do that.
Mr. Rush. The Chair will allow one additional question from
each member who requested it. The Chair has one additional
question here. Mr. Eckert, I have heard the word certification
kind of bantered around the room. What do you mean by
certification and what kind of assurances will your
certification provide, and what is the process for the
certification to take place?
Mr. Eckert. If you are referring to the laboratories, that
hasn't been an issue. The issue isn't the test or the
procedures. The issue is products failed the test. My belief is
all toys, representative samples of all toys should be tested
in accredited labs. Outside parties can accredit the labs,
which the Toy Industry Association has recently proposed, have
outside parties accredit the labs and the sampling protocols
and I think that will add a level of assurance to consumers.
Mr. Rush. So are you suggesting, then, that each toy that
Mattel places on the shelves in the stores, that there will be
something to inform the buying consumer that this product has
been certified as safe?
Mr. Eckert. There may be something. I don't know. I think
the industry needs to look at that and others need to look at
that. But I do feel that I would like to see the entire toy
industry step up to the level of testing that we are doing.
Mr. Rush. The Chair recognizes the ranking member for an
additional question.
Mr. Stearns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Eckert, I am just
going to give you a chance to reply. During the opening
statements, members on that side indicated that staff was over
there in China and they were prevented from going into your
plants and the indication was that there was obstruction, there
was intentional hiding of the ability to have access to your
plants, and I thought I would give you an opportunity to
respond to some of the opening statements where they made this
claim against Mattel. Were you here? Did you listen?
Mr. Eckert. Yes.
Mr. Stearns. And I thought you might want to take an
opportunity to give your side of the picture.
Mr. Eckert. Well, as I said, I am aware of situations where
the staff didn't feel like they had adequate access. We tried
very hard to provide them access to our facilities, to our
testing labs. We have flown people in from California to here,
our lead investigator, to interview with the staff, but I am
not here to quibble about that. I am also aware that they
didn't feel like they got everything they needed. And so Mr.
Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, I am here to assure you, you
will get everything you need. I will try my very hardest to
accommodate that.
Mr. Stearns. Well, that is good to hear, Mr. Chairman. I
know my staff was in China, too, so I thought I would give you
that opportunity. Thank you.
Mr. Eckert. Thank you.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Burgess.
Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Probably not a
question, but I guess I will just conclude with a statement,
Mr. Chairman. I know I can't help but feel, as we sit here and
certainly not that I think that Mattel would necessarily be
involved, but I can't help but feel that we are just on the
verge of the cusp of yet one more round of bad headlines from
somewhere in this process and I just think it is so incumbent
upon each one of us. We have heard from the people from the
Consumer Product Safety Commission today and certainly this
committee takes its job very seriously. I know the Senate is
working on things as well. I just don't think there is enough
we can do to restore that consumer confidence. Mr. Eckert, I
will just tell you, my party used to be in the majority here
and a lot of us feel that one of the reasons we are no longer
is because our brand suffered and it is a real challenge to get
your brand back after your brand has been tarnished. So I
appreciate the job that you are up against and the work that
you have taken on and certainly wish you every success in that.
I would just end with, don't overlook the manufacturing
capability that exists right here. And Mr. Barton, I think,
pointed it out well. Texas has got a great workforce ready to
go make those toys for you and have them on the shelves by this
Christmas and we will even let you put a little Texas flag on
them and I think they will sell like hot cakes. I will yield
back my time.
Mr. Eckert. Thank you.
Mr. Rush. Again, the Chair wants to thank the witness for
his generous use of his time. We thank you for bearing with us
today, as we have conducted this hearing. I want the committee
members to be reminded that the record will remain open for 30
days in order to accept official statements for this hearing. I
want to also state that Chairman Dingell is detained in a
meeting at the Capitol and will submit written questions to
Mattel, for the record, and will appreciate a prompt response.
This concludes panel No. 2 and the committee, without
objection, will be recessed until tomorrow morning at 10
o'clock.
[Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to
reconvene at 10:00 a.m., Thursday, September 20, 2007.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.034
PROTECTING CHILDREN FROM LEAD-TAINTED IMPORTS
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2007
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade
and Consumer Protection,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:15 a.m., in
room 2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bobby L.
Rush (chairman) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Schakowsky, Gonzalez,
Hooley, Matheson, Stearns, Pitts and Burgess.
Staff present: Judith Bailey, Consuela Washington,
Christian field, Andrew Woelfling; Valerie Baron, Will Carty,
Shannon Weinberg, Brian McCullough, and Chad Grant.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Rush. The subcommittee hearing will come to order.
We want to thank our witnesses for appearing before us
today on this second panel for this hearing subject titled
``Protecting Children from Lead-Tainted Imports.'' I want to
take a moment to welcome again our witnesses and to invite them
to come to the witness table. Our witnesses are for this second
panel Dana Best, who is a fellow at the American Academy of
Pediatrics. Dr. Best is on the faculty of George Washington
University School of Medicine and attends pediatrics at
Children's National Medical Center in Washington, DC, Dr. Best,
please join us at the table. Thank you so very much for being
here.
Our next witness will be Ms. Olivia D. Farrow. She is the
assistant commissioner of the Division of Environmental Health
for the city of Baltimore. Ms. Farrow was instrumental in
drafting regulations banning lead in children's jewelry in
Baltimore. Welcome, Ms. Farrow.
The third witness is Mr. Michael Green. He is the executive
director for the Center for Environmental Health in Oakland,
California. The Center is a nonprofit organization that
promotes alternatives to toxic chemicals commonly used by
children and parents. Welcome, Mr. Green.
Our next witness on the panel is Ms. Mary Teagarden of
Global Strategy, Thunderbird School of Global Management in
Glendale, Arizona. Professor Teagarden has expertise in the
area of strategic management of technology and innovation and
strategic human resource management. Welcome, Ms. Teagarden.
And our final witness for today is Ms. Lori Wallach. She is
the director of Global Trade Watch located here in Washington,
DC Global Trade Watch is a division of Public Citizen and
focuses on issues surrounding globalization including jobs,
wages, the environment, public health, safety, social justice
and democratic accountability. That is a tall order, but thank
you and welcome to the hearing.
I will ask the witnesses if they have opening statements,
please take up the 5 minutes, no more than 5 minutes for your
opening statement, and we will begin from my left, your right,
with our first witness, Dr. Best.
STATEMENT OF DANA BEST, M.D., M.P.H., AMERICAN ACADEMY OF
PEDIATRICS
Dr. Best. Good morning. My name is Dr. Dana Best and I am
proud to represent the American Academy of Pediatrics at this
important hearing on lead in children's products.
Because of its widespread use, lead has been concentrated
in our environment where it poses a serious threat to
children's health. Lead cannot be identified easily even when
present at high levels in paint, dust or dirt, meaning that
children can be exposed without our knowledge. It is an
invisible poison.
Damage done by small amounts of lead may be hard to
measure and even harder to understand. Most children who
accumulate lead in their bodies do not have physical symptoms.
Instead, they suffer a wide array of negative effects including
cognitive, mood or behavioral and physical harm.
There is no safe level of lead exposure. The vulnerability
of children to lead poisoning during development of their brain
and nervous system has been amply demonstrated and the
literature is very consistent. On average, children whose blood
lead levels rise from 10 to 20 microgram per deciliter lose 2
to 3 IQ points. More recent studies have shown an even greater
impact on IQ of blood lead levels under 10 micrograms per
deciliter, a loss of 4 to 7 IQ points at that level.
Furthermore, the effects of lead do not stop once the
children's brain and nervous system mature or the blood lead
level falls.
Another important effect of lead exposure is on behavior
with higher rates of behavioral problems reported in teens and
adults exposed to lead during child during childhood. Children
with elevated lead levels are more likely to have problems with
attention deficit and reading disabilities and to fail to
graduate from high school. Investigators have identified
associations between lead exposure and increased aggression,
commission of crime and antisocial or delinquent behaviors.
Studies have suggested that several nations that began reducing
lead exposure aggressively in the 1970s experienced
corresponding decreases in crime two to three decades later.
Other effects include abnormal balance, poor eye-hand
coordination, longer reaction times and sleep disturbances.
Lead is easily absorbed by ingestion or inhalation. The
most common route of exposure of children is through ingestion,
usually by putting their hands or other objects in their mouth.
Studies using video to record hand in mouth or object in mouth
behaviors recorded 20 or more activities an hour--20 or more
times an hour that a child puts their hand or an object in
their mouth. If the dirt on their hands or the dust on the
floor contains lead, every one of those activities delivers a
dose. Since children absorb 5 to 50--that is five-zero--percent
of any lead that they ingest compared to adults who only absorb
5 to 15 percent, they are at high risk of lead poisoning every
single time they are exposed.
Once lead enters the body, it remains there for years.
Lead is similar to calcium from the elemental perspective. This
means that our bodies ``see'' lead as calcium, absorb it into
our blood as if it were calcium, and then store it in our bone
as if it were calcium. These stores of lead can be released
years later when bone changes occur or demand on calcium stores
are made.
In recent years, parents have found a new source of anxiety
regarding lead exposure: children's toys and other products,
particularly those imported from China. Since July 2006, the
Consumer Product Safety Commission has issued at least 11
recalls affecting more than 6.7 units of children's jewelry due
to lead content. Since 1998, CPSC has issued at least 29
recalls involving 157,962,000 pieces of toy jewelry due to high
lead levels. Other products recalled because of lead
contamination include game pieces, sidewalk chalk and art kits.
Consumers are acutely aware of recent recalls of popular toys
that contain lead paint, including Thomas the Tank, Barbie, and
Dora the Explorer. The risk of harm to children from these toys
is real. In 2006, a 4-year-old Minnesota boy died after
ingesting a small shoe charm that was later found to be 99
percent lead.
Mr. Rush. Dr. Best, your time is up. Would you please
conclude your testimony?
Dr. Best. In conclusion, the charm he ingested dissolved in
his stomach, releasing the lead into his bloodstream. To
protect the health of our Nation's children, non-essential uses
of lead, particularly in products to which children may be
exposed, must be prohibited. The American Academy of Pediatrics
recommends the following: (1) The CPSC should require all
products intended for use by or in connection with children
contain no more than trace amounts of lead. (2) The Academy
recommends trace amounts of lead be no more than 40 parts per
million, which is the upper range of lead in uncontaminated
soil. This standard would recognize that contamination with
minute amounts of environmental lead may occur but can be
minimized through good manufacturing practices. (3) Children's
products should be defined in such a way as to ensure it will
cover the wide range of products used by or for children. This
standard should cover toys intended for use by or with children
under the age of 12 years.
Mr. Rush. Thank you.
Dr. Best. Four: The limit on lead contact must apply to all
components of the item or jewelry and other small parts that
could be swallowed, not just the surface. Legislation or
regulations should limit the overall lead content of an item
rather than only limiting the lead content of its components.
Mr. Rush. I must apologize, Dr. Best, but we have to hear
testimony from the others. Would you please have one concluding
statement, please?
Dr. Best. It is important to note that while limiting lead
is an important aspect of guaranteeing the safety of children's
products, numerous other aspects of this issue should be
considered.
Mr. Rush. Thank you.
Dr. Best. There are no known safe levels of lead.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Best follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.047
Mr. Rush. Thank you so very much. I apologize but we must
move on.
Ms. Farrow, please.
STATEMENT OF OLIVIA D. FARROW, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DIVISION
OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, BALTIMORE CITY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Ms. Farrow. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rush. Before you begin, I just want to let all the
witnesses know that all your written statements will be for the
record. Your entire written statement will be in the record, so
I want to remind you of that. Thank you so much. Please begin.
Ms. Farrow. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Stearns and members of the committee. On behalf of the
Baltimore City Health Department, I would like to thank you for
this opportunity to testify on the need for stricter Federal
regulations to reduce exposure to lead hazards from lead-
tainted imports. My name is Olivia Farrow and I am the
assistant commissioner for environmental health for the
Baltimore City Health Department.
Lead poisoning is the most common environmental hazard
facing American children today. It is also one of the most
preventable. Children are frequently exposed to lead by
ingesting lead dust from deteriorating lead-based paint,
exposure from lead in soil, drinking water or lead-tainted
consumer products such as food and jewelry. While lead
poisoning can affect children across socioeconomic spectrum, we
have found that often exposure is concentrated in low-income
urban areas. In March 2006, a 4-year-old child in Minneapolis
died from lead intoxication after swallowing a piece of
children's jewelry that was sold with a new a pair of shoes.
In response to this tragic event, the Baltimore City Health
Department began testing samples of children's jewelry sold
within its jurisdiction. Our tests found excessive levels of
lead in children's jewelry in Baltimore. The products were
being sold in stores that operate throughout the country
including Clair's and Wal-Mart. To respond under the authority
of the Commissioner of Health, the Baltimore City Health
Department proposed and then promulgated regulations on
children's jewelry on December 7, 2006. The city regulation
requires that the Health Department collect monthly samples of
children's jewelry and test for lead content. In order to give
city retailers an opportunity to come into compliance, the
regulation initially banned children's jewelry containing more
than 1,200 parts per million. Effective September 1, 2007, we
further reduced the acceptable level of lead, banning all
children's jewelry with metal components containing in excess
of 600 parts per million. Once a product is found to contain an
excessive amount of lead, a violation notice is issued. The
notice declares all items of the same style and from the same
manufacturer to be a nuisance and orders the retailer to stop
sale within 24 hours. An owner can be charged with multiple
misdemeanor offenses and fined should he or she fail to comply
with the notice.
The city began the mandatory monthly testing of children's
jewelry in February of this year. Out of the 7 months we have
tested, we have found excessive lead levels in 4 of those
months. Our testing has revealed that the majority of the
products found with excessive levels of lead are sold in
discount stores that cater to a lower income clientele.
Furthermore, the majority of the samples of jewelry that are
found to be poisonous are ones that are sold for a dollar or
less. For example, in February 2007 the Health Department
collected a necklace and bracelet set for testing. The set was
made in China and purchased at a locally owned children's
discount store for $1. Both the necklace and bracelet were
found to contain approximately 2.4 percent lead by weight. In
March 2007, three rings that were manufactured in India and
sold in a city vending machine operated by Cardinal Novelty
tested approximately 5 percent lead by weight. Now, these exact
three rings were previously subject to a product recall in July
2004 by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Last month our
Health Department found that a Spiderman 3 ring which sold for
$1 contained 12.8 percent lead by weight. This ring was sold at
a Dollar Tree store and was imported from China.
Our experience in Baltimore city has proven that many of
these imported products are not adequately regulated by the
Federal Government. The failure of the CPSC product recall
system exemplifies the Federal Government's failure to protect
the public from imported goods. As I previously stated, the
CPSC recalled three rings in July 2004 because of high lead
content yet almost 3 years later, Baltimore city finds these
rings are still available for sale to the public. Cardinal
Novelty would have been free to continue to redistribute this
poisonous product had Baltimore city not enacted his
regulations.
A local jurisdiction's authority can only extend so far.
Federal agencies need to aggressively take the lead in
preventing the sale of these contaminated products. Current
Federal regulations are obviously insufficient in protecting
children from lead in imported products.
I would like to conclude by stating that this country has
made tremendous progress in the fight to eliminate childhood
lead poisoning but even one child poisoned is one too many and
stricter Federal regulations on products for children are
urgently needed. On behalf of Baltimore city's Health
Department and Mayor Sheila Dixon, I thank you for the
opportunity to offer comments today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Farrow follows:]
Statement of Olivia Farrow
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Stearns and members of the
committee, on behalf of the Baltimore City Health Department, I
would like to thank you for this opportunity to testify on the
need for stricter Federal regulations to reduce exposure to
lead hazards from lead-tainted imports. My name is Olivia
Farrow and I am the Assistant Commissioner of the Environmental
Health Division of the Baltimore City Health Department.
