[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LEGISLATIVE HEARING TO PROTECT CONSUMERS
AND STRENGTHEN THE ECONOMY VIA WEBEX
=======================================================================
HYBRID HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION AND
COMMERCE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 26, 2022
__________
Serial No. 117-87
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
energycommerce.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
61-990 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois CATHY Mc MORRIS RODGERS,
ANNA G. ESHOO, California Washington
DIANA De GETTE, Colorado Ranking Member
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania FRED UPTON, Michigan
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
DORIS O. MATSUI, California ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
KATHY CASTOR, Florida BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland DAVID B. Mc KINLEY, West Virginia
JERRY Mc NERNEY, California ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
PETER WELCH, Vermont H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PAUL TONKO, New York GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon BILLY LONG, Missouri
TONY CARDENAS, California LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
RAUL RUIZ, California MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
SCOTT H. PETERS, California RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan TIM WALBERG, Michigan
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois, Vice GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
Chair NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
A. DONALD Mc EACHIN, Virginia DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware GREG PENCE, Indiana
DARREN SOTO, Florida DAN CRENSHAW, Texas
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
KIM SCHRIER, Washington
LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
Professional Staff
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Staff Director
WAVERLY GORDON, Deputy Staff Director
NATE HODSON, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
Chair
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
KATHY CASTOR, Florida Ranking Member
LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts FRED UPTON, Michigan
JERRY Mc NERNEY, California ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
TONY CARDENAS, California, Vice LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
Chair NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan GREG PENCE, Indiana
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
DARREN SOTO, Florida KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York CATHY Mc MORRIS RODGERS,
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota Washington (ex officio)
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Jan Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, opening statement................................. 2
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Hon. Gus Bilirakis, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Florida, opening statement.................................. 6
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Hon. Frank Pallone, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New Jersey, opening statement............................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Washington, opening statement..................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Witnesses
Katlin Kraska, Director, Federal Legislation, Government
Relations, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals........................................................ 18
Prepares statement \1\
Answer to submitted questions 242
Michael O'Neal, Vice President, Corporate Underwriting, First
American Title Insurance Company............................... 20
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Answer to submitted questions \2\
Eric D. Hagopian, CEO and President, Pilot Precision Products.... 32
Prepared statement........................................... 34
Answer to submitted questions \2\
Julie Menin, Former Commissioner, New York City Department of
Consumer Affairs............................................... 36
Prepared statement........................................... 38
Answer to submitted questions \2\
Hadley Heath Manning, Vice President for Policy, Independent
Women's Forum.................................................. 40
Prepared statement........................................... 43
Answer to submitted questions \2\
Tori Emerson Barnes, Executive Vice President, Public Affairs and
Policy, U.S. Travel Association................................ 47
Prepared statement........................................... 49
Answer to submitted questions \2\
Trista Hamsmith, Founder and Reese's Mom, Reese's Purpose........ 54
Prepared statement........................................... 57
Answer to submitted questions \2\
----------
\1\ Katlin Kraska statement has been retained in committee files
and is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF17/
20220526/114843/HHRG-117-IF17-Wstate-KraskaK-20220526.pdf.
\2\ The witness did not answer submitted questions for the record
by the time of publications.
Submitted Material
H.R. 3355, the Save America's Forgotten Equines Act of 2021 \3\
H.R. 3853, the Pink Tax Repeal Act \3\
H.R. 3962, the Securing and Enabling Commerce Using Remote and
Electronic Notarization Act of 2021 \3\
H.R. 4081, the Informing Consumers about Smart Devices Act \3\
H.R. 5313, the Reese's Law \3\
H.R. 5441, the Prevent All Soring Tactics Act of 2021 \3\
H.R. 6290, the Manufacturing.gov Act \3\
H.R. 6965, the Visit America Act \3\
H.R. 7820, the Travel and Tourism Act \3\
Letter of May 22, 2022, from Julie M. Broadway, CAE, President,
American Horse Council and American Horse Council Foundation,
to Ms. Schakowsky and Mr. Bilirakis, submitted by Ms.
Schakowsky..................................................... 90
Letter of May 22, 2022, from Rep. Titus, to Ms. Schakowsky and
Mr. Bilirakis, submitted by Ms. Schakowsky..................... 92
Letter of May 26, 2022, from Neda DeMayo, Founder, President,
Return to Freedom Wild Horse Conservation, to Ms. Schakowsky
and Mr. Bilirakis, submitted by Ms. Schakowsky................. 94
Letter of May 24, 2022, from Siri Lindley, Horses In Our Hands,
to Ms. Schakowsky and Mr. Bilirakis, submitted by Ms.
Schakowsky..................................................... 100
Letter of May 25, 2022, from Matt Miller, President, The
California League of Independent Notaries, to Subcommittee on
Consumer Protection and Commerce Members and Staff, submitted
by Ms. Schakowsky.............................................. 105
Letter of May 26, 2022, from Rep. Dean, to Ms. Schakowsky and Mr.
Bilirakis, submitted by Ms. Schakowsky......................... 107
Letter of May 26, 2022, from Bill Killmer, Senior Vice President,
Legislative and Political Affairs, Mortgage Bankers
Association, to Ms. Schakowsky and Mr. Bilirakis, submitted by
Ms. Schakowsky................................................. 109
Letter of May 26, 2022, from The Homes for Horses Coalition, to
Mr. Pallone and Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, submitted by Ms.
Schakowsky..................................................... 111
Letter of May 26, 2022, from Animal Wellness Action, the Animal
Wellness Foundation, and the Center for a Humane Economy, to
Ms. Schakowsky and Mr. Bilirakis, submitted by Ms. Schakowsky.. 113
Letter of May 26, 2022, from Joanna Grossman, Ph.D., Equine
Program Manager and Senior Advisor, Animal Welfare Institute,
to Mr. Pallone, et al., submitted by Ms. Schakowsky............ 128
Letter of May 26, 2022, from Animal Wellness Action, to Ms.
Schakowsky and Bilirakis, submitted by Ms. Schakowsky \4\
Letter of May 26, 2022, from George Meninick, Chairman, National
Tribal Horse Coalition, to Mr. Pallone, et al., submitted by
Mrs. Rodgers................................................... 131
Letter May 25, 2022, from 18 organizations, to Ms. Dean and Ms.
Armstrong, submitted by Ms. Armstrong.......................... 139
Letter of May 26, 2022, from Emma Read, DVM, MVSc, DACVS,
President 2022, American Association of Equine Practitioners,
to Ms. Schakowsky and Mr. Bilirakis, submitted by Ms.
Schakowsky..................................................... 141
----------
\3\ The legislation has been retained in committee files and is
available at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=114843.
\4\ The AWA has been retained in committee files and is available
at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF17/20220526/114843/
HHRG-117-IF17-20220526-SD014.pdf.
Letter of May 26, 2022, from Emma Read, DVM, MVSc, DACVS,
President 2022, American Association of Equine Practitioners,
to Ms. Schakowsky and Mr. Bilirakis, submitted by Ms.
Schakowsky..................................................... 144
Letter of May 25, 2022, from Rishi Chandra, Vice President,
General Manager, Google, to Mr. Curtis, submitted by Ms.
Schakowsky..................................................... 146
Letter of May 25, 2022, from The Humane Society of the United
States National Horse Racing Advisory Council, to Mr. Pallone,
et al., submitted by Ms. Schakowsky............................ 147
Letter of May 24, 2022, from Janet D. Donlin, DVM, CAE, Executive
Vice President, and Chief Executive Officer, American
Veterinary Medical Association, to Ms. Schakowsky and Mr.
Bilirakis, submitted by Ms. Schakowsky......................... 148
Letter of May 26, 2022, from American Veterinary Medical
Association Janet D. Donlin, DVM, CAE, Executive Vice
President, and Chief Executive Officer, American Veterinary
Medical Association, to Ms. Schakowsky and Mr. Bilirakis,
submitted by Ms. Schakowsky.................................... 149
Letter of May 26, 2022, from Lorna Grande, DVM, Program Director,
Education and Outrec, Humane Society Veterinary Medical
Association, to Mr. Pallone, et al., submitted by Ms.
Schakowsky..................................................... 151
Letter of May 26, 2022, from Keith Dane, Senior Director, Equine
Protection Companion Animals, Humane Society of the United
States and the Humane Society Legislative Fund, to Mr. Pallone,
et al., submitted by Ms. Schakowsky............................ 155
Letter of May 20, 2022, from James L. Gagliano, President and
Chief Operating Officer, The Jockey Club, to Mr. Pallone, et
al., submitted by Ms. Schakowsky............................... 167
Letter of September 19, 2016, from Thomas Vilsack, Secretary of
Agriculture, USDA, et at., Tennessee Walking Horse National
Celebration Association, to Mr. Fink, submitted by Ms.
Schakowsky..................................................... 169
Letter of May 26, 2022, from Michael J. Tanner, Executive Vice
President and CEO, U.S. Trotting Association, to Ms. Schakowsky
and Mr. Bilirakis, submitted by Ms. Schakowsky................. 172
Report ``November 2019 DQP Year to Date Report,'' submitted by
Mr. Guthrie.................................................... 174
Report ``November 2020 Year to Date DQP Report,'' submitted by
Mr. Guthrie.................................................... 175
Report ``November 2021 Year to Date DQP Report,'' submitted by
Mr. Guthrie.................................................... 176
Report ``FY2019 USDA Horse Program Activity Report--October 1,
2018--September 30, 2019,'' submitted by Mr. Guthrie........... 177
Report ``USDA Horse Program Activity Report--Fiscal Year 2020,
October 1, 2019--September 30, 2020,'' submitted by Mr. Guthrie 180
Report ``USDA Horse Program Activity Report--Fiscal Year 2021,
October 1, 2019--September 30, 2021,'' submitted by Mr. Guthrie
\5\
Letter of May 26, 2022, from Warren Wells, Chief Executive
Officer, The Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration, to
Ms. Schakowsky and Mr. Bilirakis, submitted by Ms. Schakowsky.. 181
Letter of May 26, 2022, from North Carolina Walking Horse
Association, to Ms. Schakowsky and Mr. Bilirakis, submitted by
Ms. Schakowsky................................................. 184
Letter of May 26, 2022, from the Performance Show Horse
Association, to Ms. Schakowsky and Mr. Bilirakis, submitted by
Mr. Guthrie.................................................... 191
Letter of May 26, 2022, from the Tennessee Walking Horse
Breeders' and Exhibitors' Association, to Ms. Schakowsky and
Mr. Bilirakis, submitted by Ms. Schakowsky..................... 197
Letter of May 26, 2022, from the Walking Horse Trainers
Association, to Ms. Schakowsky and Mr. Bilirakis, submitted by
Ms. Schakowsky................................................. 203
----------
\5\ The Report has been retained in committee files and is
available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF17/20220526/
114843/HHRG-117-IF17-20220526-SD035.pdf.
Study by The National Academies Press of Sciences, Engineering,
and Medicine, submitted by Mr. Guthrie \6\
Letter of May 25, 2022, from six organizations, to Ms. Pelosi.,
et al., submitted by Ms. Schakowsky \7\
Letter of May 26, 2022, from Holly Gann Bice, Diector of
Government Relations, American Wild Horse Campaign,to Mr.
Pallone and Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, submitted by Ms. Schakowsky. 210
Statement of May 26, 2022, from Steve Cohen, submitted by Ms.
Schakowsky..................................................... 212
Letter of May 26, 2022, from Timothy S. Reiniger, to Ms.
Schakowsky and Mr. Bilirakis, submitted by Ms. Schakowsky...... 214
Packet of letters from 17 organizations, submitted by Ms.
Schakowsky..................................................... 218
----------
\6\ The Study on NAPSEM has been retained in committee files and
is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF17/
20220526/114843/HHRG-117-IF17-20220526-SD041.pdf.
\7\ The six organization has been retained in committee files and
is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF17/
20220526/114843/HHRG-117-IF17-20220526-SD042.pdf.
LEGISLATIVE HEARING TO PROTECT CONSUMERS AND STRENGTHEN THE ECONOMY VIA
WEBEX
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 26, 2022
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:02 p.m., in
the John D. Dingell Room, 2123 Rayburn House Office Building,
and remotely via Cisco Webex online video conferencing, Hon.
Jan Schakowsky, (chairwoman of the subcommittee), presiding.
Present: Representatives Schakowsky, Castor, Clarke,
Dingell, Kelly, Soto, Rice, Craig, Fletcher, Pallone (ex
officio); Bilirakis (subcommittee ranking member), Latta,
Guthrie, Bucshon, Dunn, Lesko, Armstrong, and Rodgers (ex
officio).
Also present: Cardenas, Clarke, Eshoo, McNerney, Rush,
Soto, Tonko, Trahan; Armstrong, Curtis, Dunn, Pence, Upton, and
Walberg.
Staff present: Katherine Durkin, Policy Coordinator;
Waverly Gordon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel;
Daniel Greene, Professional Staff Member; Tiffany Guarascio,
Staff Director; Ed Kaczmarski, Policy Analyst; Zach Kahan,
Deputy Director Outreach and Member Service; Mackenzie Kuhl,
Digital Assistant; Jerry Leverich, Chief Counsel,
Communications and Technology; David Miller, Counsel; Kaitlyn
Peel, Digital Director; Chloe Rodriguez, Clerk; Andrew Souvall,
Director of Communications, Outreach, and Member Services;
Michele Viterise, Counsel; Caroline Wood, Staff Assistant; C.J.