Lead poisoning is the most common environmental hazard
facing American children today. It is also one of the most
preventable. Children are frequently exposed to lead by
ingesting lead dust from deteriorating lead-based paint.
Exposure may also come from dirt that contains lead, drinking
water or lead-tainted consumer products such as food and
jewelry. While lead poisoning can affect children across the
socioeconomic spectrum, we have found that often exposure is
concentrated in low-income, urban areas.
On March 23, 2006, a 4-year old child in Minneapolis died
from lead intoxication after swallowing a piece of children's
jewelry that was sold with a new pair of shoes. In response to
this tragic event, the Baltimore City Health Department began
testing samples of children's jewelry sold within its
jurisdiction. Our tests found excessive levels of lead in
children's jewelry in Baltimore. The products were being sold
in stores that operate throughout the country, including
Claire's and Wal-Mart (Attached are the lab results).
To respond, under the authority of the Commissioner of
Health, the Baltimore City Health Department proposed and then
promulgated regulations on children's jewelry on December 7,
2006. (Attached is the final regulation).
The city regulation requires that the Health Department
collect monthly samples of children's jewelry and test for lead
content. In order to give city retailers an opportunity to come
into compliance, the regulation initially banned children's
jewelry containing more than 1,200 parts per million. Effective
September 1, 2007, we further reduced the acceptable level of
lead, banning all children's jewelry with metal components
containing in excess of 600 parts per million of total lead.
Once a product is found to contain an excessive amount of lead,
a violation notice is issued. The notice declares all items of
the same style and from the same manufacturer to be a nuisance
and orders the retailer to stop sale within 24 hours. An owner
can be charged with multiple misdemeanor offenses and fined
should he or she fail to comply with the notice.
The city began the mandatory monthly testing of children's
jewelry in February of this year. Out of the 7 months we have
tested, we have found excessive lead levels in 4 of those
months. Our testing has revealed that majority of the products
found with excessive levels of lead are sold in discount stores
that cater to a lower-income clientele. Furthermore, the
majority of the samples of jewelry that are found to be
poisonous are ones that are sold for a dollar or less.
For an example, in February 2007, the Health Department
collected a necklace and bracelet set for testing. The set was
made in China and purchased at a locally owned children's
discount store for $1. Both the necklace and bracelet were
found to contain approximately 2.4 percent lead by weight.
In March 2007, three rings that were manufactured in India
and sold in a city vending machine operated by Cardinal Novelty
tested approximately 5 percent lead by weight. These rings were
previously subject to a product recall in July 2004 by the
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).
Last month, our Health Department found that a Spiderman 3
ring, which sold for $1, contained 12.8 percent lead by weight.
This ring was sold at a Dollar Tree and was imported from
China.
Our experience in Baltimore city has proven that many of
these imported products are not adequately regulated by the
Federal Government. The failure of the CSPSC product recall
system exemplifies the Federal Government's failure to protect
the public from imported goods.
As I previously stated, the CPSC recalled three rings in
July 2004 because of high lead content. Yet, almost three years
later, Baltimore city finds that these rings are still
available for sale to the public. Cardinal Novelty would have
been free to continue to redistribute this poisonous product
had Baltimore city not enacted its regulations.
A local jurisdiction's authority can only extend so far.
Federal agencies need to aggressively take the lead in
preventing the sale of these contaminated products. Current
Federal regulations are obviously insufficient in protecting
children from lead in imported products.
I would like to conclude by stating that this country has
made tremendous progress in the fight to eliminate childhood
lead poisoning. But even one child poisoned is one child too
many. Stricter Federal regulation on products for children is
urgently needed.
On behalf of Baltimore city's Health Department and Mayor
Sheila Dixon, I thank you for the opportunity to offer comments
today.
----------
Mr. Rush. Thank you very much.
Mr. Green.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL GREEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding
these hearings and for this opportunity to testify.
For 10 years, the Center for Environmental Health has been
protecting children from lead poisoning and other hazardous
children's products. In this work, we primarily use a State
law, California's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement
Act, locally known as Proposition 65. We use this law as an
innovative tool to protect children and families not only in
California but throughout the country, often protecting
children from unnecessary exposures to toxic chemicals. In some
of our early work, we won legal agreements to eliminate lead
threats to children in diaper creams, children's medicines and
even home water filters that were leaching lead. We also won
agreements with dozens of makers of playground structures that
were made of arsenic-treated wood, eliminating threats to
children from cancer-causing levels of arsenic. In just the
past 2 years, we discovered lead threats to children and have
won legal agreements eliminating these risks in imported candy,
vinyl lunchboxes, vinyl baby bibs and in vinyl metal and
jewelry, among many other products. These are all children's
products.
In the process of uncovering these hazards and working to
get these products off the market, we have discovered that the
Consumer Product Safety Commission is paralyzed by a lack of
the political will to protect children. This lack of political
will has major consequences. We have seen the CPSC issue
misleading statements about the safety of a high-lead Disney
bracelet, like actually this one, and then take no action for
nearly 6 months. This Disney jewelry had painted pearls that
had lead content that was 275 times the legal limit for lead
paint. Eventually they recalled the item with little publicity.
We have seen the CPSC act in direct contradiction of the Food
and Drug Administration about lead hazards in vinyl lunchboxes.
The FDA said that it was reasonable to expect that lead from
lunchboxes would leach into kids' food while CPSC took no
action because the food might be wrapped. We have obtained CPSC
memos showing that the agency changed its test protocols so
that its testing of lunchboxes would find less lead. They
changed their protocols. We find this absolutely shocking. One
of these memos is copied in my written statement and I would
encourage you to look at that. And throughout all of these
incidents, the CPSC has relied on an outdated standard or
``acceptable'' lead exposures that ignore the vast body of
research over the last decade showing that even small lead
exposures are problems for children. For example, the CPSC
standard is 350 times higher, and therefore 350 times less
protective than the California standard under Proposition 65.
The lead problem in children's toys is a systemic problem.
Retailers push manufactures for ever lower prices. Their
priority is not the safest product but the cheapest products
possible, at least sometimes. Congress needs to turn that
priority around. The Center for Environmental Health recommends
Congress take the following steps to ensure that toys are just
toys and not exposures to toxic chemicals.
First, as a supplement to our work in lead in jewelry,
Congress should enact a comprehensive ban on lead in toys. For
toys, we recommend following the model of the Toxins in
Packaging Act already adopted by 19 States. This law requires
over a 4-year period that the concentrations of four toxic
metals, one of which is lead, be reduced to less than 100 parts
per million. Surely the toys that our children play with, chew
on and sometimes accidentally swallow deserve at least the same
level of safety as packaging materials.
Second, such legislation must hold distributors, retailers
and manufacturers accountable for the safety of the products
they sell through mandatory pre-market testing and strong
disincentives for violators.
Third, Congress should ensure that CPSC and other Federal
regulatory agencies are using testing and standards based on
the most up-to-date science.
Finally, we strongly urge that Congress ensure that CPSC is
adequately resourced to manage the massive task of protecting
children from hazardous products but we must also note that the
current problem at CPSC is not only a resource problem. Our
experience suggests that often the bias of current CPSC
leadership is to protect industry at the expense of the health
of America's children. CPSC is using unrealistic testing
procedures and outdated health standards. This could be
corrected with strong legislation. However, the evidence from
CPSC's own internal documents, which we got through a FOIA
request, that the agency modified its testing procedures to
reduce its estimates of lead exposure from children's
lunchboxes, demonstrates an extreme willingness of the current
CPSC leadership to put industry's convenience ahead of
children's health. This problem results not from a lack of
resources or statutory authority but from leadership decisions
that have failed to make children's health the first and most
important priority. Our children's health should not be a
partisan political issue like that, and I look forward to your
questions. Thank you for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Green follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.058
Mr. Rush. Thank you very much.
Ms. Wallach.
STATEMENT OF LORI WALLACH, DIRECTOR, GLOBAL TRADE WATCH
Ms. Wallach. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. On behalf of Public Citizen's 200,000 members, thank
you for the opportunity to discuss some of the root causes of
the serious safety problems with various imports including
toys.
I have four main points which are spelled out in my written
testimony, which I will summarize. First, the imported product
safety crisis has a root cause in U.S. trade policy, trade
pacts, and tax and other incentives that have promoted the
export of wide swaths of the U.S. manufacturing base to nations
with effectively no regulatory systems to ensure safety in
production while the trade agreements simultaneously impose
limits on import safety standards and inspection rates. Our
current trade agreements prioritize, ensuring the favorable
investment climate for U.S. firms seeking to relocate overseas
and then facilitating access for the things coming back over
consumer safety. That more than 80 percent of U.S. toys are now
made in China is not an inevitability or random. As the chart
on page 4 of my testimony shows, the production of toys
destined for the U.S. zoomed into production in China
immediately after Congress passed permanent normal trade
relations for China and China joined the WTO. Right there,
zoom, and the WTO provided investment protections, under the
Trade-Related Investment Measures cut tariffs and literally
facilitated the industry leaving. Prior to that, 1993, zoom,
NAFTA passes, immediately production moves to Mexico. The
choice of the U.S. toy industry to relocate production to low-
wage, under-regulated venues is one of those rare cause-and-
effect moments in the trade world where you can literally see
trade agreements, action. In 1993, before NAFTA, was the peak
of U.S. employment in the toy sector, 43,000 workers. Now it is
down 75 percent. The hemorrhage starts directly after the trade
agreements pass. Point 1.
Point 2: The safety of imported products is directly linked
to the lack of safety regulations in some of the offshore
venues where the toys are now being produced. Add to that the
laissez-faire attitude of the Consumer Product Safety
Commission and domestic safety policies that are still premised
on the notion that a lot of product is made here and not
overseas and the American public is left having to rely on
foreign regulatory systems to ensure the safety of the things
that are in our homes. Sadly, recent experiences highlighted
that many foreign regulatory systems are simply not up to the
task. With 80 percent of U.S. toys now coming from China, whose
regulatory structure has been likened by U.S. producers
operating there as the wild, wild east, the imported toy safety
problem is probably more pervasive than the recent recalls
show.
Point 3: Now, thankfully, Congress is seeking to address
the problem, but perversely, the same trade agreements that
have created the incentives that have led to the shift of
production to unsafe venues also impose limits on the safety
standards that can be imposed on imported products as well as
the amount of inspection. Most people are very surprised when
they learn that the actual trade between countries is only part
of WTO, NAFTA and other U.S. trade agreements. Those agreements
set regulatory constraints with which all countries must
conform their domestic laws. The binding provision in this
country shall ensure conformity of all domestic laws,
regulations and procedures with the trade agreement rules. The
agreement in the WTO that applies to toy safety is called the
Technical Barriers to Trade Agreements. The name says it all.
Any domestic regulation that might keep out a product because
it is unsafe is presumed to be a technical barrier to trade. If
the U.S. does not conform its domestic laws to the WTO rules,
the U.S. is subject to challenge. Amongst the rules: imported
and foreign goods must be treated the same. That means that
under WTO rules, imports are not allowed to be inspected at a
higher rate. All domestic laws are judged in a panel of trade
lawyers meeting in secret in Geneva as to whether they are
least trade restrictive, not most safety protective, and
whether or not they are an unjustified, unnecessary obstacle to
trade, very subjective standards. As well, the U.S. is required
to allow free passage into our country of toys made with
equivalent standards. If we do not conform these laws, we can
be challenged and we face trade sanctions if we do not change
them. China, as a WTO member, could challenge U.S. improvements
to toy safety unless also changes are made to our trade
agreement as well as the important changes to domestic policy.
So in conclusion, my testimony lays out a list of 10
particular changes to domestic law, particular changes needed
to our trade agreements to make sure Congress has the space to
make the domestic changes, and the final point is, right now
Congress is considering expanding this model, a NAFTA expansion
to Peru and Panama, and Public Citizen urges Members of
Congress not to make the problem worse by expanding our current
failed, unsafe trade model. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wallach follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.076
Mr. Rush. Thank you very much.
Ms. Teagarden.
STATEMENT OF MARY TEAGARDEN, PROFESSOR, GLOBAL STRATEGY,
THUNDERBIRD SCHOOL OF GLOBAL MANAGEMENT
Ms. Teagarden. Good morning. Thank you for inviting me to
speak this morning. I am really humbled and honored to be here.
I am a professor of global strategy at Thunderbird Graduate
School of International Management. I am a grandmother of small
boys who play with toys and I have been studying offshore
manufacturing in China and several other countries for over 30
years trying to understand how to do it well. I spend 20
percent of my time on the ground in China and it is from this
perspective that I am offering my comments.
Protecting children from lead-tainted imports brings our
attention to toys in China. I have several points to make
regarding lead-tainted imports. First, there are many factors
contributing to lead-tainted imports. Second, there are many
actions that China can take to help resolve the problem. Third,
there are many actions that importers can take to help resolve
the problem. Fourth, government has a very important role to
play in solving this problem.
Instead of simply blaming China, we must take a hard look
at what we can control. American big-box retailers and their
unrelenting pressure on suppliers for ever-lower prices bear
part of the responsibility in this problem. American importers
focusing on cost and investing in brand rather than quality,
supply chain integrity and product integrity bear part of the
responsibility. American parents and grandparents demanding
ever-lower-priced toys to respond to children's requests bear
part of the problem. And finally, American government's choice
to chronically underfund watchdog agencies like CPSC is part of
the problem.
China can certainly do a lot more to control the problem of
lead-tainted products. However, we don't control China. But we
must do our best to control us. There are many opportunities
for control within this complex commercial system. American
companies have played a major role in making China the workshop
of the world. These companies are behaving rationally. They are
playing by the rules of the game, focusing on profit and
growth. Wal-Mart might be the best example of this rational
behavior. They are the biggest big-box retailer and the world's
largest company. They squeeze their suppliers to lower costs.
Their suppliers in turn squeeze their suppliers to lower costs.
As a consequence, there is a risk of slippage, quality
slippage, use of inferior products and less supervision in the
manufacturing process among suppliers. Extending responsibility
for product compliance with U.S. laws to retailers would be an
important safeguard against lead-tainted imports.
In conversations I have had with Chinese officials, they
estimate that 50 percent of their exported products don't
comply with Chinese laws. We must insist that imports into the
United States comply with U.S. laws. China is large and
industrialization has grown at a mind-bogging pace. This makes
control harder. Lead-tainted products are fundamentally a
control problem. Companies must be held accountable for
compliance of products they sell in the United States.
Regulations governing imports are substantial and do an
adequate job addressing lead-tainted products but the system
relies on self-regulation and we have seen that self-regulation
doesn't work. Punitive fines or import sanctions for importers
that don't report problems immediately would drive faster
reporting and keep lead-tainted products off or our shelves.
The CPSC doesn't have enough people. A well-funded, adequately
staffed and robust inspection system is part of the solution.
There are many actions China can take to help resolve the
problem. We must encourage China to enforce their export
regulations. We must seek a government-to-government reporting
hotline to warn our Chinese counterparts about errant
manufacturers. We have to keep pressure on the Chinese
Government to help make positive progress on this issue.
Working with them instead of against them will bear fruit. We
have to realize that if we block imports from China, production
will shift to other low-cost countries. The problem is not
going to go away.
Companies can directly control the products through
testing. We should require importers to use independent testing
where risk for lead-tainted imports is high before the products
are shipped to the U.S. to prevent entry into our distribution
streams.
Finally, Government must fund oversight agencies to enable
an appropriate level of inspection, given the proliferation of
imported goods sold in the United States. And the CPS should
continue to identify and sanction companies that import lead-
tainted products. I encourage the Commission to look at the
entire system to understand where there are opportunities for
improvement. Learning from this assessment should be shared
with industry to help everyone get better. Surely business and
government working together can solve this problem.
My grandsons, Mike and Evan, would thank you all for your
efforts in making these things happen, and I thank you for the
opportunity to provide my testimony on this important topic.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Teagarden follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.087
Mr. Rush. Thank you very much. I want to announce, there is
a vote that is occurring on the floor right now. We have 5
minutes to get over and vote. There are three votes, so it
probably involves a half an hour, so we will recess for about a
half an hour and return for questioning by the committee as
soon as the vote is over with, so please forgive us. We are
going to stand in recess until the completion of the vote.
Thank you.
[Recess.]
Mr. Rush. I will state to the witnesses that we thank you
so much for your patience. I am going to recognize myself for 5
minutes of questioning, and I will begin with Ms. Farrow.
Ms. Farrow, you state that the majority of children's
jewelry with excessive lead is found in discount stores with
lower-income clientele. Are any of these discount stores chain
stores? Can you provide us with a list of the stores where you
have found this poisonous jewelry?
Ms. Farrow. Yes, Mr. Chairman, many of them are chain
stores. I can provide the committee with a list today if you
would like.
Mr. Rush. Yes. With your oral testimony, can you provide us
with a----
Ms. Farrow. Of the products that we found positive,
Clair's, Wal-Mart, the Children's Place. Those are chains.
Dollar Tree and another Dollar Tree and then the vending
machine rings, they were found at a Foodarama. However, the
distributor, Cardinal Distributing, vends product throughout
the State of Maryland.
Mr. Rush. Did your research locate any Dollar General
stores or do you know, Dollar General, do they own any of the
other discount stores?
Ms. Farrow. We have not found any at a Dollar General at
this time. We have been to Dollar Tree stores, which are a
national chain.
Mr. Rush. Thank you very much. The Chicago Department of
Public Health has found imported Mexican candy in stores
throughout Chicago that had high lead content in the wrapper.
Has your city, the city of Baltimore, does it have similar
problems?
Ms. Farrow. Yes, back in December 2005, we conducted a
random survey of some of the stores in the Hispanic community
and we did find some products that were high. We referred it to
the FDA and they conducted testing and did find that some of
the candy and products were high lead.
Mr. Rush. Is this the candy or the wrappers?
Ms. Farrow. Well, this was the candy itself.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Green, is there any reason that there should
be lead in vinyl baby bibs or vinyl lunchboxes?
Mr. Green. The short answer is absolutely not. So why is
there lead in vinyl? There is lead in vinyl for two reasons.
One reason may be, vinyl is a junk plastic. PVC and vinyl are
the same thing. It is a junk plastic and it has all these
different chemicals and then it needs something to hold all
those chemicals together, and the thing that holds it all
together is usually a metal. More often than not when it is
manufactured, especially here in the U.S., that metal is tin,
organotin. Sometimes especially when standards are not as high,
they will use a more toxic metal, cadmium or lead. So the first
reason that it would be in there is as what is called a
stabilizer, to hold all of the different chemical constituents
together and you can do it with tin just as easily, so that is
the first reason. The only other reason there would be lead in
vinyl besides some kind of contamination that was unintentional
is in the pigment. So obviously we have gone through this lead
paint story, culminating in 1978 with the ban in lead paint.
There is no problem with having pigments that don't contain
lead. So the two reasons there would be lead in there are both
very easily solved and are usually solved. I also just want to
say real quickly about the candy from Mexico----
Mr. Rush. That was going to be my next question to you.
Mr. Green. The Center for Environmental Health, and then
later joined by the California attorney general, brought suit
against a subsidiary of Hershey's, a subsidiary of Mars and
then a large Mexican-owned company for this problem. We found
that the two principal sources of the lead were paint on the
wrapper sometimes, and then drying the chiles that are actually
in the candy near a generator that is burning leaded gasoline
in Mexico. Then it basically lands on it, which is an easy
thing to solve. You dry the chiles, inside, or not with a
generator with lead nearby, at least. So I just wanted to sort
of give that information.
Mr. Rush. Is this problem more apparent in U.S. communities
with high Hispanic population? And my second part of this
question is, is this something that the general American public
and particularly Hispanic citizens should be concerned about as
we head into the Halloween season?
Mr. Green. Yes. One of the concerns that we got from
Hershey's and Mars' subsidiaries and this third large company
was, well, if we fix our problem and there continues to be
smaller companies still have these same problems, the drying of
the chiles or the paint on the wrappers, if we come to an
agreement with you, Mr. Attorney General, and you, the Center
for Environmental Health, what is going save our brand from
continuing to be criticized as this is found, and so we came to
an agreement. As part of the agreement, they would help fund
their smaller competitors to address these problems, which is
very creative. But I am skeptical about how well it will--I
think things will continue to slip through the cracks on this
issue unfortunately. That is the first thing. And then the
second part of your question is, there is definitely a
disproportionate impact on Latino children from this problem.
Mr. Rush. Thank you.
Mr. Stearns.
Mr. Stearns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Best, what is the naturally occurring levels of lead in
the body for adults and children, if there is a difference?
Dr. Best. Naturally occurring is probably a misnomer. In an
environment where we don't have contamination, the natural
level, the normal level of lead would be zero.
Mr. Stearns. What is it in the average adult?
Dr. Best. In the United States?
Mr. Stearns. Yes.
Dr. Best. I can give you the median level of----
Mr. Stearns. Yes, that is fine.
Dr. Best. OK. This is a level for children. As a
pediatrician, those are the numbers that I think about. It is
in the 1.2 to 2.0 microgram per deciliter level.
Mr. Stearns. What is that in terms of parts per million
like we have here? We have someone advocating 100 parts per
million.
Dr. Best. Well, that is difference between biological and--
--
Mr. Stearns. Can you give me a----
Dr. Best. I might. I can tell you that it translates----
Mr. Stearns. What I am trying to see, if I give a toy to a
child and it has 600 parts per million, is it possible that
child already has 600 parts per million in his system?
Dr. Best. Yes, and that is one of the concerns we have is
that lead isn't just a one-time acute event, it is an
accumulation, so the lead you got from your toy and the lead
you got from the paint----
Mr. Stearns. Can you just approximate in your mind an
average adult and an average child today, how much lead do they
have in their body, parts per million?
Dr. Best. No, I can't do it in parts per million because we
don't measure it in that way. The parts per million translated
into what is in your bloodstream, it is like an apple and
orange measurement.
Mr. Stearns. You just can't say parts in the bloodstream,
it is so much. You can't do that then?
Dr. Best. I can't.
Mr. Stearns. I understand that. I appreciate that. One
other question is, you look at all the adults, some of them are
living to 95 and 100, and how did they escape this lead
poisoning when growing up with lead-based gasoline we had in
this country for many, many years, lead-based paint until 1978.
We had lead pipes in our plumbing and so we had all this lead
that was omnipresent. How did these people grow up and----
Dr. Best. We didn't escape it.
Mr. Stearns. So you are saying you think----
Dr. Best. I think I would have been a lot smarter.
Mr. Stearns. Here you have got an M.D., a Master's in
public health. I am not sure what----
Dr. Best. Just think of what I could have done.
Mr. Stearns. What is an FAAP?
Dr. Best. I am a fellow of the American Academy of
Pediatrics.
Mr. Stearns. Well, you are pretty smart as it is. But you
see, my point is that we have eliminated the lead in the paint,
we have eliminated it out of the pipes, we have eliminated it
out of the gasoline and now we are just talking about just 100
parts per million so----
Dr. Best. Well, the point that I think is important to
bring out is that as we have eliminated these kind of gross
sources, meaning gross as a large source of environmental lead,
we have lowered the lead level in our population, and that is a
great thing because we have less renal disease, we have lower
blood pressure because of that, we are smarter.
Mr. Stearns. Maybe a longer life span?
Dr. Best. Longer life span and because it is a gene-
environment-education kind of mixture, it is hard to point out
which of that contribution was lead. But we know that as we
have decreased the level of lead in our bodies, we have also
found that even though we keep lowering the level of lead to
which we pay attention, it still is harmful, even below what is
now currently the level of concern.
Mr. Stearns. OK. Let me move on. Mr. Green, I was on C-SPAN
talking about this the other day and a lot of people were
calling in, should I throw out all my toys that are in my
closet that have possibly lead or lead paint. What is the
proper disposal that should be done of these toys? Just
quickly, and then I have a question for Ms. Wallach. Go ahead.
Mr. Green. Well, first of all, no one has really looked at
this so that question needs to be solved, but if it is a high
level, then the right thing to do would be to take it to the
local hazardous waste facility that you would take paint that
is in your garage or the computer that is in your garage.
Mr. Stearns. Your testimony described the CPSC leadership
as simply political appointees who are protecting industry. Do
you have any evidence of this or is this purely your opinion?
Mr. Green. It is my opinion and I have evidence.
Mr. Stearns. Ms. Wallach, do you believe the United States
should ban all imports of toys from China? Why or why not? If
so, from what other countries should we not allow toys?
Ms. Wallach. I think that we need to do two things. We
either need to keep out toys produced in countries that don't
have safe regulatory regimes or we need to figure out a system
to make sure that the way things are being produced overseas
are safe and they don't get into our market in the first place
because recalls only get a small part of it, and we could go
either way. And in part, it is going to rely on the decision of
Congress, what your judgment is, is the most efficacious. In
the short term, should there be a ban on all lead in toys
coming from anywhere? Absolutely. If in fact there are rules,
for instance, new authority to have inspection overseas, which
I think is going to be necessary in countries that don't have
strong regulatory systems of their own, then you are going to
give that authority, you are going to try and get the act
cleaned up, you are going to have more inspection on the
border, I hope. But then if that doesn't work, yes, we are
going to have to consider what products are the highest risk
products that we shouldn't be importing and it would be a real
tragedy if between improved government regulation, U.S.
industry action and Chinese Government action we couldn't clean
up the situation.
Mr. Rush. Thank you.
The gentleman from Utah is recognized for questioning.
Mr. Matheson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, Ms. Teagarden, I wanted to ask you, in your written
testimony I think you mentioned you have spoken with officials
in China who estimate that 50 percent of their exported
products do not comply with existing Chinese law. I was
wondering if you could tell me who these folks in Chinese,
these officials work for. Do you know which agencies they work
for that you talked to?
Ms. Teagarden. The only reason that you get that kind of
disclosure is with expectation of confidentiality, and with all
due respect, I couldn't remember their names if I tried but----
Mr. Matheson. Well, let me ask you this. Do you know what
types of products they are referring to when they estimate the
50 percent noncompliance?
Ms. Teagarden. The discussion was wide-ranging. We looked
at a wide range of manufactured products, not specifically
toys, a wide range of products.
Mr. Matheson. Do you know if they have taken any steps
within the country to reduce this rate of noncompliance?
Ms. Teagarden. If you read the Chinese media, the Chinese
Government has been quite aggressive relative to historical
behavior in trying to bring these issues into compliance.
Mr. Matheson. Do you know of any particular steps they have
taken to reduce this noncompliance?
Ms. Teagarden. They have arrested people. They have
executed people.
Mr. Matheson. All right. Let me ask you this. I will try a
new line of questioning.
Ms. Teagarden. The 35-cent solution.
Mr. Matheson. In your testimony, you talk about a need for
more inspectors in the Consumer Product Safety Commission. I
think that there is general consensus that that is appropriate.
Do you think that the commission--do you have recommendations
for any expanded authority within the CPSC to address the toy
safety issue?
Ms. Teagarden. I don't have expertise there. What I would
look at is the provision of more people making sure that
companies are doing what they say they are doing.
Mr. Matheson. I guess I would ask Mr. Green, do you have
thoughts about should there be expanded authority of the CPSC?
Do you have thoughts about that?
Mr. Green. I do think that we need to expand the authority
of the CPSC while also increasing their budget and while----
Mr. Matheson. And how would you expand the authority? Do
you have thoughts on that?
Mr. Green. Well, a lot of it is about political will of
using some of the authority they already have but I have spoken
about that. I have some stuff in my written testimony about
this. But the most important thing is to give them some more
specific authority on lead, less ambiguous authority to deal
with lead in a way that all the other agencies are looking at
it so right now they are saying well unless it is in paint, we
don't have any authority over that. Well, that doesn't
necessarily make sense if a child is chewing on something, for
example.
Mr. Matheson. Right. That is helpful.
I want to ask a question of Ms. Farrow. In your testimony
you raised the issue about you found toy jewelry 3 years after
it was subject to the recall process.
Ms. Farrow. That is correct.
Mr. Matheson. And you raised the issue about the adequacy
of the Federal Government regulating imported toy jewelry. Do
you have thoughts about what else the CPSC can do to assist
local government agencies in improving the safety and the
recall process?
Ms. Farrow. Well, I think if the CPSC would notify the
local jurisdictions that a recall has occurred and then maybe
seek our assistance in making sure that the product is
destroyed and permanently removed from trade.
Mr. Matheson. And do you feel like we need to make
improvements on that?
Ms. Farrow. Yes, clearly we have that example of this
product that was sitting in a backroom somewhere for 3 years
and then placed back out in the marketplace.
Mr. Matheson. OK. Mr. Chairman, that is all the questions I
have. I will yield back. Thanks.
Mr. Rush. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts, for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Pitts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Best, we understand that children can ingest lead, they
can swallow chips of paint. Would licking a toy be enough to
ingest or absorb lead to affect increase in blood lead level?
Dr. Best. It is a hypothetical question. I will give you a
hypothetical yes. The issue that we almost universally
encounter is lead dust. It is on the floors and on children's
hands and on toys, so that is an important issue about licking
items. It would depend on how bioavailable the lead is, whether
the paint had been chipped or harmed, if there was paint on the
outside, if the item had been chewed on before and had
deteriorated in a way so that lead was available.
Mr. Pitts. And what are the procedures for treating someone
with too much lead in their blood?
Dr. Best. It depends. The first step is to make sure that
continued exposure does not happen. That means you need to
remove the source of lead or the child from the source of lead,
whichever is more appropriate. If the child is living in a
lead-painted house, we remove the child from the house. If the
child has swallowed a lead charm, we remove the charm from the
child. Then depending upon the level of lead, we will make sure
that they are nutritionally adequate so that they have a good
source of calcium and iron and vitamin C in their diet so that
they don't continue to absorb more lead from whatever other
sources there are in their environment. And then finally, if it
is above a certain level, we will institute chelation, which is
a medical procedure that reduces lead, although it has its own
consequences.
Mr. Pitts. Are you aware of any children that have become
injured or sick by this summer's recalled toys with lead paint?
Dr. Best. No, I am not, but my pediatric practice is local.
Mr. Pitts. Ms. Farrow, roughly how many products made with
lead are in a typical person's home today? How much lead is a
person exposed to in their own home from products made with
lead?
Ms. Farrow. Well, clearly in older homes that were built
prior to 1978, the primary exposure is from the lead paint in
the home. As far as products, I think at this point it might be
hard to determine. We haven't tested all the products, all the
children's toys. They are not all being tested. Maybe Mr. Green
might have a better idea.