Young, Deputy Communications Director; Michael Cameron, Policy
Analyst, Consumer Protection and Commerce, Energy, Environment;
Emily King, Member Services Director; Tim Kurth, Chief Counsel,
Consumer Protection and Commerce; and Brannon Rains,
Professional Staff Member, Consumer Protection and Commerce.
Ms. Schakowsky. The subcommittee on Consumer Protection and
Commerce will now come to order via Webex. Today we will be
holding a hearing entitled ``Legislative Hearing to Protect
Consumers and Strengthen Our Economy and Protect our Economy.''
Due to the COVID-19 public health emergency, members can
participate in today's hearing either in person or remotely via
video conferencing in accordance with the updated guidance
issued by the attending physician. Members, staff, and members
of the press who may be in the hearing room are not required to
wear a mask.
For members participating remotely, your microphone will be
set on mute for the purpose of eliminating inadvertent
background noise. Members participating remotely will need to
unmute your microphones each time that you wish to speak.
Please note that once you are unmuted, anything that you say in
Webex will be heard over the loudspeaker in the committee room
and subject to being heard by Livestream and CSPAN.
Today, members are participating from different locations,
and all recognition of Members such as for questions will be in
the order of subcommittee seniority.
Documents for the record can be sent to Ed Kaczmarski at
the email that has been provided to the staff, and all
documents will be entered into the record at the conclusion of
the hearing.
And to begin, now, the Chair will recognize herself for 5
minutes for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAN SCHAKOWSKY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
So today, we will consider nine pieces of bipartisan
legislation that will address a wide range of popular often
kitchen-table issues. Today we will consider bills that protect
consumers, children, and yes, horses and strengthen our
economy.
These bills include the SAFE Act that I introduced with
Representative Buchanan. This legislation will protect horses
from being slaughtered for human consumption. Horse slaughter
is not only inherently cruel, but it is also very dangerous.
Horse meat can be toxic because horses are given drugs that
are unregulatedly administrated that can be absolutely toxic to
people who would eat that horse meat, and we also have the
opportunity to end the abusive practice of horse soring. This
horrifying act involves the intentional injury of horses hooves
and legs of performing walking horses.
Representatives Cohen, Fitzpatrick, Buchanan, and I are
cosponsors of the PAST Act which would strengthen protections
against horse soring.
The Pink Tax Repeal Act sponsored by Representative Jackie
Speier will end gender bias when it comes to--and
discrimination--and ensure that women are not going to have to
pay more for goods and services like household and children's
essential items that are virtually identical to those used by
men.
We have seen everything from diapers and bibs and
deodorants and probiotics that are significantly marked up when
advertised for women and girls and even baby girls.
The Visit America Act introduced by Representative Titus,
Case, and the late great Don Young, as well as the Travel and
Tourism Act led by Representatives Dunn, Soto, and Salazar will
booster our travel and tourist industry which we certainly want
to do at this time.
Legislation by Representatives Dean and Armstrong will
offer consumers a convenient and accessible way to safely
navigate the notarization procedure remotely.
Legislation from Representatives Kelly, Arrington, and Leiu
will protect children from deadly batteries that can be easily
ingested.
Reese's Law is named in the honor of Reese Hamsmith, the
daughter of our courageous witness today, Trista, who will
share her story with us, and I thank her for being here, and I
look forward to moving Reese's Law to ensure that no parent
must come before the subcommittee again because they have lost
their child and because of a dangerous product.
So if I just could end here together, these bills will make
American's daily lives safer and easier and help grow our
economy.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Schakowsky follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jan Schakowsky
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
So I thank the witnesses that are here today for joining
us, and now, it's my pleasure to introduce Mr. Bilirakis, the
ranking member of the subcommittee, for his 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GUS BILIRAKIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to wish
you a happy 39th birthday.
Ms. Schakowsky. Exactly.
Mr. Bilirakis. I got that, right. Thank you, again, for
holding this legislative hearing and thank you to the witnesses
for sharing your expertise today. I look forward to hearing
you.
There is a lot to cover with a broad scope of bills on the
docket, so we appreciate all of you speaking with us today,
albeit, virtually.
Before jumping into the list in front of us, this
subcommittee has a lot of bills, 37 to be specific, in post-
legislative hearing limbo that have yet to receive a markup. I
know a lot of our members on this side of the aisle are
anxiously waiting to hold the meeting--and I'm sure on the
other side as well--to further discuss some of those bills and
work across the aisle to make bipartisan progress.
I am hopeful we can move forward with actual legislative
action on those bipartisan bills and leave the partisan ones to
the wayside.
Onto the subject, again, at hand, I am pleased to see
bipartisan bills included in today's hearing, like, H.R. 7820,
the Travel and Tourism Act, introduced by my friends in the
Florida delegation, Representative Dunn, Representative Soto,
and Representative Salazar, and I am fully supportive of their
efforts.
I am also glad to see the Visit America Act that my
colleague and fellow Travel and Tourism co-chair, Dina Titus,
sponsors which I know also tackles broader issues for the
undustry beyond this committee's jurisdiction.
This subcommittee has a rich history of coming together in
the name of promoting America's travel and tourism industry;
and after the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, this legislation
urgently shows, again, the need for this industry to be a focus
point for the Department of Commerce.
As you all know, our committee unanimously passed the
Restoring Brand USA legislation which will release dollars
already collected for the program to help restore our travel
and tourism industry back to even better than the pre-pandemic
levels.
H.R. 7820 will further assist the travel and tourism
industry by requiring the Department of Commerce to develop a
ten year travel and tourism strategy with annual goals for the
number of international visitors to the United States. I
believe this legislation compliments the committee's previous
efforts, and I look forward to seeing the bill move forward.
The committee is also considering legislation to provide
greater transparency to our constituents with H.R. 4081, the
Informing Consumers about Smart Devices Act, introduced by
Representative Curtis and Representative Moulton holding big
tech accountable has been a priority for Republicans, for
Leader Rodgers, throughout this Congress, and I believe this
legislation will help us move forward accomplishing this
particular goal.
In the wake of advancements in technology, increasingly
more innovative devices are being developed and deployed into
our economy that have cameras or microphones. I am certain
every member here on the dais has at least one or two smart TVs
or speakers in their homes. I know I do.
This legislation would simply require companies that
manufacture devices with these cameras and microphones to
disclose to consumers of such features, and I think, there is
nothing wrong with that.
Unfortunately, I am not able to cover all the bills in
today's docket in 5 minutes, but I did want to raise one final
bill that is important to a founding principle of this
subcommittee which is protecting consumers.
Our subcommittee has jurisdiction over the Consumer
Protection Safety Commission, an independent organization whose
mission is to protect people against risks of injuries and
deaths associated with consumer products. We owe it to our
constituents to examine whether there are dangerous products in
the marketplace and actions we need to take without creating
loopholes for bad actors or unduly burdening those that follow
the law.
That's why I am proud to support Reese's Law which will
require the CPSC to develop product safety standards with
respect to batteries that pose an ingestion hazard.
I want to share my sympathy to Trista Hamsmith on the loss
of dear Reese and thank you for being with us today to share
your story--you will make a difference--and for the countless
hours that you have dedicated to the bipartisan legislation
brought before today.
Again, Madam Chair, I will yield back the balance of my
time, and I appreciate you giving me the time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bilirakis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Gus Bilirakis
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back.
And now, I yield 5 minutes to the chair of the full
committee, Frank Pallone.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairwoman Schakowsky, and today
we'll discuss several bipartisan bills that would strengthen
our economy and protect both consumers and horses.
We are going to discuss two bills that will help strengthen
our economy by boosting the travel and tourism industry. It is
very important to my district--an industry that desperately is
trying to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Visit America Act and the Travel and Tourism Act both
call on the Department of Commerce to develop and implement a
pandemic recovery strategy for the travel and tourism industry.
We also have a bill to further enhance our Nation's
manufacturing sector.
Today there is no centralized repository of information
about the various Federal programs supporting manufacturing.
The Manufacturing.gov Act changes that by requiring the
Department of Commerce to ensure that the Manufacturing.gov
website serves as the primary hub for information relating to
Federal manufacturing programs.
We also consider legislation that would protect consumers,
as I mentioned. Reese's Law, a bill named after Reese Hamsmith,
an 18-month-old baby, who tragically died after ingesting a
button cell battery. These batteries are very small, the size
of a button, and are found in common household electronics like
television remotes, key fobs, and meat thermometers. They have
been shown to cause serious injury and death to children who
swallow them.
Reese's Law directs the Consumer Product Safety Commission
to establish mandatory safety standards to protect children
from ingesting button cell batteries. We are so grateful that
Reese's mother, Trista, is here today to share her story. Her
advocacy has no doubt saved lives, and this bill will save
more.
We will also examine legislation to address the far too
common practice of charging women higher prices than men for
identical products and services. This so-called Pink Tax is
simply not fair, and it has to stop. The bipartisan Pink Tax
Repeal Act would do that. It prohibits the selling of
substantially similar consumer products and services at
different prices based on gender, and the bill also puts
violators on the hook for civil penalties.
Then we have the bipartisan Informing Consumers about Smart
Devices Act that would require that manufacturers of devices
connected to the internet that have cameras or microphones
inform consumers that those cameras or microphones are part of
the device. No one should be surprised to learn if their
electronic device has the ability to record them. The bill also
gives the Federal Trade Commission the authority to punish
violators.
And we also consider the Securing and Enabling Commerce
Using Remote and Electronic Notarization Act, and that
establishes nationwide standards and technical requirements for
remote online notarization. This bill will transition
notarization to the 21st century without sacrificing security
making the process more convenient and safer for the American
public.
And finally, but certainly last but not least, two bills
that would end horrendous practices and intolerable abuse that
is suffered by horses. I have a major track in my district
called Monmouth Park, and my home county is very much horse
country.
Since 2015, hundreds of thousands of horses have been
exported from the United States to Canada and Mexico for
slaughter for human consumption; and despite a national ban,
the practice of soring, applying an irritating or blistering
agent to a limb of a horse to accentuate the horse's gate,
continues.
So the SAFE Act and the PAST Act will address unfortunate
gaps in our animal welfare laws that have left these innocent
animals far too vulnerable.
So I look forward to the discussion, and I yield the time
left--a minute and a half--to Representative Kelly, vice-chair
of the full committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Chairman Pallone, and thank you,
Chairwoman Schakowsky and Ranking Member Bilirakis, for having
this hearing today and including Reese's Law.
Reese's Law, as you have heard, is named after Reese
Hamsmith, a young child who passed away in December 2020 after
complications from swallowing a button battery, and I thank her
mom, Trista, for being here virtually today to share her story.
I first met Trista last fall when she approached my office
with an idea for a bill. She shared Reese's story with me, and
as a mother and grandmother, I knew we had to do something.
More than three thousand children ingest button batteries every
year. The health impacts of swallowing can be severe, and in
many cases, result in death. These instances are on the rise
and addressing this issue cannot wait any longer.
That is why I introduce Reese's Law which will require the
Consumer Product Safety Commission to create safety standards
for button cell and coin batteries that prevent accidental
ingestion by children six years old and younger.
Fortunately, after of months of hard work, and Trista
working tirelessly to share her story and get support for the
bill, I am excited to be having this hearing and look forward
to working with Trista and the committee to make this bill law.
And I will just say really quickly, since we are Consumer
Protection, I hope at some point, we can do something to
protect so many of our children and people from guns.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. And I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back.
And now, I recognize the ranking member of the full
committee, Mrs. Rodgers, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning,
everyone. Thank you for participating.
We are here today to tackle a variety of challenges and
several proposed solutions to protect people and ensure
America's economic leadership. That includes a number of
solutions addressing the challenges and lessons learned from
the pandemic.
I am pleased to see bipartisan legislation at today's
hearing like Mr. Armstrong's bill to add permissions for remote
notary, and Mr. Curtis's bill which requires companies to
clearly indicate when home devices may be able to watch or
listen to you.
The pandemic also highlighted the need for more resiliency
in critical industries like travel and tourism, the gig
economy, and services industries so that they can rebound
quickly after future disruptions.
Our subcommittee Republican Leader, Gus Bilirakis's,
bipartisan Brand USA Travel and Tourism bill signed into law
this year would do just that.
Mr. Dunn's legislation along with Mr. Soto and Ms. Salazar
also focuses on solutions to pandemic-era challenges
experienced by the tourism industry to rebound from the
pandemic.
On a much more serious note, we'll also be discussing
Reese's Law which will help prevent accidental ingestion of
button cell and coin batteries by children. I want to join in
saying thank you to Reese's mom, Trista Hamsmith, who is here
today. As a mom, I admire your leadership and your strength to
share your daughter's story with us and to save lives with
Reese's Law. Your courage and your leadership is making a
difference.
Thank you also to Robin Kelly for introducing this
bipartisan legislation. As the former Republican leader of this
subcommittee, I know the importance of having the Consumer
Product Safety Commission focus on protecting people,
especially children, and I applaud Chair Schakowsky's
leadership in this important issue.
I also look forward to hearing about other bills on the
agenda today that will impact manufacturing, retail, and
horses. We have a lot to discuss to ensure these bills have the
intended outcomes without producing unintended burdens or
consequences.
It is important to note this subcommittee also has a few
dozen post-legislative hearing bills waiting to move out of
committee. So we have our work cut out for us on deciding which
bills are best positioned to move.
With the challenges that Americans and businesses are going
through right now, I caution against enacting legislation that
will ultimately make things worse. The so-called Pink Tax
Repeal is not something that I see a clear path for. It would
make the supply chain crisis worse, reduce diversity of goods
and services, and eliminate choices that men and women may have
different preferences on.
We don't need any more empty shelves. Our focus should be
on how incentivize female entrepreneurship rather than the
government putting its heavy hand on how to set prices with
more regulations.
I know we'll have a robust debate today, so I look forward
to discussing and learning more on all of the solutions before
you. Thank you to my colleagues for their hard work. Thank you,
and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Rodgers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Schakowsky. The gentlelady yields back. And now, I
would like to introduce our witnesses for today's hearing.
First, let me introduce Katlin Kraska who is the director
of Federal Legislation and Government Affairs at the American
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
Michael O'Brien (sic) is the vice-president of corporate
underwriting at First American Title Trust--American Title
Insurance Company.
Brian (sic) Hagopian is the CEO and president at Pilot--
let's see--it's----
Voice. Pilot Precision.
Ms. Schakowsky. OK. Pilot Precision Products. Sorry, Mr.
Hagopian.
Julie Menin is the former commissioner at New York City's
Department of Consumer Affairs.
And Hadley Heath Manning is vice-president for Policy at
Independent Women's Forum.
Tori Barnes is executive vice-president of Public Affairs
and Policy at United States Travel Association.
And Trista Hamsmith that you have heard much about who is
Reese's mom and founder of Reese's Purpose.
At this time, the Chair will recognize each of our--each of
our witnesses for 5 minutes to provide their opening statement.
Before I do so, let me just mention the system with our clock
so that the witnesses will know when to begin to end their
remarks.
There is a timer on your screen that will count down your
remaining time as the time reaches the 1-minute mark, please
begin to wrap up--as much as you can--wrap up your testimony.
So Ms. Kraska, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Kraska. Wonderful. Happy birthday Congresswoman.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thanks.
STATEMENT OF KATLIN KRASKA
Ms. Kraska. Good afternoon. Thank you, Chair Schakowsky,
Ranking Member Bilirakis, and honorable members of the
subcommittee for inviting me to testify in support of the Save
America's Forgotten Equines Act and the Prevent All Soring
Tactics Act. Special thanks to Chair Schakowsky and Rep.
Buchanan for their leadership on the SAFE Act and the long list
of bipartisan leaders of the PAST Act. These two bills are
critical to protecting horses in this country and the people
who love them.
My name is Katie Kraska. I am the director of Federal
legislation for the ASPCA. It's a special honor for me to be
here because I grew up in Kentucky and horses have always been
a big part of my life.
The ASPCA was the first animal welfare organization on this
continent founded in 1866 on a mission to protect equines.
Since then, we have developed innovative programs working
closely with adoption organizations and the equine industry to
ground solutions in science. We have simple, yet, ambitious
goal that all horses have good welfare.
This goal is impossible to achieve without passage of the
SAFE Act and the PAST Act, bills to finally end the slaughter
of American horses for human consumption and horse soring which
is the intentional injuring of a horse's legs to induce an
unnaturally high-stepping gate.
First, Congress has already acted to end these cruel
practices shutting horse slaughterhouses in 2007 and voting
annually to keep them closed.
Soring was banned with passage of the Horse Protection Act
in 1970, but loopholes have allowed American equines to be
exported to other countries for slaughter, and horse soring to
persist largely because of industry self-policing.
This is not what Congress had in mind. We need to pass
these bills to finally finish what Congress started years ago.
Second, the public has made their opposition to this
cruelty abundantly clear. A poll released this year found a
bipartisan 83 percent of American voters want to end the
slaughter of American equines. The equine community wants to
end horse slaughter.
Hall-of-fame jockeys and trainers, well-respected
veterinarians, and industry leaders like the Jockey Club, the
U.S. Trotting Association, Breeders Cup, the Stronach Group,
recently joined us to announce the Final Stretch Alliance to
End Horse Slaughter. Every single animal protection group and
over 400 equine rescues support these bills.
Finally, we see this overwhelming support because horse
slaughter is bad for business, it's bad for the equine
community, and it's bad for the equines themselves.
Equine industries are built on public perception. Industry
has already stepped up to provide aftercare options, resources,
safety net services for horses in their care; but as long as
horse slaughter is legal, they will continue to slip through
the cracks; and as long as they end up there, industry will not
have the public's trust.
Horse slaughter also strikes fear in the hearts of anyone
trying to rehome their horse distorting markets and putting
welfare at risk and incentivizes predatory behavior when kill
buyers pose as good homes but sell horses into the slaughter
pipeline, and it drains the resources of rescues having to
compete with kill buyers.
And to be clear, when I say, the ``slaughter pipeline,'' I
mean, a 28-plus-hour journey packed with other unfamiliar
animals in a trailer often enduring horrific injury or even
death along the way. This is a fate that no one would want for
their horse. It's a fate that no vet would ever prescribe for a
horse. It's cruelty, and there is no reason for it to continue.
Between food safety concerns over the toxic drugs and
chemicals present in American meat and the equine communities'
hard work to rehome and adopt horses, we have seen a massive
drop in the number of American horses exported for slaughter in
recent years.
We also know that there are 2.3 million Americans that are
interested and able to adopt a horse right now. Compare this to
the 23,000 horses that were exported for slaughter last year;
there are homes for horses for decades, but the truth is, that
no amount of aftercare or adoption work or responsible owners
could prevent American horses from going to slaughter.
We are trying; but as long as export is legal, owners will
be scared, horses will suffer, and industry will be at risk.
The SAFE Act is the only solution that will finally keep horses
and the equine community safe.
Similarly, for the sake of the horses undergoing horrific
torture and the integrity of this part of show industry, we
must enact the PAST Act. This bill would bring long-needed
updates to the Horse Protection Act ensuring that its true
intent is achieved, and that no more horses ever endure a life
full extreme pain and suffering.
These bills are both unfinished business for Congress, and
they will protect horses, their owners, and the horse industry.
Thank you for your time, and I look forward to hearing your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kraska follows:] \1\
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
Mr. O'Brien (sic), you are now recognized.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL O'NEAL,
Mr. O'Neal. Chairman Pallone, Ranking Member McMorris
Rodgers, Subcommittee Chairwoman Schakowsky, and Ranking Member
Bilirakis, and members of the subcommittee, my name is Michael
O'Neal. I am vice president of corporate underwriting at First
American Title, and I am here on behalf of the American Land
Title Association.
Over the past five years, I have assisted dozens of states
in updating their notary laws to allow for the use of remote
online notarization, and I am honored for the opportunity to
speak to you today.
Notaries are perhaps easily overlooked, but they are
critically important to our economy, especially for real
eState. Notaries have been with us for a very long time; and in
fact, they go all the way back to the Roman Empire. So why do
we continue to use notaries? It's because they are proven to
increase the security of life's most critical transactions by
authenticating a document signer's identity and by serving as
an impartial witness.
The Secure Notarization Act is a bipartisan bill thanks to
the leadership of Representatives Armstrong and Dean. It
modernizes notary law for the 21st century by allowing
documents to be securely notarized over a webcam or a
smartphone. We call this remote online notarization.
Remote notarization benefits and protects consumers. It
gives them the flexibility to execute documents based on their
schedules without the need to take time off work and find a
babysitter.
As you might imagine, the biggest driver of remote
notarization has been the COVID-19 pandemic. As of today, 40
states and counting authorized the use of remote notarization,
but the national solution is needed to provide this valuable
flexibility to every American, including those who need it most
like service members, others who are overseas, and underserved
communities.
Furthermore, the country's legal landscape would benefit
from additional certainty around the acceptance of remote
notarization.
Congress's best position to provide this certainty just as
it did for electronic signatures with the enactment of the E-
Sign Act more than two decades ago. The Secure Notarization Act
does three basic things:
First, it permits all consumers to have access to remote
notary services. Imagine anyone being able to close on a home
from the comfort and convenience of the kitchen table.
Second, the bill creates national minimum consumer
protections. This includes using multi-factor authentication
for determining a document signer's identity, tamper-evident
technology, so you can detect any changes made to an electronic
document after it has been executed, and an audio/video
recording of the notarization. This both deters fraud and
provides strong evidence in court if there is a dispute.
Finally, the Secure Notarization Act provides certainty
around the interState recognition of remotely notarized
documents. This ensures American's legal documents will be
valid and enforceable nationwide no matter where they were
signed just as is the case today with any traditional in-person
notarization.
Equally important to what the Secure Notarization Act does
is, what it doesn't do. States will continue to commission and
regulate notaries. They are free to add standards above the
minimum consumer protections. The Act also works in tandem with
existing State privacy laws to protect consumer data.
And finally, the Act does not favor or restrict the use of
specific technologies. Today, the country stands at an
inflection point with remote notarization. Just as Congress
acted decisively to enable online commerce by enacting E-Sign,
now is the time to do the same for notarizations.
So I will leave you with a quote from a service member who
recently used remote notarization for a home purchase: ``I am
stationed overseas in South Korea. My closing happened nearly
7,000 air miles and 13 time zones away. Closing on a house
would have been impossible without this option. Our dream house
would have slipped away from us had we not been able to execute
the buy remotely.''
Thank you for inviting me to testify today, and I am happy
to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. O'Neal follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you for your testimony.
And now, Mr. Hagopian, I'm so sorry. I messed up the name
of your company. You'll introduce yourself, and I recognize you
for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ERIC D. HAGOPIAN
Mr. Hagopian. Thank you, Chair Schakowsky and Ranking
Member Bilirakis and those committee members.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the
subcommittee in support of Manufacturing.gov Act today. My name
is Eric Hagopian. I am the owner and CEO of Pilot Precision
Products located in western Massachusetts in South Deerfield
near Amherst about two hours west of Boston, rather.
I founded Pilot Precision Products in 2016, but our roots
date back to 1945 when the Dumont Company was established to
manufacture broaching tools in the area which was also home to
many other industrial cutting tool companies such as Greenfield
Tap and Die Bendix and others.
My small business employs about 35 highly skilled
machinists. We manufacture and distribute precision broaching
tools and other hole-making tools for the aerospace, defense,
automotive, and medical industries to name a few.
Broaching is a metal cutting operation that uses a
multitooth tool called a broach to change a round hole into a
desired shape such as a square, hex, (inaudible) or other form
used in mechanical drive components. Materials such as steel
and aluminum are very prevalent.
I also, serve on the executive committee of the National
Tooling and Machining Association based in Cleveland, Ohio, and
I'm speaking today on their behalf, and of course, on behalf of
the thousands of small-and medium-sized manufacturing companies
across the country like Pilot Precision Products.
As the past two years have shown, manufacturing in America
is crucial to our economic and national security interests.
During the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, most U.S.
manufacturing businesses were deemed essential. We kept our
doors open and lights on producing the products Americans need
to keep our communities safe.
No matter what, manufacturers are always there for
Americans. Now, manufacturers need our government to be there
for us. We work hard to compete on an uneven global playing
field. Time and again, we are up against foreign government
subsidized companies; and although U.S. Government has programs
to help improve our competitiveness, there are often difficult
to find, and certainly, to navigate.
I am fortunate in that I have an active trade association
to support me, but thousands of other manufacturing business
owners see the Federal Government as too big to help and too
difficult to be effective.
The truth is that manufacturing touches virtually every
part of the Federal Government from job training programs to
advanced manufacturing initiatives. Our sector could benefit
from programs at the Departments of Commerce, Labor, Energy,
Defense, and Transportation.
The Government Accountability Office recently found that 58
Federal programs across 11 Federal agencies exist to support
manufacturing, and this is the problem. These programs are so
scattered across so many different agencies and departments.
According to that same GAO report, 11 programs are at the
Commerce Department alone, but one must search all different
parts of the department to find them, and that's why we need
the Manufacturing.gov Act.
The Commerce Department should be the best go-to resource
for all things related to industry. Right now, I must know what
a program is called, and where to look for it, and then try and
back down the program content, but what if I didn't know that
there is a program that exists that could benefit my business?
How would I learn about it without the support of my industry
association?
We need a one-stop shop where manufacturers can quickly go
to learn about programs that are already funded and available.
By passing the Manufacturing.gov Act and establishing a section
in the Manufacturing.gov website with information about Federal
manufacturing programs, our business can quickly identify how
we can invest our dollars back into our business and community
and industry.
The bill places focus on providing more information and
resources available in all areas top of (inaudible) to
manufacturers like us. Having links and information on programs
available to our small business in one place would not only
save time but allow us to identify and benefit from other
existing programs. The topics under the Manufacturing.gov Act
such as workforce training, supply chain technology, research
and development, and trade are all very essential to our
business.
Frankly, when I first heard about the Manufacturing.gov
Act, I was somewhat surprised thinking that something like this
must already exist, but a connected centralized hub to
manufacturers with Federal manufacturing programs seems just
like a commonsense approach that would help us to benefit
programs already designed and funded to support manufacturing
in America.
But knowing about the programs is only the first step.