Mr. Pitts. Go ahead.
Ms. Farrow. There are toys, vinyl products, potentially as
we've identified earlier, potential candies, other food
products.
Mr. Pitts. And what can be done about those products, older
products that are still in circulation, or in the home?
Ms. Farrow. Well, I think it is a matter of getting the
word out to communities that products can potentially be
poisonous but the key is really identifying what those products
might be and providing testing and scrutiny of all the products
that are out there in the marketplace.
Mr. Pitts. Mr. Green, did you want to add something?
Mr. Green. Well, I was just going to say that more often
than not, these are cheaper products and frequently products
made out of vinyl, out of PVC, and so I think that parents--and
we already talked about how to dispose of them but parents, if
they are concerned and they really want to go to the mat and do
everything they can, could basically take all products that are
made for their children to play with that are made out of PVC
vinyl and get rid of them.
Mr. Pitts. Now, Mr. Green, you said that you felt the CPSC
leadership were political appointees who are protecting
industry, that you thought you had evidence. Do you think the
record recalled number of products this year is evidence of
them protecting industry?
Mr. Green. Thanks for that question. That is a good
question. So first of all, I didn't say that they always do. I
just said that there have been situations where we have seen
that, and then for the previous question, in my written
testimony there is some very specific evidence including a
document that we received from a FOIA request, sort of the
proverbial smoking gun related to the lunchboxes about that. As
far as the question about the increased number of recalled
items, I think that we also have to look that the world has
changed and so globalization is causing increasingly large
number of the products that are for sale in the U.S. to be made
in places that don't have the sort of American regulatory and
enforcement provisions to ensure that there are not toxic
materials or dangerous aspects to products. And so I think that
it would be only natural as there is more international trade
for us to have more dangerous products in the U.S. because our
standards are currently higher--safety standards.
Mr. Pitts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rush. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Oregon,
Ms. Hooley, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Hooley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Best, as you
stated in your testimony, there are no safe levels of lead for
children. Does this mean that you think the CPSC's limit on
lead paint to 600 parts per million is insufficient?
Dr. Best. I do.
Ms. Hooley. And what would you have it in?
Dr. Best. I want to sure I get my decimal point correct.
Yes, 40 parts per million in any component of the item.
Ms. Hooley. Do you know how CPSC came up with that figure,
600 parts per million?
Dr. Best. I believe that they divided a dose of lead that
can be attributed to a specific rise in blood lead, a dose of
external lead into your blood, and then divided that by enough
lead to cause a loss of 1 IQ point, and I actually I have that
written down. It is a fairly convoluted structure but we can
show it to you.
Ms. Hooley. Thank you. Dr. Best and Mr. Green, a question
for both of you. Are you aware that there are water hoses, some
with or without warning labels, that if you actually put the
water through them, they are producing a high level of lead
than you would get from your faucet if you had lead in your
pipes? And that is the water sometimes we drink out of that
hose or give our children a drink out of that hose or we water
our fruits and vegetables. Can you talk to me about that and
how important that it and do we need to do something about it?
Dr. Best. Well, the good news is that vegetables don't
absorb lead out of the water as well as humans do, for
instance. So washing your vegetables or growing your garden
using water from that hose is less of a concern. I am not going
to say it is no concern but----
Ms. Hooley. But less of a concern.
Mr. Best. The other news is that you really shouldn't be
drinking out of your hose because there is lots of other things
besides lead including some phthalates and other things that we
know are harmful.
Mr. Green. The Center for Environmental Health came to an
agreement with hose manufacturers, the largest hose
manufacturers, the ones that were selling in California, and
the agreement basically said that they had to comply with the
California Toxics Act and they have chosen to comply in one of
two ways: Either to reduce the lead to such a low level, to an
extremely low level or to put a warning on it. Obviously we
were trying to encourage them to just eliminate the lead and
the reason the lead is in there is because the hoses are made
out of vinyl and so they are sourcing vinyl sometimes that have
lead in them and in my opinion is not nearly as dangerous a
health hazard as jewelry or bibs or lunchboxes because it is
not designed for a child to use it on a regular basis. However,
when the sun sits on the hose and like in my yard where I got
one of those little handles at the end, the water sits in there
in the sun, the vinyl breaks down and the lead dust that Dr.
Best described goes into the water and then the kids play in
the yard and they get thirsty and they drink out of the hose.
That possibility does exist.
Ms. Hooley. I understand, for any of the panelists, that
some western European countries like Germany have dealt with
the issue of dangerous substances in products more effectively.
Do any of you have any knowledge of what is happening in other
countries? You can volunteer, any one of you.
Mr. Green. At the risk of monopolizing the conversation, my
Treo would be illegal in the E.U. so they are making a
different Treo for the EU that doesn't have the heavy metals
that this one has, as an example. I have an example here in my
pocket so I am sharing it with you.
Ms. Wallach. And to that end, the Europeans have gone
through a process of finding a whole new regulatory system for
toxics. Its acronym is REACH, and gruesomely, the United
States, has been one of the countries that has threatened to
drag that new standard for raw toxics, not just in toys, to the
WTO as an illegal trade barrier. So there are a set of memos
that came out of the State Department during the period of
Colin Powell as Secretary of State that lay out orders
basically of our all our embassies in Europe as well as various
memos describing how their improvement in the toxic exposure
would be a violation of the World Trade Organization's
Technical Barrier to Trade Agreement. We threatened in what is
called a demarche, which is before you file the actual suit, we
threatened a WTO suit and they weakened that standard though
they are starting to implement the weakened version so it is a
rollback. It is a chilling effect already without a challenge
and we are still apparently--the U.S. Trade Representative's
office is still chewing on the idea of going after that because
it is a better standard. The Treo would be bad and there are a
whole set of products--now there are two scales of production,
one for the U.S. market and one for Europe, to meet these
standards that are higher safety.
Ms. Hooley. Mr. Chairman, do I have time for one more
question, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Rush. Mr. Gonzalez is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman
My first observation, and I appreciate what Mr. Green said.
He said the world has changed and I am afraid we are still
dealing when it comes to safety of products with a design and a
model that is outdated but I am going to cover something that
was discussed yesterday as to what the CPSC is doing regarding
the issue at hand. The other observation I have is simply, I
understand the interests of lead levels and maybe other sources
but we are where we are and I think that we don't have to
debate the fact that lead is bad and the best test of that is
whether a manufacturer or a retailer of a product containing
lead, would they purchase it and allow their children or their
grandchild to use it. I think that is always the test, and I
guarantee you, the answer to that would be no.
But yesterday Chairman Nord indicated the following:
I am pleased to report that we reached an important
agreement with AQSIQ, which is the counterpart in China of the
CPSC, under which China will immediately implement a plan to
eliminate the use of lead paint on Chinese manufactured toys
exported to the United States. They are going to make sure
there is no lead in the paint through inspections of U.S.-
destined toys and a certification system for paint suppliers.
When I asked her, is that realistic because we don't have
any oversight, we have no inspectors, we are not going to have
anyone over there assisting the Chinese or maybe even looking
over their shoulder as to whether they are really complying
with the terms of this particular agreement? So very briefly, I
would like the witnesses to tell me whether this is realistic.
I am not criticizing Chairman Nord. I think she inherited what
she has inherited by resources and through authority and she is
going to do the best she can under the circumstances. We are
going to be introducing legislation that may address some of
the shortcomings.
The second point, and I want, again, even though I am going
to cite the testimony of a couple of the witnesses, I want the
other witnesses to also chime in on what I believe is so
important, and that is the shared responsibility of different
sectors in addressing the problems, whether is lead or other
unsafe products, and that is the role of the manufacturer and
their liability, the retailer and their liability and of course
just good consumer due diligence, and I think some of the
witnesses may have touched on that in their testimony. But what
I want to point out is the comment here, first of all, I
believe it is Mr. Green in his summary
Second, such legislation must hold distributors, retailers
and manufacturers accountable for the safety of the products
they sell through mandatory pre-market testing and strong
disincentives for violators.
I have got Ms. Teagarden, I believe
Direct responsibility for product quality would encourage
retailers to focus beyond relentless cost pressure to product
quality. Extending responsibility for product quality to
retailers would be an important safeguard against lead-tainted
imports.
So the first question is what Chairman Nord has put in
place as far as the international agreement, and secondly,
where do we get the manufacturer and the retailer to share some
of that responsibility and why do you think that they are not
doing that at the present time? And we will start with Dr.
Best.
Dr. Best. As a medical professional, I must admit that that
is not my field of expertise but I can say that there is no
reason for lead to be in any product. It is used in a product
because it is cheaper than its alternative or because of lack
of knowledge, so I would hope that our standard is set very
high no matter what the source is.
Ms. Farrow. I would say that despite what China may or may
not do in the future, we still need to have some type of
regulatory framework here in the United States to actually
inspect the product as it enters this country because even
though China might say they are stepping up, we have got to
make sure that we can close any kind of loophole that might be
there. Clearly we have identified the problem. The product has
been identified by CPSC and they still allow the product to
remain on the marketplace, in the marketplace, and there has
got to be a better mechanism for destroying, destructing the
property that the toys, jewelry, other products that are found
to contain lead and I think we just need to step up our
enforcement on our border.
Mr. Gonzalez. Mr. Green?
Mr. Green. In regard to the first question, it is my
understanding that last week on the Senate side, one of the
Senators said that he had been told by a Chinese
representative, oh, we have already been doing what is in that
new agreement for years. So that is hearsay but it is at least
a good source. And then so that implies that it is not
necessarily a very optimistic opportunity. It is not
necessarily, OK, we got a done deal here. Second thing about
that is that it is not just about China. In fact, the largest
recall, the 150 million pieces of the very, very cheap jewelry
that was in the gumball machines, that that recall happened
just a month after the Center for Environmental Health, 2
months after we sued some of the other jewelry manufacturers
and sellers, those were all made in India. So I think we can't
necessarily only say oh, the problem is China. Actually the
problem is us. We are responsible for protecting our kids. And
then as far as the second half of your question, what can we do
about whether retailers, what their role is, so it shouldn't be
the place of a small nonprofit like the Center for
Environmental Health to have to bring litigation against these
large retailers. It should be the place of government to hold
the retailers accountable because these very large retailers
have the resources to check out what is happening, what they
are selling, and they should be held accountable for what they
are selling.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you.
Mr. Rush. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas,
Mr. Burgess, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Best, I actually very much appreciated your comments
about what you could have been had there not been lead in the
gasoline. I struggled with that question myself for the last 24
hours since I read your testimony, and maybe I would have been
smart enough not to run for Congress. But nevertheless, you
made a statement somewhere along the line, there is no reason
for any lead to be in any product, and certainly a standard
that perhaps we should strive for. In fact, you have been very
specific in your prepared testimony of what you outlined as a
definition of a trace amount of lead and how we should strive
to make there were no more than trace amounts of lead. You are
here in the committee room. You have got probably the most
powerful subcommittee chairman in a sitting committee in the
Western world today in Mr. Rush. What would you instruct Mr.
Rush, how would you achieve this ideal? The other
recommendations you have down here, they don't seem as
substantive as the first two, defining the trace amount and
recommending that there be no more than a trace amount. So how
if you were going to guide our chairman as to how to craft the
legislative product to end up with that ideal or even maybe to
put it more simply, if you could have your wish as an ideal
legislative product, how would you advise Chairman Rush to
proceed?
Dr. Best. That we set the internal and external standards
for products to be defined very broadly for children, that we
not just limit things to the younger children for whom the
product is intended but that we remember that a 12-year-old
probably has a 6-year-old or a 3-year-old sibling and those
siblings want nothing more than to play with the 12-year-old's
toys. I would set the standard high in terms of age and be very
broad in terms of what is a children's product, meaning not
just toys or jewelry that is intended for children, but car
seats and easels and many, many other products. One of the
things that is wonderful about children is they are very smart
and they are exploring. They explore through their mouths and
their hands and they ingest lead that is absolutely not
intended to be ingested.
Mr. Burgess. So you would make the criteria quite stringent
but again, as far as developing the product that would then
cover things made in this country, things made in other
countries, the air we breathe. Where is the greatest return on
investment for Chairman Rush's legislative work on this?
Dr. Best. In terms of the greatest return on health, which
I think is what we are all looking for, is that I would make
sure that when we think about products now from a global
market, that every item that we allow into our country or allow
to be sold in our country be acceptable to my own child or my
own grandchild. I think that is the best standard of care that
we can give. The children in China don't need any lead in their
products any more than the children here.
Mr. Burgess. Let me ask you this, and I am certainly not an
expert in this, and my only background knowledge is the
knowledge I have gleaned from reading journals like the
Washington Post, but it is my understanding that lead content
in our city water--you list a Washington address on our witness
sheet--our tap water here in Washington, DC--in fact, we have
signs posted in the restrooms, don't drink the water, which is
kind of a strange sign to see in the bathroom but we have to be
concerned about things like our city water supplies?
Dr. Best. Absolutely.
Mr. Burgess. What is the level of lead in our city water
here in Washington, DC?
Dr. Best. I don't know what it is now. I know that we had a
problem with it starting in 2002. I think that----
Mr. Burgess. I arrived in 2003 and I remember being advised
to get a water filter.
Dr. Best. Right, and the problem there was similar in that
the regulatory and--the rules were there but they weren't
followed, and that is the same problem we are having now is,
the rules, they are not the best rules that I think we should
get but the existing rules weren't even followed. And so I
can't tell you what is in the water in the city tap. I do know
that the city also has said that it has improved but I am not
going to----
Mr. Burgess. Yes, and that is part of what is bothering me
intellectually about this. We could go to great trouble and
expense to clean up a problem overseas but if we haven't even
done it in our own backyard--I thought it was a given that we
had. I was a little surprised to come here and find that it was
a problem.
Dr. Best. I think your point is well made. One of the
concerns that I have about an issue like this is that it brings
to the attention of the public toys and lead. Well, that is
good because we need the public to be aware that this is a real
risk. It is not pretend. It is not rare. It is a real risk. We
also need to think about the fact that there is lead paint in
houses still. There is a lot of lead paint still out there and
it is always in the poor neighborhoods where the paint isn't
well maintained, the apartment building isn't well maintained.
There are many other environmental toxins that we need to be
aware of and we need to remember that every time we allow our
children to be exposed to those toxins, when they grow up to be
the adults that we are now, they might have been smarter.
Mr. Burgess. Yes, they might have been smarter.
Mr. Green, what do we do with all the stuff we get back on
those recalls?
Mr. Rush. Time is up.
Mr. Burgess. Can Mr. Green answer that question?
Mr. Rush. No. We will have a second round.
Mr. Burgess. You are very kind. Mr. Chairman, did you get
all that stuff that the doctor gave you for crafting
legislation?
Mr. Rush. I certainly did.
Mr. Burgess. I will yield back.
Mr. Rush. The chairman recognizes himself for one
additional question and will allow the other members of the
subcommittee to have one additional question.
Professor Teagarden, you state in your written testimony
that ``knowing how to produce products that are lead-free is
not the problem. It is a question of constant process and
material vigilance throughout the supply chain.'' Thus, would
you recommend that U.S. manufacturers require their own full-
time audit personnel to be present and their contractors,
factories in China to monitor compliance with quality control
and safety standards, and would this be financially feasible
for most companies?