Small businesses often lack resources and know how to go about
applying and then implementing these necessary steps. This is
where the industry trade groups such as the National Tooling
and Machining Association did partner with the Federal
Government under stakeholders to increase awareness of the
programs and provide initial support.
Manufacturers are always there for this country innovating,
creating, empowering, and growing our economy, but we are
facing many challenges from worker shortages to supply chain
disruptions. Passing the Manufacturing.gov Act will ensure that
our government can be there for us. With a one-stop hub for
manufacturers, the U.S. Government can help businesses like
mine identify existing programs that could benefit our company
and our industry.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today,
and on behalf of myself and the National Tooling and Machining
Association and the industry, I encourage you to pass the
Manufacturing.gov.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hagopian follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Schakowsky. Well, thank you.
Next, I recognize Julie Menin for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JULIE MENIN
Ms. Menin. Thank you very much.
Hello. My name is Julie Menin, and I am testifying before
you today as the former commissioner of the New York City
Department of Consumer Affairs. Thank you, Chair Schakowsky,
Ranking Member Bilirakis, and distinguished members of the
subcommittee for inviting me to speak today as a witness.
I know this committee is doing critical work to protect
American consumers across the country. In this difficult
environment for today's consumers, it is imperative that
lawmakers do everything they can to promote equity,
transparency, and affordability for the American consumer.
One law that will do just that is the Pink Tax Repeal Act,
the bill that I am going to be focusing my testimony on today.
I have done extensive work in the arena of consumer products.
Before I began my career in public service, I worked as a
regulatory attorney, first, at Wiley, Rein & Fielding in
Washington, DC. where I specialized in consumer protection
issues.
I then worked as Senior Regulatory Attorney at Colgate
Palmolive Company in New York City where I handled regulatory
legal matters for the agency encompassing the Department of
Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, and other regulatory
issues and consumer litigation.
Through this experience, I saw firsthand that, although
there might be two products that were a very similar, there was
a (inaudible) to market them differently.
In 2014, I was appointed commissioner of the New York City
Department of Consumer Affairs. In 2015, as commissioner, I
used this prior experience I had to spearhead a large study
investigating the gender pricing of goods in New York City.
The goal of the study was to determine the frequency and
extent to which female consumers face higher prices than male
consumers when literally buying the exact same products. We
understood that the study needed to be precise in the data it
collected and needed to cast a wide net around consumer life
cycle.
We ultimately examined 794 staple consumer goods across
five industries: children's toys and accessories, children's
clothing, adult clothing, personal care products, and senior
healthcare products.
Each product category was selected to reflect a stage of
the consumer life cycle, thereby providing a glimpse into the
experiences of consumers of all types and all ages. While the
study focused on New York City markets, many of the stores and
brands that we examined were, in fact, top national chain
retailers.
We also understood that to get the most the accurate
results, it was critical to minimize differences between the
men's and women's items that we were comparing. The agency only
selected products that had similar male and female versions and
were closest in branding, ingredients, appearance, textile,
construction, and/or marketing.
When the researchers came back with the results, it was
very clear that we were not looking at a case of occasional
overpricing. Rather, we saw that 42 percent of the time women
are charged an average of seven percent more for what is
essentially the exact same product.
So for example, women's jeans were ten percent more than
virtually identical men's products of the exact same size and
make. Girls' helmets and pads cost 13 percent more than boys'
helmets and pads. Razors and razor cartridges cost 11 percent
more for women. Over and over and over again, we saw
significant markup for products aimed for women and girls.
I remember one particularly egregious case where a boys'
scooter that was colored red cost $25 from Target. The girls'
scooter was double the price, and the only difference is that
it was painted pink.
What our findings suggested was that, over the course of
their lives, women are paying thousands of dollars more to
purchase similar products as men. These higher prices are
mostly unavoidable for women and permeate many different types
of products they buy. Individual consumers do not have control
over the textile and ingredients that are used in products
marketed to them and must make purchasing choices based on only
what is available in the marketplace.
We conducted the study to raise public awareness about
pricing disparity, so consumers could make the most educated
shopping choices. However, the burden should not be on the
consumer to have to ferret out this type of discriminatory
practice. The burden must be on the manufacturer and the
retailer to do the right thing.
An educated consumer can call out brands and diligently
check and compare prices, but they really shouldn't have to,
and that it's basically time and energy that a woman is being
forced to put on solely because of her gender.
All consumers deserve a marketplace in which they don't
have to conduct an investigation to ensure that they're getting
a fair price. For this reason, we need authorities to step in
and enforce fair practices.
Gender-based pricing is not indigenous to just New York
City, of course. It's happening all over the country. This
issue is compounded by the fact that women are still, on
average, being paid 83 cents on the dollar to men. They're
earning less but being charged more for everyday basic
products.
In order to combat gender inequality in our country, it's
essential to take stronger action against this widespread and
unfair practice. The bill that this committee is considering
would do just that, and by passing this bill, this committee
would provide significant relief for consumers.
And I would just say in closing, I really appreciate the
honor to be able to be here today, and I am happy to answer any
questions that the committee has. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Menin follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
And now, I would recognize Hadley Heath Manning.
STATEMENT OF HADLEY HEATH MANNING
Ms. Manning. Yes. Thank you.
Ms. Schakowsky. Yes. For 5 minutes.
Ms. Manning. Thank you.
Hello. I am Hadley Heath Manning, vice-president for policy
at Independent Women's Forum, a non-profit organization
dedicated to developing and advancing policies that aren't just
well intended, but actually, enhance people's freedom,
opportunities, and well-being. Thank you, Madam Chair
Schakowsky, for the invitation to serve as a witness at this
hearing today and happy birthday to you.
I appreciate the work of this subcommittee to find
bipartisan solutions to help reduce cost for American consumers
and families who are struggling during this time of record-high
inflation. However, my testimony will focus on one proposed
bill that will not be helpful. The proposed repeal of the so-
called Pink Tax may be well intended, but it will result in
fewer choices and reduce consumer satisfaction.
First, we should clarify that the Pink Tax isn't a tax at
all. If it were, I would be in favor of repealing it. But the
term refers not to a government levy, but to the disparity in
pricing between products marketed to men versus women.
Some women's products and services, most notably those
oriented to personal care and hygiene, cost more than similar
products made and marketed to men. One well-known and
frequently cited report that we just heard a lot about from the
New York City Department of Consumer Affairs found that women's
products on average cost 7 percent more than men's.
But--and this is critically important--a disparity isn't
always evidence of discrimination. In this case, the disparity
actually represents diversity, the robust free and capitalist
American marketplace is capable of providing millions of
products that are customized to the diverse American
population. This is something to celebrate, not squelch.
Importantly, women are free to buy products marketed to
either sex. Either men's and women's products like shampoo,
facewash, razors, and deodorant are substitute goods, or they
are not. If they are, women and men are savvy enough as
consumers to choose what they want based on the product and the
price point.
Women make 85 percent of consumer brand decisions and are
capable of navigating this marketplace. In fact, when a writer
for Mic.com. bought all men's beauty products instead of
women's, she saved about $24 over the course of one week.
Nothing is stopping any American woman from doing this. No law
is needed to make these more affordable men's beauty products
available to us.
However, the reason many women do not guy men's or gender-
neutral products is, because in many cases, these goods are not
substitutes, therefore, it's not appropriate to compare the
prices of products that substantially different.
Even the study out of the New York City Department of
Consumer Affairs says explicitly that ``men's and women's
products are rarely identical making exact comparison's
difficult when often men and women's products are so different
that the cost of production alone can explain the difference in
price.''
For example, men and women's personal care products often
have a different mix of active and inactive ingredients, they
often smell different, and have different features.
Even when it comes to services such as dry cleaning, there
are different costs on the supply side. Men's shirts can often
be machine pressed; women's blouses often cannot. This saves
the dry cleaner time and money, and he passes along these
savings to male dry-cleaning customers.
The Pink Tax is not a just function of supply costs, but
also a function of demand. Despite higher costs, women
demonstrate a preference for goods that are made and marketed
for them. Some goods are truly identical except for the color;
and as the mother of two young girls and one young boy, I can
tell you that often my girls prefer the pink or sparkly version
of whatever toy or product their brother has.
Now, we can speculate and debate about the reasons why boys
and girls have different preferences, but that might be beyond
the scope of this hearing. Instead today, we can simply observe
that these preferences exist, and that no consumer protection
is needed to keep Americans from demonstrating those
preferences in the marketplace.
Referring to the preferences of female customers as a Pink
Tax may actually shortchange some smart and socially conscious
choices that many women are making. According to a study by the
global management consulting firm, Kearney, female consumers
value female-focused products, pro-women branding and
advertising and socially conscious companies with female
leadership.
No one could or should blame female consumers who prefer to
pay a little bit more when a brand or product speaks to their
core identity as women or allows them to support a cause that
they believe in.
Attempts to repeal the Pink Tax would have unintended
consequences. Prohibiting disparate pricing for products geared
toward men and women ignores the supply and demand factors that
I have discussed here today. The results would be that
producers would simply standardize products eliminating sex-
specific options that women and men value and prefer. This
would reduce the diversity of goods and services available and
reduce consumer satisfaction.
A robust marketplace provides a broad spectrum of goods and
services. The choice among different goods and services should
belong to consumers. In some more socialized countries,
consumers have fewer options, rather than having our choice of
more than 75 different brands of shampoo, we could arrive at
the personal care aisle only to find ``the shampoo'' or ``the
soap.''
We are blessed to live in a country where the market is
free to respond to the preferences of so many different types
of consumers. We have organic shampoo, shampoo for black hair,
kids' shampoo, shampoo for curly hair, flat hair, hair that's
been permed or dyed. We have a variety of choice, and
naturally, prices vary according to product.
Sadly, today in the U.S. due to supply chain issues and
shortages, the specter of empty shelves is not a far-off
concern. This is the matter that should hold the attention of
the lawmakers, not proposed restrictions like the Pink Tax
Repeal that, rather than offering consumers protection, would
take products away.
The problems that undergird so many of our economic
problems today making it harder and harder for American
consumers to afford basic necessities are the result of
needless government regulation and meddling. The attempt to
eliminate the so-called Pink Tax and standardize pricing by
fiat would be another step in the wrong direction.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Manning follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Voice. Madam Chair, you have to unmute yourself.
Ms. Schakowsky. I thought I had. I'm sorry.
Tori Barnes, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF TORI EMERSON BARNES
Ms. Barnes. Thank you, Chairwoman Schakowsky, Ranking
Member Bilirakis, and members of the subcommittee.
Good afternoon. I am Tori Emerson Barnes, executive vice
president for Public Affairs and Policy for the U.S. Travel
Association and thank you for inviting the travel industry to
participate in today's hearing.
Before I start, I would like to thank Ranking Member
Bilirakis for his leadership on the Restoring Brand USA Act and
Chairwoman Schakowsky and members of the subcommittee as well
as Chairman Pallone and Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers for
supporting its enactment.
These two bills being considered today are a continuation
of the work on Brand USA and exemplify this committee's ongoing
bipartisan engagement on travel and tourism issues.
The Visit America Act and the Travel and Tourism Act would
both support the economic recovery and long-term
competitiveness of America's travel and tourism industry. While
both bills contain similar provisions,
there are also some key omissions in the Travel and Tourism
Act, and we look forward to working with this committee to
address those.
The Visit America Act is a bipartisan bill with strong
support across the travel industry. There is also companion
legislation in the Senate led by Senator Sullivan and the Act
is included in the Senate's bipartisan Travel and Tourism
Omnibus Bill Act of 2021.
First and most important, the bill establishes an assistant
secretary of travel and tourism at the Department of Commerce.
The assistant secretary would provide high-level leadership
accountable to Congress that would work effectively across the
administration to develop and implement national travel
policies.
Because travel touches so many areas of government from
DHS, TSA, and CBP, to the Department of State, DOT, FAA, and
more, a senior Federal official is needed to more effectively
coordinate policies across the administration. It's also
important to note that the U.S. is the only G20 country without
a Federal agency or cabinet-level official in charge of tourism
policy.
Establishing an assistant secretary would put the U.S. on
par with the other top destinations for international travel
and provide a high-level official to work with other countries
on travel facilitation issues.
Second, the Visit America Act directs the Department of
Commerce to develop a COVID-19 recovery strategy. At the end of
2021, international travel spending was 78 percent below pre-
pandemic levels, while business travel spending was down 56
percent.
This provision ensures that the Federal Government develops
and implements a plan to quickly restore travel, rebuild our
workforce, and prepare for future pandemics.
Third, the Visit America Act directs the Department of
Commerce to consistently set national goals and strategies to
grow travel to and within the U.S. The bill also charges the
assistant secretary with carrying out the strategies on an
annual basis.
We would like to thank Secretary Raimondo for her work to
develop a national travel and tourism strategy for the next
decade. She has been a very strong advocate for our industry's
recovery and future competitiveness.
Unfortunately, the same type of leadership has been very
inconsistent across administrations. The Visit America Act
would ensure that the national travel and tourism strategies
are consistently developed and carried out from administration
to administration.
Finally, the Visit America Act directs the assistant
secretary to work with the International Trade Administration
and the U.S. Commercial Services to promote and facilitate U.S.
bids for large international trade shows and events.
The Department of Commerce provides export promotion and
trade facilitation services for other U.S. exports like
transportation equipment and manufactured goods, but the
department does not consistently do the same do help U.S.
destinations compete for large international events and trade
shows, despite the fact that international inbound travel is
historically our Nation's second largest industry export.
This is a crucial provision to ensure that the U.S. does
not miss out on major international events which generate
substantial economic impact for local communities. For example,
U.S. Travel will host IPW, the leading international travel
trade show, next week in Orlando. Past IPWs have generated an
estimated 28.9 billion in export spending in the U.S., which is
equivalent to exporting 69 Boeing 747s, 700 GE9X engines, or
nearly 58,000 John Deer combines.
This demonstrates international travel's substantial
economic power and shows why it should be prioritized along the
other U.S. exports.
Next, I would like to turn to the Travel and Tourism Act
which includes many of these same provisions including the
development of COVID recovery strategy and direction for the
Department of Commerce to set national travel and tourism
strategies at least once every ten years; however, the bill is
missing two critical policies:
First, the bill does not establish an assistant secretary
for travel and tourism; and second, the bill does not direct
the secretary of commerce to support and facilitate U.S. bids
for larger international trade shows, conferences, and events.
In our view, these are two important and impactful policies
both of which are within the committee's jurisdiction.
We want to thank Representatives Titus, Case, Dunn, Soto,
and Salazar for their work on these critical bills for recovery
and competitiveness. We hope that the work the bill sponsors
and this committee can do to ensure to amend the Travel and
Tourism Act to include similar provisions so that both bills
can move forward.
Thank you for your time and for your strong continued
support of the travel and tourism industry.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Barnes follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
And last, but certainly, not least, I am going to introduce
Trista Hamsmith. We know this is not easy for you, and we are
so appreciative for your coming here. Reese's mom, you have 5
minutes for your opening--for your statement. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF TRISTA HAMSMITH
Ms. Hamsmith. Thank you. And thank you for inviting me here
today.
My name is Trista Hamsmith, and I am here to share why
enacting legislation to make consumer products that use button
batteries safer is so important and to impress upon you why
time is of the essence.
Button batteries are a hidden hazard to young children,
elderly, and pets, and I am here today to implore you to
protect families from what mine suffered through just a year
ago.
My daughter, Reese Elizabeth Hamsmith, meant affectionately
to those closest to her as, ``Re Re,'' born a spunky sassy
full-of-life girl on June 13th of 2019. At an early age, Reese
took the attention of the entire room when she walked in with
her inquisitive spirit and demeanor. She lived life in a way
that most will never know. She loved hard, she played hard, and
she fought harder.
Reese swallowed a button battery in October 2020 and lost
her fight on December 17th of 2020 at just over 18 months old.
Reese was an example for us all, and here is her story.
Reese seemed sick and not her spunky self. We took her to
the pediatrician, and she was diagnosed with croup. Croup is a
common misdiagnosis for button battery ingestion as it does
mimic it almost to a T.
After returning home, we noticed a button battery missing
from a device in our home. We tore the house apart; and after a
quick Google search, realized that we needed to get to the
hospital immediately. Once there, they confirmed that the
button battery had, in fact, been ingested, and there was
emergency surgery to remove the battery.
I think it's important to note here that, even once the
battery is taken out, these batteries continue to burn for days
after. So whatever damage you think you have, it actually
continues to get worse.
After a few days in PICU, she was released on a liquid-only
diet. A couple of days later, took her back for a checkup, and
they wanted to do a CAT scan. They were worried that a hole had
been created.
In fact, that battery had continued to burn. It burned a
hole through her esophagus and then through her trachea
creating a fistula which acts as a tunnel connecting the two.
So we now had air going it didn't need to go, and we had
liquids going where it didn't need to go.
That next morning, she went back for surgery. She came back
with a G-button so we could administer food to her stomach, and
she came back sedated. That morning was the last morning that
we saw Reese as herself.
The plan was to keep her sedated and let her rest for a
week, but it was just a few days later, she had her first code
in the middle of the night. At that point in time, the doctors
decided that we need to go to Texas Children's Hospital.
Reese spent most of her time at the hospital fighting
sedation, showing us her spunky self, and I firmly believe that
every doctor and nurse there knew her attitude and her spirit
by the time we left just from the (audio disruption).
A few weeks after Reese swallowed the battery, surgeons
would attempt to close the holes in her esophagus and trachea.
It was an all-day event, and it was successful. We were able to
repair the holes.
Now, it was more of a waiting game, let the healing happen,
and then we were to take her off of the ventilator. We did get
her off successfully. That evening, I went down for dinner,
came back up, and walked into the nightmare of starting
compressions. This was now her second code event.
They worked for about ten minutes, and we were able to get
her back that time, and the consensus was that she just isn't
strong enough yet. So we waited and tried again.
Once we did try again, it was obvious that she was not
going to be able to breathe on her own, and we were going to
need a tracheotomy. Our path was getting harder, but she was
still with us, and we could do this together.
Around, I guess, around eight o'clock that evening, they
took her back for the trach, came back in, got settled, middle
of the night, I woke up to the doctors who were in the room--
filled--and the numbers weren't looking right, and they wanted
to give her a different trach that would be a better fit. We
did that. Eight-thirty in the morning, same thing, the doctors
were back, numbers weren't looking right.
They wanted to do a bedside scope at which point the real
nightmare began for us. It was shortly after that, that the
beeping started. I remember watching the numbers (inaudible),
and the last time I saw a six before I dropped my head, OK?
They worked for 30 to 40 minutes, and we could not get her
back.
Early on, while Reese was still fighting her battle, I knew
that I wanted to spread awareness about the dangers of button
batteries; and at the time, I imagined it would be with Re Re
by my side. I guess, my plan (inaudible). In Reese's hospital
room sat a plaque that said, ``He has a plan, and I have a
purpose.''
We always knew that Reese would do big things in this
world, and her early battle may be over, but her true battle--
her true plan and her true purpose has just begun.
There were 4,000 button battery ingestions reported in
2020; however, it's estimated that only 11 percent of all cases
are reported meaning that, that number is closer to 36,000
children annually, and any one of these instances could prove
to be deadly.
The CPSC released data on injuries with a 93 percent growth
in injuries. Once ingested, the button battery can cause severe
tissue burns in as little as two hours. Sixty-one-point-eight
percent of ingestions are coming from the products--not from
our dump or not from our trash can, from the product.
As the market trend grows, the more products use these
batteries, the more we're going to see these numbers rise. In
December 2020 alone, we know of two--and two toddlers that
passed away from a button battery ingestion.
It's been estimated that a child swallows a button battery
every three hours which means by the time we get done here
today, at least one child will have swallowed a battery.
We never knew about the dangers of button battery
ingestion, and I hear families all of the time that didn't know
either. It's a club I never wanted to be in, and I wish I
wasn't sitting here in front of you today because that would
mean my baby girl would still be with (audio disruption).
Please don't let the death of my daughter, Reese, and her
purpose be in vain. We all have children that we love and want
to protect whether it's our own children or children in our
lives. Help protect all the children of the United States, so
that we never have to hear a story like Reese's again.
Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hamsmith follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. Thank you, Trista.
You know, members, you saw, I let her go even longer than
some of the other witnesses, but I think we really wanted to
allow her to tell this painful story, so that we can do all
that we can to make sure that no other family has to experience
this; no other child has to experience this.
So at this point, the chairman has recognized each witness
for 5 minutes, and now, we will move to member questions, and I
am going to begin with 5 minutes.
So my first question has to do with the Pink Tax, and we've
heard two sides of the story. I wanted to ask Ms. Menin about,
you know, my understanding is that--and by the way, I have
experienced the Pink Tax myself. It wasn't in a product, it was
in services, and it was at my cleaner. When I was charged more
for having a blouse--just a plain blouse--and I take my
husband's things in, and I take mine in, and I saw that I was
being charged more for exactly the same service.
But it seems to me that it is nothing more than
discrimination when you say that a pink scooter and a red
scooter or whatever a boy color is, a blue scooter, is as much
twice more. And you know, we've heard that, yes, there is the
option you can get the blue, but I--what my question is, are
the people who are--the women who are--marketed, something for
women or for girls, aware of the other options that could be
cheaper?
Ms. Menin. Thank you, Chair, for the question.
No. They're not aware, and this is the whole problem with
the Pink Tax. We're putting the burden back on the consumer to
ferret out and look at different products to determine which
one is the most cost effective for them. That is completely
unreasonable, and quite frankly, I think it is illegal.
This is a huge problem. There is no rational basis for a
scooter, the one that is painted red to be half the price of
one that is painted pink. Our study also found out that bike
helmets, the helmet that is marketed to boys was half the price
as a helmet painted pink that is marketed to girls. I am the
mother of four kids. I see this, you know, as a real issue for
consumers.
And by the way, as I mentioned in our study--we studied
close to 800 consumer products: one is marketed for babies, for
teenagers, for adults, and for seniors, and we saw it across
the board no matter what the product category was.
Ms. Schakowsky. The other criticism was that, you know,
sometimes, there really are these kinds of differences, and how
do we make sure that we're really talking about the
equivalency?
Ms. Menin. Sure. And that, I think, is a great question.
Look, I worked as an attorney, as I mentioned in my testimony,
for Colgate Palmolive. I have been a consumer protection
attorney for a long time, but I mentioned Colgate Palmolive
because it is a consumer-products company. This is where I
really first started focusing on this idea of the ingredients
in various products.
It is not correct what was said before in other testimony
that these differences are reasonable. In other words, if you
have a shampoo, and it might have a slightly different
fragrance based on whether it is marketed to a woman or a man,
it is not the fragrances that should account for a different
cost. The majority of cost in any consumer product derives from
research and development. That is the No. 1 cost center, and
research and development has nothing to do with what type of
fragrance you might put in a shampoo.
Many----
Ms. Schakowsky. I am going to have to cut you off because I
do want to get to one other question of one other witness.
I wanted to talk to Ms. Kraska about the horse slaughter
bill, and how big a problem is this in the United States that
horses are being transported for human consumption out of the
United States of America, and who are these? Where are these
horses?
Ms. Kraska. Thank you, Chairwoman, and I will try to be
brief here.
But from the ASPCA's perspective, one horse is too many. If
any horses are being exported for this purpose, that represents
cruelty, but we know that the number has been dropping pretty
significantly in recent years, so between 2016 and last year,
the number of horses being exported for slaughter dropped by 78
percent, so that's down to 23,000 horses last year; and if you
compare that to the 2.3 million Americans that have said that
they are both willing and able--when I say, ``able,'' like I
live in Washington, DC.; I can't necessarily adopt a horse even
though I would really want to--that's what we (inaudible), and
they are both willing and able to do that. So we know that
there are homes for these horses.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. So we're talking about tens of
thousands. Thank you to the witnesses.
And now, I recognize Mr. Bilirakis for his 5 minutes of
questions.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for
holding this very important, very informative, hearing.
The first question is for Ms. Hamsmith. Thank you so much
for joining us here today and for taking on this task while
still grieving.
What happened to your little girl, Reese, is a terrible
tragedy. Ma'am, can you elaborate on your testimony regarding
your outreach to companies and what their rationale is as to
why there aren't better standards in place?
Ms. Hamsmith. Most of the companies that I have spoken to
are fully supportive of what we're trying to get done here. We
looked at the toy law that was enacted that required screws to
secure those in, and everybody is wondering why have we not
done this for everyday products?
I think it is pretty well supported across the board that
our children do have access to things that are not just
specifically children toys; and in our case, it was a remote,
you know, she reached up and grabbed that remote, dropped it--
is what we're assuming--and that's how she got it.
And so the support has really been quite unwavering as far
as the need for this for our children across the U.S.
Mr. Bilirakis. Yes. I had an opportunity to speak with a
parent whose child was affected by this in Jacksonville.
Congressman Rutherford introduced me to her, and she told me
the story, and I am a cosponsor of the bill.
So as you developed this proposal, are there particular
companies that you modeled it after to help prevent another
tragedy like the one your family has endured?
Ms. Hamsmith. So what we would like to do is delegate it to
the CPSC for them to make the choice on how to properly secure
these closures and the warning labels. Of course, the toy
industry does have the screws. I know the CPSC had talked about
push-pull mechanisms, and they are currently looking into the
most cost-effective way to do this; and of course, the best way
to keep these secure and out of our children's hands.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
Ms. Barnes, in addition to my role as the committee--co-
chair of the congressional Travel and Tourism Caucus, as you
know, one of the themes of our caucus is that we all benefit
when tourism is thriving. It means less tax burdens, more jobs,
and a strengthened economy. I know you agree with that. Most
everyone does.
Unfortunately, travel and tourism was one of the hardest
hit sectors during the pandemic. Commonsense solutions like a
Travel and Tourism Act will help boost the economy and help get
us moving in the right direction.
While this committee has fast jurisdiction, it certainly
isn't exclusive when it comes to your sector. What areas do you
see we can focus on in our work with the Commerce Department,
especially in terms of travel and tourism businesses, most
severely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic?
Ms. Barnes. So thank you for the question and again, thank
you for your leadership on the issues around travel and
tourism. It's so important.
You know, I think, one of the things that we see, and I
think, one of the things we would like to see included in the
Travel and Tourism Act really is the establishment of an
assistant secretary of travel and tourism because the ability
for commerce to actually facilitate U.S. bids for large
international events is really, really important.