Ms. Teagarden. I believe that that is best practice. I
believe that the research shows that that ensures integrity in
the system, and yes, it would increase costs. Relative to toys,
I would say so what. The tradeoff is worth making.
Mr. Rush. Thank you very much.
Mr. Burgess is recognized for one additional question.
Mr. Burgess. Well, I will repose the question. Mr. Green,
what do we do with all the stuff that gets recalled? I asked
that question of CEO of Mattel yesterday. You can't burn it,
you can't put it in the landfill. I hope we are not reselling
it on eBay. So what do you do with it?
Mr. Green. Are you reselling yours on eBay? I am just
kidding.
Mr. Burgess. My children are older and I am too young for
grandchildren so I am kind of in that awkward in-between age,
so I am not buying toys right now.
Mr. Green. Well, the first thing is that yesterday the CEO
from Mattel talked about using it for co-generation. So first
of all, that would be a very bad thing to do because if it is
vinyl, then it has chlorine in it, and if it has chlorine in it
and you burn it, it will by definition create dioxin, which is
one of the most toxics known to science. So we shouldn't be
burning it, that is for sure, if it is vinyl, and in addition,
if it is metals, you can't burn the metals anyway so you are
just getting rid of the rest of the stuff and you may even, if
it is not being burned well, just distributing the metals like
the lead into the air. So we shouldn't be burning it. That is
clear. In the county where my office is, Alameda County, and
where I live, they actually had set up drop-off points for
people who are concerned about this. So the stuff that has a
lot of lead in it, you may--and we talked about this a little
bit earlier today, people may think that the right thing to do
is to do the same thing you would do with the paint that you
have in your garage that you are not using, which is take it to
the local hazardous waste drop-off spot that is in every
county.
Mr. Burgess. Is there any way to leach the lead out of
those products so that they can at some point be reclaimed or
used for co-generation or some other process?
Mr. Green. Technically, there would be a way but it
wouldn't make sense. It would be, one, too expensive, and two,
it just wouldn't make sense by the nature of those materials.
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady from Oregon is recognized for one
additional question.
Ms. Hooley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Teagarden, in your testimony you find fault with the
big-box retailers applying pressure on suppliers for lower and
lower prices. What do you suggest be done about this? Anything?
Ms. Teagarden. I think that is good business practice for
them to do that but meeting their profit obligations can be
balanced with the need to meet their obligations to consumers
to sell products that are lead-free to children.
Ms. Hooley. And how would you do that?
Ms. Teagarden. I would make them responsible for the
compliance--also responsible for the compliance of products
they sell.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for one
additional question.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am just
going to follow up on Ms. Wallach and Ms. Teagarden on the
question I had posed earlier and you were not able to respond,
but I think Ms. Teagarden answered the second part. One was on
the agreement with the Chinese Government and whether that is
practical and effective and the other about retail liability,
that aspect of it and how would that be accomplished?
Ms. Wallach. First of all, on the agreement, in 2005 China
immediately implemented the previous agreement on lead in
products, and we have seen with the current spate of problems,
nothing happened, so I think to answer your question yes or no,
no, that agreement is not going to fix the situation. The
things that need to happen I believe are third-party
certification within the plants, not the Chinese Government, to
do the inspections. It is the same reason we have Government
inspectors of meat inside meat plants instead of the company
inspectors. It is a matter of conflict of interest. Number 2,
higher fines for importers because the liability as Ms.
Teagarden has said the incentives need to be set up such that
actually you want a safe product or it is going to be a
business mistake and cost you profitability. Number 3, we need
to figure out how we subject to liability in U.S. courts in the
civil justice system for injured consumer the producers, not
just the importers so you create actually an incentive for the
producers as well because they could be then losing a lot of
money. And No. 4, we need to increase inspection. We need to
have authority given, which doesn't exist but does exist in the
USDA statutes for imports of meat to allow U.S. inspectors to
go and ensure that those third-party certifications actually do
meet U.S. law and have plant inspection overseas as well as
greatly increased inspection at the border. The fifth piece of
it though is who pays for that, and in my testimony I describe
how and why those companies, those U.S. toy producers who have
moved overseas to take benefit of cheap wages should be the
ones who have to fund the additional costs to the U.S.
Government to ensure that the products they bring back here are
safe as well as profitable to them. Thank you.
Ms. Teagarden. And I concur with Ms. Wallach on that one. I
think she covered everything I would say.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rush. Thank you very much. I want to again thank this
panel of witnesses for your time and for your testimony, and
you have really helped this subcommittee out a lot in terms of
as we proceed into the future. Thank you so very, very much for
your time.
We will now ask the following witnesses to come forward now
for panel two. Thank you to the witnesses who are the witness
table now for your generous use of your time. You have been
quite patient with us as we have proceeded through today's
hearing.
I want to introduce the witnesses. Mr. Carter Keithley is
the president of the Toy Industry Association. TIA is the
primary trade association for toy manufacturers and importers,
representing 85 percent of sales in North America. Mr. Allen
Thompson is the vice president for Global Supply Chain
Management, Retail Industry Leaders Association. RILA
represents over 600 member retail companies including large
chains such as Wal-Mart and Target. Mr. Michael Gale is the
executive director of the Fashion Jewelry Trade Association.
This association represents over 200 companies in the costume
jewelry industry. And next is Gary E. Knell, who is the CEO and
president of the Sesame Street Workshop. The Sesame Workshop is
a nonprofit media organization which produces the popular
Sesame Street television show on public television, and lastly,
Ms. Kathie Morgan is the vice president of Technical Committee
Operations, ASTM International. ASTM International is one of
the largest voluntary standards development organizations in
the world.
Again, I want to welcome you. You will have 5 minutes for
opening statements. We will begin with Mr. Keithley.
STATEMENT OF CARTER KEITHLEY, PRESIDENT, TOY INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED
Mr. Keithley. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. I am very pleased to come before the subcommittee
this morning on behalf of the Toy Industry Association to talk
about toy safety. The TIA is in fact the leading toy industry
association in the world. Our 500 member companies provide, as
you observed, Mr. Chairman, more than 85 percent of all toys
sold in the United States each year. TIA has been a leader in
developing and implementing toy safety measures for more than
seven decades. We are very proud of our accomplishments in
ensuring that toys sold in America are the safest of any in the
world. Our toy safety standards have bee modeled for other
nations and records show that toy-related injuries in the
United States are relatively rare despite the sale of nearly 3
billion new toys every year.
The recent recalls of a few models of toy products in the
U.S., however, have given our industry and opportunity to make
further progress in the continuous process of safety
improvement. These recalls demonstrated to us that we needed to
apply some new safety assurance measures in the toy production
process. It is important to point out that the recalls account
for a tiny proportion of the total of nearly 3 billion toys
sold in the U.S. each year. So far this year there had been
lead paint-related recalls of 14 models of toy products
imported into the U.S. by 11 companies. Two of those companies
are among our 500 manufacturing members and it also should be
remembered that to their credit, these recalls were initiated
by the manufacturers themselves when they identified the
problem. But because the recalls this year related to lead
paint on toys, something which has been prohibited by our
safety standards for decades, we believe it is important for us
to strengthen new measures to prevent such occurrences in the
future.
Here are the fundamentals of the new initiatives that we
are undertaking. First, we are developing standardized
procedures that will be used industry-wide to verify that
products comply with U.S. safety standards. Second, we are
establishing criteria to certify that testing laboratories are
qualified to perform testing to U.S. standards using these
industry-wide protocols, and third, we are encouraging the
Federal Government to adopt a requirement that all toys sold in
the United States undergo inspection to assure that they
conform to our standards. We have modeled our initiatives in
this area after measures utilized in many American industries.
We are working with the American National Standards Institute
to develop these procedures and we are communicating closely
with the CPSC throughout the process.
The safety system in the U.S. is a characteristically
American approach to solving problems. It is a robust
pluralistic system that employs the talents, expertise and
speed of the consensus process, working with industry,
government and consumers to address safety issues. We are very
proud to be working with ANSI in developing these measures
because ANSI is the premier nonprofit organization whose
mission is to enhance the American quality of life by
promoting, facilitating and safeguarding the integrity of
consensus driven safety standards in the United States. In
contrast to a top-down government-driven approach to safety,
our system involves all stakeholders in a consensus process
that allows tens of thousands of new products and new
technology to come to market for the enjoyment of our
consumers. Clearly, there is an important role for government
to play as a watchdog and an enforcer of conformance with
private-sector standards but history has proven the success of
our reliance upon private-sector safety initiatives.
Finally, I would like to point out that our proposals are
not specific to toys made in any particular area of the world.
The new requirements will apply to toys made in any nation. For
more than 30 years working with our suppliers in China, our
industry has produced billions and billions of high-quality
toys that fully conform to our toy safety standards and we are
confident that our suppliers in China will embrace these new
safety requirements. We enthusiastically applaud the new safety
agreement signed last week between the U.S. CPSC and AQSIQ and
we welcome the agreement by the Chinese authorities to take
immediate action to eliminate the use of lead paint on Chinese-
manufactured toys. We recognize and accept, however, that the
ultimate responsibility resides with our industry to assure
that toys imported into the U.S. conform with our safety
standards. We do not shrink from this responsibility and we
pledge to you and to the American public that we will do
everything in our power to make sure that toys sold in America
are safe for our children to play with. I am honored to be here
representing the toy industry among my distinguished colleagues
here on this panel, and I look forward to responding to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Keithley follows:]
Statement of Carter Keithley
Good morning Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee.
I am very pleased to come before the subcommittee this
morning on behalf of the Toy Industry Association to talk about
toy safety.
The TIA is the leading toy industry association in the
world. Our 500 member companies provide more than 85 percent of
all toys sold in the United States each year. TIA has been a
leader in developing and implementing toy safety measures for
more than seven decades. We are very proud of our
accomplishments in assuring that the toys sold in America are
the safest of any in the world. Our toy safety standards have
been the model for other nations, and records show that toy
related injuries in the U.S. are relatively rare, despite the
sale of nearly three billion new toys every year.
The recent recalls of a few models of toy products in the
U.S., however, have given our industry an opportunity to make
further progress in the continuous process of safety
improvement. These recalls demonstrated to us that we needed to
apply some new safety assurance measures in the toy production
process.
It is important to point out that we that the recalls
account for a tiny portion of the total of nearly three billion
toys sold in the U.S. each year. So far this year there have
been lead paint related recalls of 14 models of toy products
imported into the U.S. by 11 companies. Two of those companies
are among our 500 manufacturing members. And it should also be
remembered that, to their credit, these recalls were initiated
by the manufacturers themselves when they identified the
problem.
But because the recalls this year related to lead paint on
toys, something which has been prohibited by our safety
standards for decades, we believe it is important for us to
strengthen new measures to prevent such occurrences in the
future. Here are the fundamentals of the new initiatives that
we are undertaking:
First, we are developing standardized procedures
that will be used industry-wide to verify that products comply
with U.S. safety standards;
Second, we are establishing criteria to certify
that testing laboratories are qualified to perform testing to
U.S. standards using industry-wide protocols; and
Third, we are encouraging the federal government
to adopt a requirement that all toys sold in the U.S. undergo
inspection to assure that they conform to our standards.
We have modeled our initiatives in this area after the
measures utilized in many American industries. We are working
with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to
develop these procedures, and we are communicating closely with
the Consumer Product Safety Commission throughout this process.
The safety system in the United States is a
characteristically American approach to solving problems and
meeting needs. It is a robust, pluralistic system that employs
the talents, expertise, and speed of the consensus process--
working together with industry, government and consumers--to
address safety issues. We are very proud to be working with
ANSI in developing these new measures. ANSI is the premier non-
profit organization whose mission is to enhance the American
quality of life by promoting, facilitating and safeguarding the
integrity of consensus-driven safety standards and conformity
assessment systems in the United States.
In contrast to a top-down, government driven approach to
safety, our system involves all stakeholders in a consensus-
process that allows tens of thousands of new products and new
technology to come to market for the enjoyment of our
consumers. Clearly, there is an important role for government
to play as a watchdog and an enforcer of conformance with
private sector standards, but history has proven the success of
our reliance upon private sector safety initiatives.
Finally, I would like to point out that our proposals are
not specific to toys made in any particular area of the world.
The new requirements will apply to toys made in any nation. For
more than thirty years, working with our trusted suppliers in
China, our industry has produced billions of high quality toys
that fully conform to our toy safety standards. We are
confident that our suppliers in China will embrace these new
safety requirements.
We enthusiastically applaud the new safety agreements
signed last week between the U.S. CPSC and the General
Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and
Quarantine in China. And we welcome the agreement by the
Chinese authorities to take immediate action to eliminate the
use of lead paint on Chinese manufactured toys exported to the
United States. We recognize and accept, however, that the
ultimate responsibility resides with our industry to assure
that toys imported into the U.S. conform to our safety
standards. We do not shrink from this responsibility, and we
pledge to you and to the American public that we will do
everything in our power to make sure that toys sold in America
are safe for our children to play with.
I am honored to be here representing the toy industry among
my distinguished colleagues on this panel, and I look forward
to responding to your questions.
----------
Mr. Rush. Thank you very much.
Mr. Thompson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ALLEN THOMPSON, VICE PRESIDENT, GLOBAL SUPPLY
CHAIN POLICY, RETAIL INDUSTRY LEADERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. Before I begin my prepared remarks, I want to
stress that retailers contribute to, not detract from,
consumers' access to safe and affordable products, and in my
remarks this afternoon, I will describe the steps that
retailers have taken and are taking to protect consumers.
My name is Al Thompson and I am the vice president of
Global Supply Chain Policy of the Retail Industry Leaders
Association, but more importantly, I am the father of two young
children, and so the issue of toy safety is one that carries
personal importance to me. RILA represents the largest and
fastest-growing companies in the retail industry and provides
millions of jobs and operates more than 100,000 stores and
distribution centers domestically and abroad. As you consider
how to protect consumers, particularly children, from dangerous
products. I want to outline some of the public policies under
consideration that RILA supports.
First, we support increased funding for the Consumer
Product Safety Commission, or CPSC, as well as mandatory recall
authority for the CPSC and a legal prohibition against
knowingly selling a recalled product. Second, we support
Federal legislation to promulgate lead standards for all types
of jewelry similar to those enacted in the State of California
as well as efforts to enhance product traceability for
children's products. Third, we support the establishment of
clear and predictable safety standards for toys and children's
products that are uniform nationwide. While no two RILA members
sell exactly the same merchandise, they are equally committed
to the safety and integrity of their supplier operations as
well as the safety of products on their shelves.
In light of recent incidents, many of our members have
enhanced product testing. For example, some retailers now
require testing for all toys regardless of manufacturer. Others
are implanting more rigorous protocols to confirm the safety of
their toys through multi-layer testing and documentation. Our
members have also reviewed and strengthened their internal
policies and procedures for product testing, supplier
compliance and the sanction for noncompliant suppliers and
manufacturers. Furthermore, our members have joined with other
allies seeking better Government standards and guidelines for
product safety with a particular focus on products manufactured
for children.
While members have taken aggressive steps, RILA believes
that ensuring product safety is a shared responsibility.
Retailers have rigorous quality assurance requirements and
enforcement mechanisms for their suppliers that manufacture
goods for their stores. RILA members require their suppliers
and manufacturers to understand and adhere to U.S. Government
standards and regulations for toys and other products. They
require that their suppliers operate factories in secure
environments and rely on known and approved subcontractors to
produce safe quality products. They require suppliers to
maintain and document production processes that conform to
safety standards beginning at the design phase and continuing
through the completion of a finished product. And finally, they
require manufacturers to open their factories and production
processes to periodic quality and safety inspections.