And additionally, one of the things that is really a
deterrent for folks to come here and hold events here are our
slow visa processing--we are up at over 400 days in some
cases--for folks to get a visa to come to the U.S., our wait
times in customs, and having inadequate infrastructure.
And so an example of how an assistant secretary could
really facilitate bids and help to alleviate some of these
challenges would be to ensure that visa appointments and
processing times are efficient for international attendees,
ensure adequate CBP and TSA staffing are available at airports
during the times around the event, and then, obviously, to
identify Federal infrastructure resources to build the
infrastructure that is needed to host events.
You know, it's really important that we have that whole
government approach. As I mentioned in my testimony, we are the
only one of the top G20 countries that does not have a tourism
minister, and so without senior leadership at the Department of
Commerce, again directed by Congress, we won't be able to
really optimize all that we could from an economic standpoint
across this industry.
So really think that, that is important for us to move
forward and elevate and make the country more globally
competitive related to travel specifically.
Mr. Bilirakis. OK. I know I have to stop, so I'll submit
the rest of the questions, but I do want to know this. As far
as the backlog is concerned with regard to the visa processing,
what was it like--maybe, you can answer this at another time--
what was it like prior to the pandemic? Did we have a backlog?
Ms. Barnes. No.
Mr. Bilirakis. And to what extent?
Ms. Barnes. It was 12 days on average, and now, we're up,
again, well over 230 days for the top ten markets, I believe,
and 400 to 600 days for some countries.
Mr. Bilirakis. OK. Thank you very much. I yield back, Madam
Chair. Thanks for the extra time.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
And now, I recognize the chairman of the full committee,
Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes of questions.
The Chairman. Thank you, Chair Schakowsky.
I wanted to ask Ms. Kraska about the SAFE Act. I know it's
very important to protect horses from slaughter. But there
could very well be inhumane treatment of horses on the way to
slaughter, and that's what I wanted to ask you about. Talk, if
you could a little bit about how horses are treated on their
way to slaughter, and is there is further abuse that occurs?
Ms. Kraska. (Audio disruption) the question Chairman and
this is one of the worst parts of the slaughter pipeline. So
what we consider the pipeline is everything between when horses
end up in kill pens and all the way after they make the, you
know, 28-plus-hour journey all the way across the border to
Canada or Mexico; and during this time, you know kill buyers
are turning a profit by the number of horses or the poundage, I
guess, that they're cramming into trailers at one time.
So they are going to try to fit as many animals in there as
they can. These are unfamiliar animals that don't know each
other; and we know from when horse slaughterhouses were
operating in the United States, that many of these horses were
showing up at slaughterhouses with absolutely horrific injuries
like eyeballs hanging from their heads and limbs that were
completely off, dead in the trailer. I mean, once a horse goes
down it's very difficult for them to get back up in that type
of situation.
And we also know that there was a study published last
year, 2021, in the journal Meat Science that found that carcass
bruising on the horses that--American horses--that were
exported for slaughter to Mexico, I think, it was about 79
percent, so that indicates that it's a really, really highly
prevalent problem.
The EU also did an audit in 2014 that found very similar
things, so we know that slaughter is cruel from start to
finish.
The Chairman. Thank you so much and thank you for all that
you do to protect animals.
I wanted to also ask Ms. Hamsmith with regard to her
daughter's tragedy; but before it, were you aware of how much
damage the button battery could cause to Reese's system? I fear
that too few know the serious and deadly risk, and also maybe,
how Reese's Law would help implement regulations to warn
parents about the dangers of these batteries.
Ms. Hamsmith. No. We were not aware at all. When a battery
is ingested, it actually causes that positive and negative
charge to connect, so it's literally burning our children from
the inside out. Obviously, we had zero clue that, that could
happen.
As far as what, you know, this legislation could do, having
the stronger warning labels that are actually at a point
parents could see and are more graphic detail. It is so
important for parents to know what actually can happen and what
those long-term (audio disruption).
The Chairman. Well, thank you.
Ms. Hamsmith. Yes. You know, what can happen long term and
that this isn't always something that these kids come back
from.
The Chairman. Thank you so much.
And then last, I wanted to ask Ms. Menin if you would
elaborate on why the FTC needs the new authority in the Pink
Tax Repeal Act, and can you address the concern that some have
raised that ensuring women pay the same price as men might
somehow mean less choice for consumers?
Ms. Menin. Sure. I would be happy to.
Well, the FTC needs this legal authority because they
currently don't have it, and otherwise, we're going to result
in a patchwork of different State laws. We, here in New York,
have a very good State law that bans the Pink Tax, but the
majority of states do not, and so obviously, this law would
give FTC the necessary legal authority it needs to be able to
crack down on the Pink Tax.
To your second question about choice, this, in my opinion,
does not in any way diminish consumer choice, because look at
the end of the day, all this is doing is telling manufacturers
that they cannot charge more for what is really the same exact
product, and so we are in no way interfering with consumer
choice, and I would add, in the new York State where we do have
a very robust law, we have not seen any evidence of an impact
on consumer choice at all.
The Chairman. Well, thank you so much, and I yield back.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
And now, I recognize the ranking member of the full
committee, Mrs. Rodgers, for 5 minutes of questions.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me join in saying
happy birthday. We're both May babies. All right. OK.
Ms. Schakowsky. (Crosstalk) do them too.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
Before I begin my questions, this morning, we received a
letter from the National Tribal Horse Coalition, and I would
like to--it includes some federally recognized native nations
in my home State expressing their opposition to H.R. 3355, the
SAFE Act. I will be looking into the issues that they raise and
would ask for it to be entered in today's record.
Ms. Schakowsky. Without objection.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mrs. Rodgers. Ms. Manning, thank you again for testifying.
As I mentioned in my opening statement, I have significant
concerns with H.R. 3853, the so-called Pink Tax Repeal
legislation.
The simple truth of the matter is that, there is many
different variables for how the price of a product or service
is determined, and we are seeing the same debate unfold with
alleged price gauging proposals, but time and time again, we
learn that multiple factors go into determining prices.
Like those recent proposals, this legislation is a solution
in search of a problem. The legislation uses the term, quote,
substantially similar, which is defined as having no
substantial differences.
In your research, would that take into consideration what
the different variables could be when determining the price of
a good or service?
Ms. Manning. So thank you for the question, and this
language, ``substantially similar,'' is very important. In
fact, it's the same language that is used in the New York State
law that we just heard about, and it is one of the reasons why
the New York State law hasn't been effective at equalizing the
prices of goods that are targeted toward men and women; because
in order for goods to be considered substantially similar, they
have to have no substantial differences, and the materials used
in production, intended use of the good, the functional design
and features of the good, the brand of the good.
And ``substantially similar services'' are defined as two
services that exhibit no substantial difference in the amount
of time to provide the service, the difficulty in providing the
service, the cost of providing the service, and of course, all
of these are factors in the way that goods and services are
priced.
So the market price is simply the intersection of market
supply and market demand, and there are different price points
for every different type of product depending on the features.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
Ms. Manning, you State in your testimony, you quoted,
``Disparity isn't always the evidence of discrimination''; but
because the legislation is vague in defining what factors
should be considered when determining if something is
discriminatory, the FTC could simply determine whether or not a
price for that good or service is discriminatory without any
justification.
Wouldn't this allow the FTC to determine the prices that a
business may sell their products or services?
Ms. Manning. Yes. And if not the exact price, you know, I
don't know that the FTC is going to get in the business of
saying, ``This bottle of shampoo has to be $5.99.'' Because of
the language of this bill, I could foresee the FTC becoming
very prescriptive and formulaic in terms of how products that
are made and marketed for the two different sexes are
ultimately priced.
Mrs. Rodgers. And I have one more question. To make matters
worse, the legislation grants the FTC with the first-time civil
penalty authority for a violation of the Act.
So now, the FTC gets to label any price they see as
discriminatory when businesses themselves don't even know.
Then, they get to hit a company with civil penalties for which
many will not be able to afford, and I don't see any kind of
cost benefit analysis or economic impact conducted by the FTC
Bureau of Economics.
So it almost suggests that we are going to ignore the
impact on business, but I would also like to think about the
consequences for consumers. How do you see our constituents
being impacted when it's already difficult to find products on
the shelves?
Ms. Manning. Sure. Well, it's important when lawmakers
consider any new regulation to do a cost benefit analysis; and
of course, the cost of any regulation isn't simply a dollar
figure. It is also the cost, in this case, of risk or legal
exposure when firms like retailers or manufacturers produce or
market products to the two different sexes.
They will now face the specter of litigation, the specter
of being accused of discrimination, when in fact, there is not
discrimination at play, but rather, a disparity based on supply
and demand factors, and this cost is going to passed on to
consumers during a time where--I don't have to tell you--but
we're experiencing record-high inflation, 8.3 percent this
April over 12 months. This is a very difficult time to navigate
in a marketplace as an American consumer, and I hope lawmakers
don't make it more difficult.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
The title for today's hearing is about legislation
strengthening our economy. I am very concerned that this
legislation, the so-called Pink Tax Repeal, will actually have
the opposite effect on small businesses.
And to all of my colleagues, we need to stay focused on
celebrating the diversity of businesses large and small, family
owned and operated, and the vast products and services these
businesses offer.
I also want to say thanks to Reese's mom for joining us. I
have the chance to meet you and talk with you, and I appreciate
you sharing your story and bringing this legislation forward.
I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
And now, I recognize Kathy Castor, Congresswoman Castor,
for 5 minutes for questioning.
Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Madam Chair, and happy
birthday to you, and thank you for organizing this important
consumer protection hearing where we have such a wide variety
of topics on animal cruelty and manufacturing and gender
discrimination.
And of course, thank you, Ms. Hamsmith, for sharing your
personal story. You are very brave to do so. You are speaking
up for a lot of parents who often don't have the wherewithal to
appear before a congressional committee and tell this story,
but it's a very important one.
You know, I represent the sunshine State and watched with
dismay during the pandemic how so many small business owners
and mom-and-pop businesses really suffered when travel and
tourism fell off.
In 2020, the travel industry's economic footprint fell a
whopping 42 percent from 2.6 trillion to 1.5 trillion, resulted
in a loss of 5.6 million travel-supported jobs, according to
U.S. Travel, Ms. Barnes, so I was focused on helping and
introduced with Representative Upton, the Protecting Tourism in
the United States Act to direct the Department of Commerce to
take a deep dive on the effects of the pandemic on travel and
tourism and help us with an action plan in growing back, so I
think a few of these bills would really help.
Ms. Barnes, you answered a some of the questions I was
going to ask already, but maybe, talk a little bit more about
what the impact was of the pandemic, how fast the falloff was,
and the real challenges for those businesses as we work to get
all of those businesses large and small and all of the industry
back on its feet.
Ms. Barnes. No. Thank you for your question and thank you
so much for everything you have done to lead our recovery
efforts.
As you know, it really was incredibly catastrophic. Prior
to the pandemic, the U.S. travel industry employed one in ten
jobs and was the number two export for our country, and we
still have a long way to go. We have really recovered strong on
domestic leisure, but international travel is still down, at
the end of 2021, about 78 percent; business travel down, 56
percent, and we really need consistent policies to help ensure
that we can continue to recover.
We are still looking at a 2024/2025-time horizon just to
get back to 2019 numbers, and that would be absent five years
of growth.
One of the things we really need to see on the
international side is for the administration to lift the
predeparture testing requirement that's currently still in
place requiring 24-hours before you come back to the U.S. or
come to the U.S. to have a test, and you know, Mexico, Canada,
the UK, most of the EU, all of Latin America aren't requiring
this. So it's really putting us at a competitive disadvantage.
We also need to see an accelerated processing of visas. I
noted the visa backlog. It is tremendous. We really need to
move that forward more quickly.
And then, you know, we also think that there is an
opportunity to encourage businesses to get back out there, to
get back to work, to get back to traveling. We need business
leaders to really lead by example.
And then, we also have a challenge with our workforce. Our
workforce is really significantly suffering. One-point-seven
million jobs are open within the travel and tourism industry,
and so we need to look at things like the H-2B visa process
which I know is out of your jurisdiction, but we need access to
more workers.
For every 100 jobs that are open across the entire economy,
only 65 people are unemployed Americans who are looking for
work, so that's something that we also need. Without workforce,
we won't be able to bring back the travel industry.
Mrs. Rodgers. Well, thank you very much.
And for my colleagues, supporting the travel and tourism
industry is so important to building back our economy and
American jobs. So I will look forward to working with everyone
to craft the right policies moving forward.
I want to move on, Council member Menin, on H.R. 4081, the
Informing Consumers about Smart Devices Act, I know--everyone
knows that smart device usage has increased astronomically
across the country. That's how we operate in this world now.
So that means, it has never been more important to ensure
that consumers are fully informed about their smart devices,
from what data these devices collect, to what capabilities
these devices possess, and what they are used for.
So you have got a broad range of experience, but I am
especially worried about our kids and teens who will--they will
never know a world where smart devices don't exist, and they
are particularly vulnerable to what they encounter in the
digital realm.
So talk to us about what you have learned in your
experience, and what we need to be focused on when it comes to
kids and the internet of things.
Ms. Menin. Thank you very much.
I was invited to offer testimony on the Pink Tax, so that's
where I am going to keep my comments on. The subject that you
are raising is incredibly important, but I want to respect the
fact that the invitation from the committee came on the Pink
Tax, so I will keep my comments to that.
Thank you.
Mrs. Rodgers. OK. Well, I think, a lot of my colleagues
here understand the challenges and how important it is for us
to move on kids privacy. I want to thank Chair and all the
other members who are working on children's online privacy
including the My Kid's----
Ms. Schakowsky. We are going to have to move on.
Mrs. Rodgers [continuing]. Privacy Act.
Ms. Schakowsky. Your time is way up. So----
Mrs. Rodgers. Oh, OK. Sorry about that, and I yield back
then.
Ms. Schakowsky. OK. Thank you.
Next, I am calling on Congressman Douglas (audio
disruption) 5 minutes for (audio disruption).
Mr. Douglas. Thank you, Madam Chair, and also happy
birthday.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
Mr. Douglas. I hope you have a great birthday (audio
disruption) in Evanston, so have a great birthday in a great
city.
Ms. Schakowsky. Happy to be with all of you.
Mr. Douglas. So thanks. Thank you.
I want to thank you for having this hearing and Ranking
Member Bilirakis for holding this hearing and for all the
witnesses and your testimony and especially Ms. Hamsmith that
is willing to share your stories which hopefully will lead to
legislation to, as you said, to continue the life of and the
legacy of your child.
But today, I want to talk about horses; and as you know,
I'm from the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and we are home of the
greatest two minutes in sports with this year proved to be
great with Rich Strike winning from coming from so far behind.
While we are well known for our wonderful thoroughbreds, we
also have a variety of other horses and other competitions,
which you know, today, we are talking about the Tennessee
Walking Horse, and I just want to share that I have heard from
stakeholders from the Tennessee Walking Horse industry in my
State and also in other states, and their concerns about the
PAST Act.
Concerns raised to my office indicate that the Tennessee
Walking Horse is already one of the most inspected horses under
current law by both USDAs Animal and Plant health Inspection
Service and the horse-industry organization inspectors.
To that end, the PAST Act eliminates the industry
inspection entities under the Horse Protection Act and replaces
them with new employees of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
and the U.S. Department of Justice.
USDA has never had the policing powers over this issue, and
therefore, there are concerns that it does not have the
expertise nor the resources to oversee that important
responsibility.
And to share some of their concerns in greater depth, I
would just like to submit for the record the following
documents: a written statement from the Performance Show Horse
Association and several other written statements from industry
groups, inspection reports from the past few years, and a study
by the National Academy of Sciences regarding Tennessee Walking
Horse inspection.
And my understanding, Madam Chair, is that the committee
already has these documents. It's been presented before the
hearing, so I would like to submit those for the record.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Douglas. And just to close, I want all horses to be
protected, and I want them to all be safe from abuse. I
strongly believe that horses are continued to--if they are
continuing to be sored in violation of the Horse Protection
Act, we need to address that. Perhaps, should we look to the
Horse Racing Integrity and Safety Act as a model.
In that case, our committee affirmed that thoroughbred
racing could and should be independently regulated. I believe
that stakeholders can find consensus that would preserve the
Tennessee Walking Horse in their competitions, and most
important of all, protect these wonderful horses, and I hope
this information is useful to the committee as it moves through
the legislative process.
I don't really have any questions, Madam Chair, and I'll
yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
And I now, recognize Congresswoman Clarke for her 5 minutes
of questions.
Ms. Clarke. Happy birthday, Madam Chair.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank----
Ms. Clarke. Before I begin my prepared remarks and
questions, I would like to once again, publicly express my
heartfelt condolences to the loved ones of the victims of the
onslaught of gun violence in our Nation.
I remain distraught and dismayed at the tolerance and
indifference of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle at
the, now, decades-old endemic gun violence that continues to
plague our Nation.
I would like to encourage my colleagues to search their
souls and join the 90 percent of Americans who desire to see us
pass commonsense anti-gun violence laws in this Congress to
break the cycle of death that our nation--that your inaction
actually--permits. In other words, in the words of Senator
Murphy, ``What are we doing?''
Having said that, Madam Chair, I now, want to direct my
questions to our distinguished panelists and thank them for
joining us today.
My questions begin with this statement--excuse me, sorry
about that. Let me thank our witnesses for their testimony
today.
To put it simply, discrimination against women in our civil
society is broad and pervasive, and it is particularly
pronounced against women of color. Studies have shown that
doctors pay less attention to women who complain about the
severity of their symptoms. Women continue to make 83 cents to
every dollar earned by men, and women are less likely than men
to be promoted into leadership roles despite having equal or
greater experiences.
Not surprisingly, this very same discrimination is also
baked into the price of goods and services that we, as women,
pay for daily. Studies have shown that women are frequently
charged more than men for goods and services that require the
same amount of labor, use the same components, and serve the
same purposes.
This is marketplace discrimination plain and simple, and it
is abhorrent and cannot be allowed to continue, and that is why
I am a proud cosponsor of Congresswoman Jackie Speier's Pink
Tax Repeal Act.
Having said that, my first question is for my dear friend
and colleague, Council member Menin. It's so nice to see you
here today.
When you oversaw the New York City Department of Consumer
Affairs, your agency led a groundbreaking study that exposed
gender-based pricing across 35 different categories and nearly
800 products. Unfortunately, there are those who still claim
that the Pink Tax is a myth.
Is that what the New York City Department of Consumer
Affairs study found, and how do you respond to those claims?
Ms. Menin. Well, thank you so much, Congress member. It's
great to see you as always.
First of all, the study that we did which studied over 800
consumer products found incredible price discrimination. You
can't argue that when women are being overcharged 42 percent of
the time that it is in any way not intentional, and it really
cut across every single product category--everything from
products targeted to seniors like the bladder pads to the
scooter example, the helmets I mentioned, shampoos, razors--
every single category across the board.
It is very clear from the seminal study that we did that
women are truly being charged a Pink Tax, and it is abhorrent;
and if you take that over the course of their lifetime, they
are literally paying tens and tens of thousands of dollars in
money that they shouldn't have to.
Ms. Clarke. Can you speak a little more about the impact
that this discriminatory practicing can have on women over the
course of their lives?
Ms. Menin. Sure. I would be happy to.
So a study by the State of California estimated that the
Pink Tax on services alone cost a woman roughly $1,350 per
year. So if you adjust that for inflation, it means that a
woman is paying a Pink Tax at least the equivalent of $2,300
each year, and picture if that same amount of money was instead
being deposited in a retirement account with five percent
annual returns. We're talking about, over the course of a
lifetime, women are being charged hundreds of thousands of
dollars that they shouldn't be.
Ms. Clarke. And why is it so important that we legally hold
companies accountable for gender-based pricing discrimination?
Ms. Menin. Because unfortunately, if we do not hold them
legally accountable, they will oftentimes not do the right
thing. You can walk into any drugstore or any store across the
United States, and you can see evidence of this. You will see
shampoos where literally the shape of the bottle might be
curvy, and it is marketed to women, or it might be painted
pink, or it might have a slightly different fragrance.
So we're seeing this as endemic to product categories
across the board, and so it is imperative that Congress
regulate and specifically give the Federal Trade Commission the
legal jurisdiction to crack down on these illegal
discriminatory practices.
Ms. Clarke. I thank you, Councilwoman, for your diligence,
your hard work, and your commitment, not only to our city, but
of course, to our Nation.
With that, Madam Chair, I yield back and just ask my
colleagues, what are we doing? And I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. Thank you.
And now, I recognize Representative Bucshon for 15--not for
15--how about for 5 minutes for your questions.
Mr. Bucshon. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and let me
add my well wishes for your birthday. (Inaudible) everybody
else's as well, and I think it's a great opportunity to discuss
the legislation before the committee today.
Mr. Dunn. (Out of turn) included among the bills is one
that I introduced with my Florida colleagues Representatives
Soto and Salazar to support the United States tourism industry.
That's H.R. 7820, the Travel and Tourism Act.
Ms. Schakowsky. Excuse me. I'm going to let you continue if
it's OK with Mr. Bucshon because I actually called on Mr.
Bucshon who was next in line for his questioning.
Mr. Dunn. Oh, I'm sorry.
Ms. Schakowsky. Mr. Bucshon, do you want to just go ahead?
Mr. Bucshon. No. He should go ahead----
Ms. Schakowsky. OK.
Mr. Bucshon [continuing]. And I'll go after him.
Ms. Schakowsky. OK.
Mr. Dunn. Sorry about that, Larry. I (crosstalk)----
Mr. Bucshon. No. You're fine.
Mr. Dunn. I only heard the last syllable of your
(inaudible).
Mr. Bucshon. It's all good.
Mr. Dunn. (Audio disruption) from across the world, travel
to the United States to take advantage of all the great things
there are to do and see in our Nation; and in the Second
District of Florida, and indeed, across our entire State,
tourists enjoy white sand beaches, State and national parks
with diverse wildlife, first-class fishing, and water sports,
and some of the world's great golf courses.
The State of Florida saw a record number of visitors for
the tenth consecutive year just before the pandemic. In fact,
in 2019, contributed $97 billion to Florida's economy
supporting over 1.6 million jobs.
Unfortunately, in 2020, we all know what happened. The
pandemic grounded the United States tourism industry to a
complete stop, and the many families who rely on this industry
sustained substantial losses and were often forced to close the
doors of their businesses--businesses their livelihoods
depended on.
Fortunately, the response by the Florida Governor and
legislature was inspiring across multiple industries, and they
were ready to respond at the height of the pandemic. Because of
their leadership, Florida exceeded visitor projections for
every quarter in 2021 and so far, this year, setting records.
According to data from the U.S. Travel Association, for the
record, Florida's recovery to travel has outpaced other states
recoveries in every month since February 2021. The United
States and the Federal Government should learn from the
Governors of these states that were so successful and the
industry leaders in those states as well.
I have a question for Ms. Tori Barnes. When the CDC puts
out confusing or conflicting guidance as they did throughout
the pandemic, how does this affect your industry and the
decisions that they make in their planning?
Ms. Barnes. Thank you for the question.
And no, absolutely, we have absolutely seen a very uneven
recovery, but I think, what, from you laid out, one of the most
important takeaways is that, we can have health and safety
measures in place, and we can return to business practices that
enable (background noise) to move about, and that it is
absolutely critical. I think, Florida was, in fact, a really
good example of letting businesses continue to thrive.
And so what we really need from the government is clear
consistent policies across the board and not a patchwork
approach. The reason that we are seeing such a recent uneven
recovery (background noise) we got a different environment and
different states, and the international front, in particular,
as I noted, still have this predeparture testing requirement,
which is not based on science at this juncture, but simply, CDC
is giving a strong, you know, hold on that particular
operation.
So we couldn't agree more that the policies that Florida
have taken to enable the health and safety as well as economic
recovery, and that is critical to (background noise) the whole
of the travel industry.
Mr. Dunn. So do you think that input from industry leaders,
people, your members, to the Federal agencies, the Department
Commerce, CDC, other agencies--when they publish guidelines,
shouldn't they be consulting with you so that they can
understand, they have a clear, much more clear, interpretation,
and we all get the consistent messaging. Wouldn't that help?
Ms. Barnes. Yes. I mean, absolutely, and quite frankly,
early on in the pandemic, we as an industry, put together a
health and safety guidance on our own to ensure that
(background noise) had an even higher degree of health and
safety than we already had within the industry, and we (audio
disruption) agree more that we need to have consistent
messaging.
There needs to be collaboration, and I think, that is why
this legislation is so important. We need (audio disruption)
there is someone that is prioritizing the travel industry
within the government.
But again, that is why we would like to see (audio
disruption).
Mr. Dunn. All right. Thank you very much for your answer.
Our time is growing short, but for the record, I agree that
informed input by specialized knowledge is usually a better
thing.
With that, Madam Chair, I yield back. Thank you.
Voice. You're muted.
Voice. We can't hear you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Schakowsky. (Crosstalk), you know, I'm going to have to
call on a Democrat right now.
Debbie Dingell, who has been waiting, is next for 5 minutes
of questions, and then, I will be calling on you. Sorry.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Madam Chair, and happy birthday
like everyone else. I hope you enjoyed spending it with your
colleagues doing good work.
Ms. Schakowsky. My favorite people. Thank you.
Mrs. Dingell. And I want to thank you for holding this
hearing, and I am heartened by the amount of attention that all
of these diverse bipartisan proposals are receiving, and I want
to thank all of you who are testifying here today for the work
you are doing to help us discuss how we can do more to protect
consumers and strengthen our economy. I would love to talk
about all the subjects, but I probably will only be able to get
to two if I am lucky.
So I'm a manufacturing girl, so I'm going to start with
manufacturing. I have long fought for policies to support
domestic manufacturing capacity, strengthen supply chains, grow
American jobs, and improve America's competitiveness.
The impact of COVID-19 underscored the vulnerabilities in
our manufacturing base, and we must be proactive in taking
steps to promote further workforce training, research and
development, and supply chain resiliency in critical
industries.
Mr. Hagopian, how would having a centralized location for
Federal manufacturing programs help alleviate supply chain
disruption?
Mr. Hagopian. Thank you.
You know, it definitely would be helpful if we had some
central repository for information specifically related to
programs that would help benefit our industry. Right now, as I
stated in my opening comments, it is very difficult for us to
find what we are looking for because we just have to comb
through all the data.