When a product is recalled, either at the insistence of
government or a supplier, retailers take action. They
immediately remove the product or products from the stream of
commerce and properly dispose of them so they are not resold.
They also notify purchasers when possible that they should
return the product for a refund or replacement. These prompt
actions are the result of protocols that virtually every RILA
member has in place to respond to recalls and protect
consumers. As soon as a product is recalled--as soon as a
product recall is initiated, RILA members implement existing
recovery plans to remove the subject merchandise. Retailer
inventory systems produce an error message at the point of sale
if such products reach checkout registers, and after
implementing the recall, our members review their suppliers'
testing protocols to minimize the potential for future problems
and take appropriate actions or levy sanctions as needed.
A successful product safety regime requires a close
partnership between the private sector and U.S. Government as
well as other governments that may be responsible for ensuring
the quality of goods leaving their shoes. RILA stands ready to
work with government policymakers to enact policies that
strength consumer confidence and advance the production of
safe, high-quality products that are affordable and readily
available for customers.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look
forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.092
Mr. Rush. Mr. Gale.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL GALE, FASHION JEWELRY TRADE ASSOCIATION
Mr. Gale. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you
for inviting the Fashion Jewelry Trade Association to discuss
today how to ensure that jewelry for children, indeed for all
consumers, adequately limits lead exposure. The FJTA represents
250 manufacturers and suppliers of children's and adult jewelry
to retailers. Our members range from small family-owned
businesses, some of those doing less than $1 million annually,
to large branded national firms supplying department stores,
chain stores and specialty chains. Trade Press has estimated
that the fashion jewelry industry in 2005 was an $8.3 billion
industry.
I would like to start off by describing what we mean by
fashion jewelry. Fashion jewelry is not trinket jewelry. It is
not jewelry sold through vending machines or given away as
premiums. Our members do not make those products. It is also
not fine jewelry or jewelry made primarily of precious or
semiprecious metals or gemstones. Fashion or costume jewelry is
an everyday fashion item. Fashion jewelry can be made from a
variety of materials. Most often the metal components of
jewelry are made from a base metal that is plated with copper
and nickel or another metal and then a finish coat of silver or
gold. Glass, crystal, ceramic, plastic, wood and other natural
and synthetic components are frequently used. Fashion jewelry
can be embellished with paints, enamels and other such
materials.
FJTA and its members care deeply about all consumers and
support a national preemptive standard for lead in jewelry
components based on the existing comprehensive California law.
The law was adopted in the aftermath of the Prop 65 lawsuit.
The standards were agreed to by the California attorney
general, environmental groups, industry and after exhaustive
testing and detailed assessments of testing methodologies and
discussions about the role of lead in various components of
jewelry. The California law known as AB-1681 establishes
specific limits on lead in the various components used in
fashion jewelry for young children and different, sometimes
higher limits for materials used to fabricate jewelry intended
for other consumers. The standards for metal used in children's
jewelry, for example, is 600 part per million. That limit is
based on longstanding toxicology and evidence about the risks
of lead exposure. In contrast, the lead limit for metal used in
jewelry not intended for children varies depending on whether
the metal is properly plated, and for the record, we have put
in a chart which is an overview of the California law on a
material-by-material basis applicable to jewelry materials
intended for use in children's jewelry and jewelry intended for
adults.
There are two basic reasons the separate standards were
adopted for the different materials and for children's versus
other jewelry in California. First, there is a recognized
difference in risk between adults and children. The generally
agreed upon concept of accessibility has been a foundation of
decisions about how to reduce or limit children's exposure to
lead. In other words, whether because lead is encapsulated in a
material, for example, crystal and glass, or access to lead is
restricted through other barriers as in the case when metal is
properly plated, differences in the limits of allowable lead
are justified based on accepted science. Intensive testing and
analysis have shown that the levels adopted in AB-1681 are safe
for children's and other jewelry and we also attach for the
record a copy of an analysis conducted by a toxicologist with
extensive experience in the issue. Second, as we have seen,
there are differences in the materials used for jewelry. A one-
size-fits-all standard for lead was agreed to be inappropriate
during the California discussions. Lead imparts useful and
desirable properties to metal used in fashion jewelry. It
allows for improved flow properties at lower temperatures,
facilitates casting, especially of intricate parts, and of
finishing.
The total elimination of lead in jewelry, particularly
jewelry that is not intended for young children, would impose
difficulties and cost on the industry and adversely affect
quality and cost to consumers. Reducing the lead content in
metal too much can result in higher rejection rates for
intricate cast pieces, a shorter life of molds and other
equipment, higher breakage because of increased brittleness in
the metal, and potentially higher consumer complaints because
of poor quality, to name a few. The standards reflected in AB-
1681 have been adopted as a model by our industry. We are
proactively supporting a common national standard, educating
our members to expand awareness about the issue and we have
also reached out to the international fashion jewelry
community, especially in China. We have been participating with
the CPSC in proceedings on children's jewelry and supporting
national preemptive standards. We met recently with the CPSC
staff to provide further background and information on our
industry.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Gale, would you please bring your commentary
to a close?
Mr. Gale. I thank you very much, and if there are any
questions about what our industry has done, I will be glad to
answer them.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gale follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.102
Mr. Rush. Mr. Knell.
STATEMENT OF GARY E. KNELL, CEO AND PRESIDENT, SESAME WORKSHOP
Mr. Knell. Mr. Chairman, thank you and members of the
committee so much for holding these hearings. It shows indeed
that you care about children, and I would like to submit our
written testimony for the record.
Sesame Workshop was formed in 1969 as a nonprofit
organization which was there to use the media to help children
reach their highest potential, and I am sure many of you know
our characters who happen to work for us--Big Bird, Elmo and
Bert and Ernie and other folks who have been known to walk the
halls of Congress at times as well. But Big Bird and Elmo are
really indeed part of our army of teachers who try to reach
kids and teach kids about letters and numbers, about health and
hygiene, about trust and respect, so we wanted to come here
today to express our concern as licensors about the recent
recalls and what we need to do about it because several Sesame
Street items were part of Mattel's first recall.
First, the committee should know why Sesame Street licenses
its characters for toys, games, books, videos, et cetera. We do
so for two reasons. One is, that we extend the educational
experience of the television program to promote the most
important experience of learning for a young child and that is
play through these types of products, and second, these
products do generate an important source of royalty income for
Sesame Workshop which pays for the educational research and
television production of what we do. A program such as Talk,
Listen, Connect which we just completed for 400,000 preschool
children of active-duty military Guard and Reserves who are
dealing with deployment, redeployment, unification, this the
kind of program that we do, and ironically, sort of the
ultimate irony is that we had produced a lead prevention kid
using the Sesame Street characters called Lead Away which went
out to 460,000 pediatricians' offices and now that we are
involved with this, we are going to update this and get this
out to another half million in all 50 States, and we would love
to work with the committee to figure out ways to expand that.
We are in the teaching business so when our characters are
subject to an intentional or a careless design or a
manufacturing flaw that is in violation of our contracts, we
get hurt. Our reputation suffers and we need to regain any
trust that we may have lost with parents.
So what steps need to be taken? In our view, it is a
public-private response. We need privately to strengthen
industry standards and testing procedures. We know that Mattel
will tighten them. Chairman Eckerd of Mattel apologized to me
personally for the recall and we do believe that Mattel is
going to take steps. They happen to be in many ways the best in
class in the toy business. They have been very rarely subject
to recalls. We need to make sure that everyone in this industry
is doing whatever is necessary to ensure safety and tighten up
those gaps that exist. As an extra protection, Sesame Workshop
is going to spend its own resources to hire third-party
auditors to test at the manufacturing shipping and retail
levels so that we continually prove to parents that we stand
for quality and learning.
And finally, we also support the committee's move to
strengthen the public sector so that the Consumer Product
Safety Commission has a final safety net, so to speak, which
will do things like requiring warranty cards with online easy
access for parents, mandatory safety testing. We need to move
toward a goal of zero lead, to make our chain of supply turn
into a chain of safety, as it should be referred to. So we
believe a swift response by all parties, private and public, is
appropriate.
We will be an enthusiastic supporter of legislation, Mr.
Chairman, which you decide to propose here and hopefully enact,
and as parents, grandparents, uncles and aunts of many young
children, we must not settle for anything less. Thank you very
much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Knell follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.110
Mr. Rush. Thank you.
Ms. Morgan for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF KATHIE MORGAN, VICE PRESIDENT, TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
OPERATIONS, ASTM INTERNATIONAL
Ms. Morgan. Thank you, Chairman Rush and members of the
subcommittee, for the opportunity to participate today. I am
Kathie Morgan. I am vice president of technical committee
operations for ASTM International. In brief, ASTM is a
nonprofit organization with 34,000 members devoted to the
development of international standards in over 90 different
industry sectors. ASTM utilizes a consensus-based approach to
develop standards that promote health, safety and improve the
quality of life. ASTM does not offer testing and accreditation
services nor do we license a certification mark.
The U.S. system of standardization is one of the most
dynamic in the world. It significantly reduces or often
eliminates the cost to the Federal Government of developing its
own standards. For consumers, it provides the technical
underpinnings on which a broader conformity assessment process
can be based. And most importantly, it allows technical
experts, consumer advocates and regulators to engage together
and directly in the development process. This process can
result in new standards or revisions to existing standards that
reflect changing technology and emerging issues in less time
than regulatory action.
ASTM Committee F-15 on Consumer Products with a membership
of 850 professionals has 50 subcommittees in different product
areas including toy safety. ASTM F-963, the specification for
toy safety, establishes safety requirements for toys used by
children under 14 years of age. All Federal regulations
applicable to toys are referenced in F-963, and in addition
there are more than 100 separate tests, design specifications
and other requirements. Section 4.3 of the standard addresses
lead and other materials that are toxic, corrosive or
irritants. The requirements on lead restriction are from 16
C.F.R. 1303 referenced in section 4.3.5. The regulation
prohibits the use of paint or similar surface coating materials
in which the total lead content is in excess of 600 parts per
million. In addition, the lead content of the soluble material
lead which can migrate from the toy and therefore be ingested
by the child may not exceed 90 parts per million. The soluble
level is determined by a method that is also detailed in F-963
that extracts the soluble elements from the toy under a
condition that would simulate the situation in which the
material stays 4 hours in the alimentary tract after
swallowing.
Earlier this year, the Consumer Product Safety Commission
requested Committee F-15 to coordinate the development of a new
standard addressing lead in children's vinyl products. A new
subcommittee on F-15 was just established last month that will
initially focus on the identification of lead content in vinyl
children's products such as baby bibs and lunchboxes, although
certainly the scope could be broadened in the future. ASTM is
currently soliciting participation for this activity and we
will certainly ensure that all the witnesses involved in this
hearing are invited, if they are not already involved.
The participation of consumers and safety advocates in the
standards process is paramount. To overcome funding obstacles,
ASTM provides travel assistance for consumers to attend
meetings. The annual administrative fee is waived for
consumers, and electronic initiatives are in place that allow
individuals to participate remotely from their own computer
desktop.
Much of the focus today is on toys imported from China.
ASTM has agreements with the Standardization Administration of
the People's Republic of China, the Chinese National Institute
of Standardization and the Shanghai Institute of
Standardization. Through these agreements ASTM provides access
to all ASTM standards for these organizations. We sponsor joint
training programs and we provide participating memberships to
Chinese representatives on the ASTM technical committee. In
return, the Chinese standards bodies promote the utilization of
ASTM standards in China and the development of Chinese national
standards based on the ASTM standards. We will continue efforts
with China to raise awareness and understanding of ASTM
standards.
While we have had success working cooperatively to develop
standards like F-963, the global value chain is critical to
meet safety challenges of the future. ASTM will participate
next week in ANSI'S building consumer confidence conference.
Long-term solutions include a conformity assessment system that
begins with developing the most diligent standard possible
followed by testing and compliance processes that will
cultivate consumer confidence. ASTM will support to the maximum
extent possible any standard development needs that surface to
compliment the initiatives announced by ANSI and the Toy
Industry Association, but for our part, our efforts will
continue to focus on the elements critical to the standard
development mission ensuring an inclusive process, providing an
environment of structure, technology and tools for stakeholders
and a distribution system that ensures the standards are in the
hands of those who need them.
Thank you for the opportunity to participate and I look
forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Morgan follows:]
Testimony of Katharine Morgan
Thank you Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Stearns, and
members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to participate
in this important hearing. I am Katharine Morgan, vice
president of Technical Committee Operations with ASTM
International.
ASTM International is a leading non-profit organization
devoted to the development of international standards. For more
than 100 years, ASTM has served society as a leading venue for
consumers, industry and regulators to work collaboratively
under a balanced and consensus-based process to craft standards
that promote health, safety and improve the overall quality of
life.
Unlike other standards development organizations, ASTM
focuses almost exclusively on standards development. We do not
offer testing and accreditation services, nor do we license a
certification mark. As a result of our steadfast focus on
standards development, ASTM standards are well known and valued
for their technical quality and relevance.
The U.S. Voluntary Consensus Standards System
As this committee knows very well, the Consumer Product
Safety Act and its subsequent amendments establishes a Federal
policy directing the CPSC to defer to a voluntary consumer
product safety standard in lieu of promulgating its own
requirements if important criteria are likely to be met through
the use of the voluntary standard. This criteria includes a
CPSC determination as to whether the utilization of a voluntary
standard would eliminate or adequately reduce the risk of
injury addressed and whether it is likely that there will be
substantial compliance to the standard by industry. The CPSC
retains the ultimate authority to promulgate mandatory
standards in the event such standards are not effective or
substantial compliance is not widespread. Other important
Federal laws exist such as the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA) which direct all agencies to use
voluntary consensus standards and to participate in their
development where it makes sense to do so.
The United States has a very decentralized voluntary
consensus standards system that is driven by the needs of
stakeholders. The government is a major participant. But the
process requires participation and cooperation of all
stakeholders and a commitment towards reaching a consensus. To
guide the process, ASTM and many standards development
organizations are accredited by the American National Standards
Institute and adhere to procedures for due process, openness,
balance and transparency. If it is suggested that these
procedures are not being met, there are protective actions such
as a right of appeal to preserve the integrity of the process.
The U.S. system of standardization is the most dynamic
system in the world. It significantly reduces or often
eliminates the cost to the Federal Government of developing its
own standards. For consumers, it provides an important
standards foundation which, when used in conjunction with an
effective testing and compliance program, can build consumer
confidence in the products that are purchased. But most
importantly, the system allows stakeholders--technical experts,
consumer advocates and regulators to engage directly in the
development process. Led by the private sector, new standards
and revisions to existing standards can often be made and
incorporated into the marketplace much faster than by an agency
rulemaking or other regulatory action. This nimbleness of the
system allows timely revisions to standards to reflect changing
technology and that establish requirements to address changing
hazard patterns or emerging issues. This also enables the
government to leverage both expertise and resources to rapidly
elop effective standards that address emerging hazards.
ASTM Standards and Toy Safety
Of particular interest to today's hearing, ASTM standards
are widely used to make toys safer for children to play with
and to assist manufacturers in testing components and products
to determine levels of lead and other declarable substances.
ASTM Committee F15 on Consumer Products has played an
important role in consumer product safety standards for over 30
years. The committee has a broad global membership of
approximately 900 professionals, including staff of the
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), consumers, safety
advocates, retailers, researchers,--medical professionals,
academics, test laboratories and representatives of the
consumer products industry. Committee F15 encompasses 50
standards-writing subcommittees in different product areas and
will form new subcommittees as urgent safety issues and new
hazards are identified that lend themselves to a standards
solution.
One of the most critical areas of focus for Committee F15
is toy safety. With thousands of new toys introduced to the
marketplace each year, ASTM plays a vital role in protecting
the safety of children. An important contributor to that safety
is ASTM F 963, Consumer Safety Specification for Toy Safety,
which establishes recognized safety requirements for toys
intended for use by children under the age of 14. ASTM F 963
helps to protect children in countless ways as it relates to
possible hazards that may not be recognized readily by the
public, but that may be encountered in the normal use for which
a toy is intended or after reasonably foreseeable abuse.
Federal toy safety regulations in the U.S. Code of Federal
Regulations are referenced in ASTM F 963. In addition, there
are more than 100 separate tests, design specifications and
other requirements included. These tests and specifications
include use-and-abuse tests, testing for accessible sharp
points and edges, and measuring for small parts, wheel-pull
resistance and projectiles. There are also tests for
flammability, toxicity, electrical and thermal requirements,
and noise. Manufacturers design products to achieve conformance
with such requirements.
ASTM F 963 and Lead in Toys
First drafted in 1971 (and later adopted under ASTM), ASTM
F 963 has been enhanced over the years to address new product
technology and changes in regulation. Section 4.3 of F 963
addresses lead and other materials that are either toxic,
corrosive or irritants. The requirements related to lead
restriction are from 16 CFR 1303 which is referenced in F 963,
Section 4.3.5. This requirement has been in the standard since
mandated. There have not been any revisions to this section in
recent years. Accordingly, the existing ASTM standard and
Federal regulations address the key issue of lead in paint on
toys.
ASTM F 963 and Magnet Ingestion
ASTM standards are required to be reviewed every five
years at a minimum. F 963, due to its comprehensive nature and
the dynamics of an evolving industry is under constant
evaluation to address changing needs from both a product and
emerging hazard standpoint. Recent revisions made to ASTM F 963
include the addition of safety requirements and test methods
for yo-yo elastic tether toys; the addition of requirements
related to cord, straps and elastics; and revisions to sections
that address packaging film, age requirements as they pertain
to use and abuse testing, and hemispheric shaped objects.
As this subcommittee knows all too well, there have been
incidents in recent years of children swallowing small magnets
that were built into toys or that were part of a building play
set with small parts intended for older children. These
incidents of magnet ingestion drove a recent revision to ASTM F
963 requiring that magnets and magnetic components be reliably
contained within a toy or carry a warning describing the
dangers posed by functional small ingestible magnets. The
subcommittee is further developing the magnets section of F963
and is working on a web based training program to educate the
industry, retailers, testing laboratories and others on the new
requirements.
The revision of ASTM F 963 containing the initial
provisions to address magnets was approved March 15, 2007, nine
months following the initial establishment of the task group in
June 2006. ASTM members involved in this effort recognized the
urgency of the need and diligently worked together to develop
the new safety requirements. Nine months of development time,
given the complexity of the task in a full consensus
environment, is evidence of the high priority that the various
interest groups involved placed on finding a solution.
Lead in Children's Vinyl Products
Requests for new activities as well as the development of
new or the revision of existing ASTM standards are received
from a variety of sources. Earlier this year, CPSC requested
that Committee F15 coordinate the development of a new standard
for mitigating lead in certain children's vinyl products.
Accordingly, a new F15 subcommittee was created last month
regarding ``Lead in Children's Vinyl Products''. The initial
activity as approved at the organizational meeting will focus
on the identification of accessible lead in vinyl children's
products such as baby bibs and lunch boxes. The scope of the
activity could be broadened in the future should it be
determined based upon hazard data and risk assessments that it
is necessary to do so.
Consumer Participation in ASTM F15
Most major manufacturers of toys, juvenile and related
consumer products participate in ASTM F15 as do many major
retailers. These individuals are classified as ``producers''
for the purposes of committee operations and standards
development work. Representatives of consumer groups, safety
advocates, testing laboratories, academics and government
agencies are classified as ``non-producers'' since they
represent a consumer, user or general interest. ASTM's
regulations require a balance of interests in two ways--first
by allowing only one voter per organization and second by
ensuring that the number of voting producers never exceeds the
number of voting non-producers. Thus, no single person or
entity can control an ASTM standards committee, its agenda or
the content of an ASTM standard.
Staff of the CPSC is actively engaged in the work of ASTM
F15, particularly in key subcommittees on toys and related
juvenile products. While CPSC attends meetings and actively
participates in the standards development process, a Commission
policy requires that staff maintain non-official voting status.
However, CPSC staff regularly returns abstention ballots with
technical comments that are very significant to F15
deliberations.
Consumers and safety advocates continue to play an
important role in F15 and other ASTM technical committees by
raising awareness of issues, providing valuable input regarding
consumer behavior and preferences and recommending entire new
subject areas for standardization. These individuals share
their experiences and knowledge to create better standards and,
ultimately, better products. One of the greatest barriers to
participation by consumers has been a lack of financial
resources. Recognizing the need to assure that the interests of
the public are protected and represented in our standards
activities, ASTM provides a level of travel and participation
assistance for consumers to attend subcommittee meetings and
Committee F15 has a policy of waiving the annual administrative
membership fee to encourage a broader participation of
consumers. ASTM has also reduced barriers to participation with
a full range of electronic initiatives that allow individuals
to participate in the standards development process from their
computer desktop without ever having to physically attend
meetings.
While taking steps to encourage more active consumer
participation, Committee F15 is proud of the fact that many
leading consumer organizations--including, among others, Kids
In Danger, the Consumer Federation of America, Safe Kids, the
American Academy of Pediatrics, Consumers Union, Good
Housekeeping, and Keeping Babies Safe--are engaged and are
making a difference. Individuals and organizations that do
participate--in--standards--development should be applauded for
their contributions of time, talent and resources. I wish to
thank them for their important efforts and numerous
contributions to the development of ASTM safety standards.
ASTM Outreach to China
Much of the focus of today's hearing is on toys imported
from China. ASTM has has cooperated with the standards bodies
in China on numerous initiatives. Major activities include the
signing of a cooperation agreement with the Standardization
Administration of the People's Republic of China (SAC) and
similar agreements with other prominent standards organizations
including the Chinese National Institute of Standardization
(CNIS) and the Shanghai Institute of Standardization (SIS).
Through our relationships with China's leading standards
bodies, ASTM provides our partners in China with access to the
full volume of 12,000 ASTM standards; jointly sponsor standards
and training programs; provide participating membership to
Chinese representatives on ASTM technical committees; and
sponsor a professional exchange program encouraging Chinese
standards experts to visit ASTM International's Global
Headquarters in Pennsylvania for extended study of ASTM and the
U.S standards development process.
In return, the Chinese standards bodies promote the
acceptance and use of ASTM standards in China; utilize the
resources of ASTM to develop Chinese National Standards and
reference ASTM standards where applicable in Chinese National
Standards (China currently uses over 450 ASTM standards as the
basis of--their national standards); and to facilitate
connections between Chinese technical experts and ASTM
technical committees to ensure that ASTM standards reflect the
specific needs of Chinese industry.
ASTM is one of four U.S.-based international standards
development organizations that have jointly established the
Consortium for Standards and Conformity Assessment (CSCA) in
China. Located in Beijing, the CSCA office helps to build
cooperative and enduring relationships with Chinese
governmental and industry standards associations. It also
promotes the understanding and use of ASTM standards and of
other U.S.-domiciled SDOs in China. The other members of the
consortium are the American Petroleum Institute, ASME--
International, and CSA America. In addition, ASTM officially
opened an office in Beijing earlier this year. The ASTM
International Board of Directors met last October in Beijing
and also sponsored a day of outreach visits with Chinese
industry and government organizations. Follow-up from that
event continues.
Through our offices in China, we look forward to working
with representatives of Chinese government and industry to
raise a greater awareness and understanding of ASTM standards,
including F 963. ASTM also looks forward to assisting CPSC and
other U.S. government agencies as it engages China on issues
involving standards, product safety and international trade.
Consensus standards such as ASTM F 963 exist to address
toy safety issues and reduce threats to children from acute
mechanical and chronic hazards involving lead and other toxic
substances. While we have had great success in working
cooperatively with representatives from the CPSC, industry,
consumer groups and other interested stakeholders to develop
ASTM standards, enhanced awareness, understanding, and
adherence through out all aspects of the global supply chain
will be critical in meeting emerging safety challenges of the
future. Long term solutions include a conformity assessment
system that begins with the development of the most diligent
technical standard possible and then is followed by a testing
and compliance process that affords consumers the ability to
purchase products with a confidence that those products meet
the applicable technical and safety standards. For ASTM
International, where standards development is the core
competency, our efforts will continue to focus on those
critical elements needed for responsive and effective standards
development--ensuring an inclusive process that engages the
most balanced and complete representation of stakeholders and
providing the structure, technology and tools needed for those
stakeholders to efficiently work and develop the standards that
are needed.
I thank you for the opportunity to participate in today's
hearing and I look forward to answering your questions.
----------
Mr. Rush. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Gale, your group has reached out to the international
community on lead standards. What is the standard for
children's jewelry in other parts of the world, especially
Europe.
Mr. Gale. Europe does not have any standards pertaining to
the lead content in jewelry, either children's or adult. The
only standards in Europe are that products shall be safe and
that they shall not contain nickel, because nickel is a metal
that causes allergic reaction in many individuals.
Mr. Rush. Thank you.
Mr. Keithley, Professor Teagarden in her testimony stated,
and I quote, ``Knowing how to produce products that are lead-
free is not the problem. It is a question of constant process
and material vigilance throughout the supply chain.'' First, do
you agree with this statement? Second, would you recommend that
U.S. manufacturers require their own full-time audit personnel
to be present in their contractors' factories in China to
monitor compliance with quality control and safety standards?
Mr. Keithley. Well, Mr. Chairman, I do agree with Professor
Teagarden's statement. Indeed, the issue----
Mr. Rush. You do agree with it?
Mr. Keithley. I do agree with it. It is one of product
production processes and monitoring that to assure that the
toys coming off the line conform with the standard which
prohibits lead in paint on those toys. As far as whether or not
the appropriate solution to achieving that end is having each
company have its own full-time inspector on site, I think we
should let the ANSI process work to figure out what the optimal
solution to achieving that end is. Many of our members, a large
majority of our members, are small companies, small businesses,
and they rely heavily on the inspection processes of third
parties, laboratories who are expert in this. That is why part
of our proposal is to make sure that those third parties are
qualified to do this testing and then assigning them the
responsibility to go in pursuant to procedure established by
ANSI is to how much do we need to do to get to that optimal
safety.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Knell, what pressures can Sesame Workshop
bring to bear on the companies such as Mattel that manufacture
toys with your licensed characters? Could you insist on even
more stringent manufacturing and testing that they are
currently proposing? Would you consider requiring manufacturers
of your licensed toys only in company-owned plants? Could they
be manufactured only in company-owned plants or in contract
plants with constant supervision by an American employee of the
company?
Mr. Knell. We will consider all of those, Mr. Chairman. Our
contracts with licenses like Mattel do not have extended lives
that go on for years and years. Our contract with them will be
up in the next 2 years and we plan to have a very extensive
negotiation regarding all safety prospects which include these
kinds of audits that you have discussed, moving them more
towards owning the plants. I think everything should be on the
table and what I think we will look for them so that just
doesn't happen again is some protocol that will ensure that we
move toward a lead-free environment. I want to live for the day
when we can stamp all these toys ``lead-free'' and assure
parents that indeed they have nothing to worry about when they
are making that purchase.
Mr. Rush. There was some testimony yesterday about
domestically locating manufacturing companies or plants here
within the United States. Would that be one of the aspects of
negotiation?
Mr. Knell. Well, it may be. Sesame Street, you should know,
is in 120 countries around the world. We are working in all
kinds of places including the Middle East trying to teach
tolerance and aspect, in South Africa, around HIV and AIDS
issues, so we are very active in all parts of the world and it
is really a global franchise in many ways. With that said, we
all know that 80 percent of the toy business has moved over to
China. We have got to make sure that we are picking the best in
class toy and other game and apparel manufacturers who are
going to put in not only safety standards for children but
safety standards for workers as well so we have something that
we can feel is an assurance that will work.
Mr. Rush. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes now Ms. Hooley from Oregon.
Ms. Hooley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a few
questions.
Mr. Thompson, roughly how many contractors do large toy
producers like Hasbro and Mattel have in China?
Mr. Thompson. Ma'am, I wouldn't know the exact number of
Hasbro and Mattel, their presence in China. I do know that our
stores do sell a lot of their products.
Ms. Hooley. Do you have any idea how many subcontractors
the contractors have?
Mr. Thompson. We can reach out to our companies and see if
they have that knowledge. I do that what we do do is, we
require that when we do contracts with Mattel or Hasbro, that
they use known and approved contractors and subcontractors to
produce toys for our stores.
Ms. Hooley. Mr. Keithley, do you have a ballpark figure of
how many toys your members expect to sell this Christmas?
Mr. Keithley. Typically annually, it is about 3 billion
toys each year. On a Christmas basis, I am sorry, in the
holiday season, about 45 percent of our product is sold during
that holiday season.
Ms. Hooley. During the holiday season?
Mr. Keithley. Right.
Ms. Hooley. Of those toys, how many have already been or
are in the process of being manufactured? Are we ready for the
holiday season? Those toys are in the distribution system now,
right?
Mr. Keithley. Right, and I can't give you a percentage but
I can tell you that I am confident that a very substantial
proportion of the toys for this coming holiday season are
either already in distribution centers in the United States or
on the water on the way over here. That is why our
manufacturers have told us that they are in the process of
retesting all of the toys either before they leave China if
they haven't left yet or when they reach their destination
point, point of entry here in the United States, to be sure
they don't have lead on them because what has happened has
frankly--it should not have happened and so these manufacturers
want to be sure--all the manufacturers want to be sure that it
is not going to happen to their products.
Ms. Hooley. So how can the people be assured? I assume that
again most of the toys for the holidays, knowing how far in
advance you have to make things, and then the distribution
process, how can people be assured that when they go buy their
children a toy this holiday that it is going to be safe? What
are you doing to reassure them that that is actually going to
be happening or are they going to have to sort of figure it out
themselves?
Mr. Keithley. What we have recommended to all of our 500
manufacturers is to go back and do retesting and we have been
told by the manufacturers that they are and the laboratories
have told us that they are inundated with requests to go in and
take products out of the cartons that have arrived here in the
United States, retest them to be sure there is no lead paint
content on them. Once that is done--and I should say also, many
of our retail partners are doing the same thing. So once that
it is done, it is our responsibility to get the word out that
in fact the retesting has been done so if a product is on the
shelf, it is because it has been retested.
Ms. Hooley. You will retest it before it goes on the shelf?
Mr. Keithley. Exactly.
Ms. Hooley. And I have heard these numbers and I just want
you to verify them. It has been reported that the Chinese
Government has about 210,000 people in 1,800 labs dedicated to
product safety. Do you know how often they are inspecting and
testing the products from the facilities your members use
there? Is that sort of a ballpark figure?
Mr. Keithley. I do not know whether those figures are
accurate or just how much safety testing they are doing,
Congresswoman.
Ms. Hooley. Have you visited any of the labs?
Mr. Keithley. I have. I have visited labs in China, both
Chinese Government labs and private labs that do testing under
contract to our manufacturers, and let me simply say that we do
not rely or we cannot suppose to offload the responsibility for
safety testing to the Chinese authorities at all. It is our
responsibility so our companies pay for these contractors to go
in there and do it and don't rely on the Chinese labs.
Ms. Hooley. OK. Thank you very much.
I have one question for Mr. Gale and I will try to get this
done in 22 seconds. In the fashion jewelry trade, you talked
about the difference between what you put in a child's jewelry
versus an adult's jewelry. I don't know but I have held a lot
of babies and seen a lot of kids that chew on their mom's
jewelry or that it is a really great thing that kids love to
play, especially little girls like to play dress up and they
wear that jewelry or that jewelry is passed down and then all
of the stuff you don't want anymore, you give it to the kids.
Is that a good thing to do a bad thing or do, or how can we
assure parents that all this wonderful jewelry, at least that I
thought was wonderful at some point in my life that I have
given away to children so they can play dress up, I am sort of
feeling bad about that.
Mr. Gale. Great question, and the answer is the jewelry
that is made today to the California standards, even the adult
jewelry has been proven to be totally safe for children. Tests
have been done and----
Ms. Hooley. How long has that been going on, because I have
got some really old stuff that I gave away.
Mr. Gale. Some of the old stuff might have a high lead
content.
Ms. Hooley. So that was a bad thing to do?
Mr. Gale. Well, from what we know now, it would be bad to
let children have access to that.
Ms. Hooley. And how long have the California standards been
in place?
Mr. Gale. About a year.
Mr. Rush. Your time is up.
Ms. Hooley. Thank you.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman from Texas.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
My first question would be directed to Ms. Morgan, and I am
going to ask some fundamental questions here. The ASTM
International, how is that funded? Dues, subscriptions? How is
that funded?
Ms. Morgan. Seventy-five percent of ASTM is funded by the
sale of our publications which predominantly is ASTM standards.
About 10 percent is from membership fees and the balance is
miscellaneous sources including investment income.
Mr. Gonzalez. I was just curious as to who all the actors
that take advantage of your information but again, just how
much input do they have? You indicate in your testimony, ``As
this committee knows very well, the Consumer Product Safety Act
and its subsequent amendments establishes a Federal policy
directing CPSC to defer to a voluntary consumer product safety
standard in lieu of promulgating its own requirements if
important criteria are likely to be met through the use of
voluntary standards.'' You are going to people seizing on that
as maybe a source of the problem of government not being more
active and allowing others that may be in certain enterprises
to establish standards and I am not real sure that we are going
to have a huge argument on standards. ``The United States
system of standardization is the most dynamic system in the
world.'' That is on page 3 of your testimony, and we probably
would agree, but I think what we are getting into is really
inspection and compliance, and we still may have an issue about
lead levels and so on and I believe that you do a good job. I
don't know that really is the issue today but I appreciate your
participation. One of the things you point out, representative
of consumer groups and safety advocates, testing laboratories,
academics and government and so on are the non-producers but
obviously are part of your process. Is that correct?
Ms. Morgan. That is correct.
Mr. Gonzalez. So would like Mr. Green, who is sitting
behind you, would he be involved?
Ms. Morgan. We would be delighted to have Mr. Green
involved in the organization.
Mr. Gonzalez. Do you have a list of, let us say, those that
are concerned with safety, health, environment and so they
constitute members or contributors to your organization? That
would not be retailers, that would not be manufacturers and so
on.
Ms. Morgan. Yes, we do have those lists of those kinds of
participating organizations in ASTM. Also, whenever we begin
any new activity, we take every measure possible to solicit the
names of those organizations that would have an interest and a
bearing in that activity.
Mr. Gonzalez. I appreciate if you would provide me at a
later date a list of what I refer to again your contributors or
participants. I just want to see how it all comes out in the
way of percentages as far as the different sectors of the
industry and the consumer groups.
To Mr. Knell, I really do want to commend you, and again,
it is about reputation and about your good name and such, but
it appears that you yourself in a licensing agreement feel that
it is incumbent for you to provide for a third-party
independent disinterested audit. Is that correct?
Mr. Knell. That is what we are going to implement because
our faith I guess in the system has been a bit ruptured and
these acts were something that obviously made the system not
work so in order to reassure parents that our toys and the toys
that we license are safety, because we are not in the toy
manufacturing business, we believe bringing in an independent
auditor such as a Veritas or an Intertech or some independent
third-party company which can go to a factory in China
unannounced, if necessary, to reassure that those products are
safe is something that we have got to do. I think the Walt
Disney Company made a similar announcement as well.
Mr. Gonzalez. And again, I commend you and I think Ms.
Hooley is going to have a bill regarding certain toys at
certain ages that actually take that whole aspect and make it
into law, and we will see what happens with that.
My last question, I have about 40 seconds, I am going to be
real quick here to Mr. Keithley and Mr. Thompson to kind of go
through step by step is to members of your organizations and
say how do you feel, what is their responsibility to assure
that what is being manufactured pursuant to their design or
what is being sold in their stores as far as their
responsibility to make sure that that product that is placed in
the stream of commerce is safe for use by the American
consumer?
Mr. Keithley. Congressman, it is our manufacturers'
responsibility to assure that, and our companies have been
doing really a terrific job for many, many years doing just
that, and I think the record shows that toy safety issues have
not been just overwhelming over these past years and so when
something like this does happen that lead paint gets through on
a toy, it is a particularly damaging thing and that is why we
are now proposing a new system to try and close whatever gaps
there may be remaining in our safety system.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman's time is up.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Burgess, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gale, I apologize for not being here during your
earlier testimony but educate me, if you can, I am walking
through downtown Lewisville, TX, the other day and passed by a
jewelry store and they have got a big sign up that says we now
have the Higas magnets I guess for costume jewelry. I assume
they are talking about a more potent magnet, a more attractive
magnet. Are these the same type of devices that pose the
difficulty for children, the magnetic toys when they were
ingested?
Mr. Gale. My understanding is that any magnet that a child
would ingest, if there is more than one, can cause problems and
blockages and yes, it could conceivably do so.
Mr. Burgess. Now, with your professional organization, what
are you doing to alert people to this possible danger? Because
I didn't see a similar sign up in the window that said caution,
magnets if ingested could cause intestinal obstruction or
blockage and consult your pediatrician at your earliest
convenience.
Mr. Gale. What we are doing is first of all informing our
members that there is a potential problem and then we are
creating--we a relatively new organization. We have been in
business for a year and a half. We have established a Web site
and we are in the process of putting information on the Web
site for the consumers.
Mr. Burgess. I guess one of my biggest concerns about this
problem, I was not aware of it until sitting on this committee
after practicing medicine for 25 years. Somebody called me up
and said I have got a child that swallowed a magnet and I said
just be patient, you will get it back. And it turns out that is
what a lot of people thought but it wasn't correct and some
children suffered significant injuries as a consequence. So I
am most concerned about the education of the public who might
be purchasing these things and obviously we are not expecting
3-year-old children to be purchasing that type of jewelry, but
their mothers might--hopefully not in Texas it wouldn't be
their fathers--but their mothers might and they would be
exposed or potentially exposed to the danger. I am just
extremely concerned about people being made aware of this
problem because, again, I don't think there is widespread
recognition. I know there is not widespread recognition in the
medical community and the public service or the public
education is so critical in this regard because from Mr. Rush's
earlier witness panels, this is one of the most disturbing
things I had ever heard sitting here and listening to witnesses
testify.
So for what it is worth from me, I think it would be a very
useful trade that your trade association could do to publicize
the potential dangers of these magnets. It doesn't really
matter in this case whether they are made in China or India or
anywhere. It is the attractive capabilities of the magnet and
the ability to cause the bowel to adhere to cause the
obstruction which again never in my years of practice would I
have considered that as being a potential problem. So again,
for what it is worth, I would encourage your trade association
to make that information readily available to the people who
purchase the jewelry and we will just gradually increase public
awareness of that because the other efforts that the consumer
protection agency was utilizing at least in my experience
hadn't been filtering down to the level of the community and
certainly not the level of the community physician.
Mr. Chairman, it has been an outstanding group of witnesses
you have had over the past 2 days and I just want to thank you
for doing this. I really don't have any other questions and I
will yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Gale. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. May I answer? Thank you
for that observation, and I want to compliment the toy industry
because they have done a very good job on informing the public
about the problem of magnets and magnets coming loose and
dislodging and therefore children being able to swallow them,
and so that is very important in the jewelry field as well that
we must make sure that if magnetic clasps or any magnets are
used, that they be absolutely secured, mechanically secured so
that there cannot be any ingestion by children.
Mr. Rush. At this point the Chair wants to issue a sincere
apology to the gentlelady from Illinois for abruptly cutting
her off during her sentence in yesterday's hearing. I hope the
gentlelady will please accept my apology.
The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois for 5
minutes.
Ms. Schakowsky. Of course I accept your apology and I thank
you for your making it. I appreciate that very much.
In the first panel, Lori Wallach, director of Public
Citizen's Global Trade Watch, said that--and this is really I
think a question for Mr. Thompson, that the United States would
need to alter various provisions of U.S. trade agreements
including the WTO Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement whose
rules currently set limits on the level of safety protection
and the rate of border inspection. She says absent such
changes, the improvements that Congress may make to improve
import safety would be exposed to challenges as non-tariff
trade barriers before trade tribunals, and so I wanted to get
your view of that. I think that is a serious concern because we
suspect are going to take action in response to the crisis that
has emerged and that is an area of your expertise, I guess.
Mr. Thompson. Congresswoman, I am probably not the right
person to address the WTO component of this. I would be more
than happy to get the appropriate people in front of your
staff. What I can address, particularly probably in relation to
the previous panel, is, one, we are responsible for what is
sold on our store shelves and we take that responsibility very
seriously. We invest heavily in actually entire departments
that deal with toy safety and that includes using independent
certified third-party labs to test toys made exclusively for
us. That includes using third-party and our own employee
auditors to go out and check the factories regardless of which
country we source and make products out of to ensure that there
are safe manufacturers' practices in place. And so we will
always use our leverage to ensure that----
Ms. Schakowsky. Well, these are all things after the
products have come into the country. Do any of you advocate the
notion that there ought to be safety inspections at the plants
as well as at the borders and what is actually happening in
that regard? And I am talking both about plants that are owned
by the company but I guess more particularly plants that are
contracting with the companies. Mr. Keithley, you are nodding.
Mr. Keithley. Yes, ma'am, absolutely. There needs to be
inspection in those plants and our companies who are sourcing
the product from those Chinese producers need to have their
inspectors in those plants inspecting the product coming off
the line, and by their inspectors, most likely third-party
contracted inspectors because as I said, many of our
manufacturing companies are small businesses.
Ms. Schakowsky. They would be chosen by you and chosen by
the company and work for the company?
Mr. Keithley. Well, they would most likely be an
independent third-party laboratory that had been accredited
under our proposal by the American National Standards----
Ms. Schakowsky. This is our legislative proposal you are
speaking of?
Mr. Keithley. Well, we are working with ANSI to develop the
protocols and the procedures. It would be an ANSI-sponsored-
and-driven set of procedures. We are asking for a Federal
requirement that the inspection be done pursuant to those
procedures.
Ms. Schakowsky. There was some talk about this. What kind
of consumer input as opposed to only industry-driven input
would go into that?
Mr. Keithley. Right. ANSI, like ASTM, has a very robust
system for including all stakeholders including consumers and
academics and media and government.
Ms. Schakowsky. Let me ask under a different topic. I am
not sure who best can answer this, but how long, I guess the
retailers, after a recall is issued does it take a retailer to
remove all recalled products from the shelves and does it make
a difference if it is a mandatory or a voluntary recall?
Mr. Thompson. First, ma'am, it does not make a difference
whether it is a mandatory or voluntary recall.
Ms. Schakowsky. And you know that because?
Mr. Thompson. Because once we are notified by the CPSC that
a product is going to be recalled, our retailers take immediate
steps to remove that product from the shelves and dispose of it
and find the best way to notify our consumers to return that
product and also ensure that our systems have that, the fact
that that product has been recalled.
Ms. Schakowsky. So you don't a different procedure for
mandatory or voluntary. Do your retailers?
Mr. Thompson. No, ma'am. Once we are notified of a
voluntary or mandatory recall, we remove that product from our
shelves and ensure at the register that that sale is blocked.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
Mr. Rush. The Chair will allow one additional question from
each member. He recognizes himself for one additional question.
Mr. Thompson, your testimony states that RILA retail
association members review their suppliers' testing methods
after recall and might levy sanctions if appropriate. Do you
have an example of such a sanction?
Mr. Thompson. I don't have a specific example with regard
to toys. I know that, for example, with some of the recent
recalls involving pet products that one of our companies
decided to cease the business relationship with that
manufacturer, and I think I want to leave with the committee as
well that a lot of our members conduct multi-stage testing so
this is not after the product is in the stream of commerce. We
test pre-production and we test in some cases mid production
and post-production. Now, they will also pull some samples off
the shelves but our testing involves all stages of the
production process and our audits also do occur overseas in
those factories.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman from Texas for one additional
question.
Mr. Gonzalez. The question will go to Mr. Keithley, Mr.
Thompson. What is the consumer's individual recourse legally as
to a retailer and a manufacturer for a product that obviously
is harmful as you understand it today?
Mr. Keithley. Well, as I understand it today, Congressman,
there is no prohibition, nothing under the Consumer Product
Safety Act or any existing law prevents the consumer from
seeking redress if they felt they had been injured.
Mr. Gonzalez. OK.
Mr. Thompson. Congressman, there is nothing that prohibits
the consumer from taking action and it is my understanding that
it will vary State by State depending on their own consumer
protection laws but we do have a responsibility to our
consumers for what is sold on our shelves so there is nothing
that prohibits them from----
Mr. Gonzalez. The reason I ask that, Mr. Chairman, is that,
as you know, what Congress in the past few has been doing and
that we can just go down the line at the Federal level what we
done with strict liability, joint and several, class action,
Federal preemption, eliminating certain legal remedies and of
course restricting damages, and I think that there is a role to
the civil justice system in this country to also assist our
private sector to accomplish what we are all attempting to
accomplish and that is to make sure we don't have harmful
products out there that will do harm to the American consumer.
I yield back.
Mr. Rush. Thank you.
The gentlelady from Illinois is recognized for one
additional question.
Ms. Schakowsky. I could make one comment and then a
question. In Illinois, there is a $500 per day per violation
that if a recalled product remains on the shelf, a tool that
has been very effective in speeding up recalls. It is something
that I think we ought to consider.
My question is this to Mr. Keithley. Yesterday I raised
concerns about Mattel's decision to ignore the 24-hour
reporting requirement and in the words of the Wall Street
Journal, defying the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Do you
believe that toy manufacturers should be required to comply
with the 24-hour rule of reporting about a hazard in a product?
Mr. Keith. Definitely, and I think they are required to
under the present law.
Ms. Schakowsky. Well, they are required to but Mattel has
said that they don't like that law so they didn't comply. But
thank you very much.
Mr. Rush. The members of this panel, the final panel for
these particular hearings, thank you so much for your time. We
will keep the record open for 30 days and subcommittee members
may submit additional questions to all of our witnesses and we
ask that you respond to those questions on a prompt basis. We
thank you so much for coming. Thank you for your time and being
generous with your time. The subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4255.152