So I did look through the Manufacturing.gov website. Let's
just say it is a good start, but it needs a lot of work; and so
to that extent, so long as the information that is provided is
done so alongside industry and industry partners like the
National Tooling and Machining Association, I think it would be
most effective for small, medium, and large businesses,
frankly, as well.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you for that. And while we are talking
about manufacturing capabilities, I just want to reinforce that
we need to get (inaudible) into the American compete supply
chain subtitle across the finish line to strengthen our
domestic manufacturing capacity now.
Let me switch gears to another critical issue I have been
hearing with a great deal of respect for my colleague, the
ranking member of the committee, but I really do have some real
concerns about gender equity.
In many cases, women are paying more than men--that is a
reality--for the very same identical personal care items, while
still, unfortunately, in this country on the average, earning
less for every dollar that a man earns exasperating purchase
power inequities and outcomes.
I am an original cosponsor of the Pink Tax Repeal Act, and
I heard the issues she raised, and hopefully, we can talk about
them, but I think, it is beyond time that we end gender
discrimination in the pricing of goods and services. So I
think, this measure is vital to protecting women in this
country.
Ms. Menin, it is an honor to be here with you. Is there any
current--well, let me go to this. Why is both the FTC and State
attorney general enforcement authority necessary to prevent
unfair discrimination in the pricing of these nearly identical
products?
Ms. Menin. Thank you. You really need both to have
jurisdiction. The Federal Trade Commission, obviously, is going
to be setting national standards, they will do a lot through
rulemaking, it will be incredibly important to have that
national standard, and they are able to crack down on national
retailers that may be operating in numerous states across the
country.
At the same time, we also of course, want to have the State
attorney generals to have their jurisdiction to be able to go
after these practices as well.
Mrs. Dingell. I think, there is oftentimes a misconception
in this conversation that women should just purchase lower
priced men's products without addressing the fundamental issue
of why the prices between substantially identical products are
different in the first place.
Ms. Menin, how does this argument perpetuate harmful
disparities and purchasing power and equity for women? Would
leaving this issue unaddressed exasperate disparities and
equity for women, especially for those in lower incomes who
might feel additional constrained by increased prices?
Ms. Menin. Absolutely. The evidence is unbelievably clear
that women are being charged more than men for literally almost
the same product. I would like to give a couple of additional
examples: Neutrogena women's lotion that's being sold $16,
men's Neutrogena lotion, $10.28; Walgreens Schick razors,
$18.50 for women; Walgreens Schick razors, $15 for men.
I could go on and on and on. Our study showed, again, 42
percent of the time that women were being charged more; and if
you take that over the course of a woman's lifetime, it is
completely unfair this Pink Tax. This is money that is being
charged to women, it is not being charged to men; and when you
compound that with the fact that women on average are making 83
cents to the dollar to men, we are losing out on incredible
amounts of resources that rightfully belong to women in this
country.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you very much.
Madam Chair, I am out of time, but I do want to associate
with the comments of several of my other committee members on
the subjects of the need to do something about gun violence in
this country as well. I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. Now, I want to make it clear. I am calling
on Congressman Bucshon for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Madam Chair. Happy birthday.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thanks.
Mr. Bucshon. Thanks for having the hearing.
Travel and Tourism are an important economic sector for
Indiana and the United States that have taken a massive hit
over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of
overseas arrivals for March were still 52 percent below pre-
pandemic levels, and overall travel spending was still five
percent below 2019 levels.
This is why I am glad that the Visit America Act, H.R.
6965, and the Travel and Tourism Act, H.R. 7820, are before us
today. These bills will build off the work that Congress has
already taken this year in enacting the bipartisan Restoring
Brand USA Act which I was proud to be a cosponsor of that will
help promote the return of international visitors to the U.S.
by ensuring that Brand USA has the access to the funding it
needs to fulfill its mission and to help showcase to the world
the great things to visit in Indiana and throughout our
country.
Unfortunately, successes like this are counteracted by the
continuing implementation of COVID-19 travel restrictions and
testing requirements such as requiring all international
visitors to show a negative test within 24 hours of arrival.
I have cosigned a bipartisan letter highlighting that the
inbound testing order remains the single biggest barrier to the
full recovery of our international travel system, and that
fully vaccinated travelers, in my view, should be exempt from
these requirements. And ultimately, people who can show that
they are naturally immune due to previously acquired COVID-19
disease should also be exempted.
Unfortunately, the CDC has not enacted commonsense policies
like that; so when someone is considering visiting the U.S. or
Europe, we help make that choice for them by making travel
harder.
Ms. Barnes, thank you for all that you and the U.S. Travel
Association do to support our economy. Would you agree that
inbound testing requirements remain one of, if not the primary,
deterrent for many travelers coming to our country? Is that
true?
Ms. Barnes. Yes. Thanks, Congressman. Thank you for that
question. In fact, we just did a recent international survey,
and vaccinated travelers to come to top inbound markets, and 54
percent of them said the predeparture testing requirements were
still discouraging them from coming to the United States, and
so absolutely, it is a deterrent. That and the visa processing
backlog are two of the biggest issues, but the predeparture
testing requirement, that should go away today. Quite frankly,
there is no science-based reason to keep that in place, and it
is obviously, a significant deterrent.
Mr. Bucshon. Well, thank you. I would agree with that, and
you know, I mean, as a physician, I have my own views on when
we should be testing completely asymptomatic vaccinated
individuals and what the result of a, quote/unquote, positive
test even means in those individuals.
It is a deterrent in a lot of areas right now; and at some
point, I really believe, you know, we are going to have to
decide when the endpoint is of just constantly testing everyone
for COVID-19 because we'll be doing this forever if we don't
define some endpoints here.
Also, the Travel and Tourism Act (inaudible) would require
the development of a strategy to encourage international
visitors to the U.S. I believe that this strategy should
include provisions to encourage travel to places like Indiana
that international visitors may not be aware of like they would
things that are in New York or Los Angeles for example.
What are some of the ways that you and the U.S. Travel
Association would work with the administration to ensure middle
America doesn't get left out of these travel strategies and
encourage people to visit our country?
Ms. Barnes. Sure. So two things: One would be, we really do
think it is important to have an assistant secretary for travel
and tourism. The reason is, is we need to have someone that is
really focused on the industry at large and can help across all
of the agencies to really enable a more travel-friendly
environment, and I think that it is important to note that
Brand USA, in fact--and as you noted, you cosponsored, and we
are grateful for that--does this important work to bring
international travelers to all destinations across all 50
states and communities alike.
So having a senior-level governmental official--again, I
mentioned before that of the G20, the United States is the only
country that does not have a minister of tourism--and so we
think that having that person in place would be really
important. Coupling that with the work that Brand USA does
could mean really great things for all 435 districts in this
country, including Indiana.
Mr. Bucshon. Well, thank you very much for that answer.
And Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
And now, I recognize Congresswoman Robin Kelly for 5
minutes.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to lend my
happy birthday to you also. I hope you have great plans this
evening.
I will start by saying thank you to Trista for providing
her testimony today. I know it can't be easy to keep telling
your story over and over, but it is inspiring that you turn a
tragedy into action so no family has to go through what yours
did.
When I (audio disruption), that was my hope, to prevent
children from accessing button and coin batteries, so no family
has to go through what the Hamsmith family have had to go
through. I just really wanted to give you, Trista, the
opportunity to share with the committee anything that you
didn't get a chance to share in your opening statement.
Ms. Hamsmith. Yes. Thank you, Ms. Kelly. I think it's
important to note that, in our case, Reese didn't make it; but
there are many children across the U.S. that, that was not the
case, and they did make it, but they are living with lifelong
injuries, and when I say, ``lifelong injuries,'' I'm talking,
they are having to go in for monthly dilations of their
esophagus, their voice boxes are paralyzed, they are living
years of their life on a trach.
For Reese, had she made it, they said that she would have
been in the third grade before being able to sit down and eat a
meal with her fellow classmates for lunch.
So I think it is important to note that, you know, whether
these kids live or die, the devastation, whether it is for the
family or the child, is a lifelong devastation that needs to be
fixed.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you so much for sharing, and I am just
grateful that Reese's Law is being discussed today, and I just
want to encourage my colleagues to join as cosponsors and
support this very, very important legislation so that, again,
families will not have to go through the tragedy that this
family went through.
And with that--it's my birthday present to you, Madam
Chair--I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you both for that and for your
support of this legislation.
And now, I want to give Debbie Lesko, who is one of the
most loyal members of this subcommittee, and I appreciate your
attendance and participation, and you have 5 minutes.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I wish you a
blessed day and a blessed year.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
Mrs. Lesko. I think we are discussing a lot of really good
bills today. The Reese's Law, Informing Consumers about Smart
Devices, Travel and Tourism Act, the Remote Notarization Act,
the Manufacturing.gov Act, and the Visit America Act all are
good bills, and I am glad that they have bipartisan support.
I have a question, though, about the bill that is called
the Pink Tax bill, and I want to pursue that a little bit more.
While others were talking, I went onto Amazon, and there were
20,000 results for moisturizers when I looked up moisturizers.
And so it ranged from Bulldog Skin Care Original Moisturizer,
which is for men or teenage boys, $2.81 a fluid ounce;
Neutrogena was $2.41 a fluid ounce; Aveeno was 0.61 cents a
fluid ounce, and then, I looked up deodorants on Amazon. There
was 4,000 results for deodorants.
Voice. Hi. This is----
Mrs. Lesko. I remember when my son was a teenager, he liked
the Axe brand, right? Because that was advertised to teenage
boys and Axe Black deodorant for men is a dollar ninety-two an
ounce versus, let's say, Lady Speed Stick is 0.81 cents an
ounce.
And there are 3,000 results for razors. The Gillette Venus
sensitive disposable razor, which is for women, is $2.32 a
razor. The Gillette Sensor III sensitive men's disposable razor
was a dollar forty-two a razor.
So obviously, in that case, the same brand, they both say,
``sensitive,'' they both say, ``disposable.'' The women's razor
was more than the men's, but it's different. It's a different
head to the razor, a different shape.
So I guess, my question is for Ms. Manning. You know, how
in the world is a woman or a man working for the Federal Trade
Commission or in a State attorney general's office going to
determine out of 20,000 different moisturizers or 4,000
different razors, if the reason for the price difference was
because it is marketed to a man versus a woman or was it
because of advertising?
For instance, my son, when he was a teenager, he wanted the
Axe brand even though there are comparable brands that were a
lot cheaper.
Also, not necessarily with women and men, but also, the
point of it is, how about cornflakes? I buy Kroger brand
cornflakes. They are a dollar forty-nine a box. Kellogg's
cornflakes, the same thing, are $5.00 a box. How is somebody in
a government going to determine this?
Ms. Manning. Well, I so appreciate the question because I
think you are question raises the importance point that these
are highly competitive markets for consumer goods, and that we
are blessed with robust choice, and even now, with retailers
like Amazon, we have access to many more choices than before,
and you know, one misconception that I want to push back on is,
the idea that all of this choice is somehow a burden.
This choice is not a burden. It's a great opportunity for
women and men as consumers to find the exact product that they
are looking for that fits their needs and their preferences and
their price point.
I also want to point out, since we're here with the
Consumer Protection and Commerce subcommittee, that the best
consumer protection is that market competition that we are
talking about, and when there are retailers in the market who
are trying to provide a good or service, whether it is for men
or women or a gender-neutral product, the downward pressure on
price that we experience as consumers is because of market
competition, and so I am happy to hear that there are so many
retailers offering so many different--a wide variety of--
choices in the marketplace.
I also did some research while others were talking, and I
found that, the red and pink scooters that featured prominently
in the New York City report, are available on Walmart.com today
for exactly the same price. You know, they were cited as a
Target.com purchase in the report.
Because we have market competition, because there are
different retailers, women and men as consumers can patronize
businesses that price products according to their values and
their needs.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I have run out of
time, so I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. And the gentlewoman yields back.
And now, I recognize Congressman Soto for 5 minutes.
Mr. Soto. Thank you so much, Madam Chair, for your
indulgence. It is graduation season, so it has been pretty busy
back here in Florida's Ninth congressional District.
What an exciting day today. I am thrilled to address
multiple different key bills today with you and appreciate you
and Ranking Member Bilirakis for your leadership to promote
commerce and to protect consumers and ensure fair practices,
whether it is Manufacturing.gov, a centralized website to
create a primary hub for information for Federal manufacturing
programs.
We make microchips. We make aerospace products. We also
make boat products in the district. So this is going to be key
for our district.
In addition, proving disclosures for devices like Alexa,
Siri, and other home devices, we need to make we are protecting
consumers.
Stopping the Pink Tax, practice of charging women and girls
more than men for similar products, we are right with you,
Madam Chair, on this one.
And Reese's Law, to protect children who accidentally
ingest batteries named after a young boy who tragically lost
his life in one of these situations.
Banning horse meat, horse soring tactics, as well as online
notarization and statewide notary standards. As a notary, I can
appreciate that, and I certainly appreciate all that you are
doing.
I am also honored to represent the theme park capital of
the world, Orlando, Florida. Visitors come from around the
United States and the world to enjoy major tourism destinations
like Disney, Universal, SeaWorld, Legoland, Old Town, Gator
Land, and so much more.
Domestic tourism, I'm proud to report, Madam Chairwoman,
has been very strong. The parks are packed as Americans are
getting back to enjoying traveling with their families. I hope
you see the same thing in all of your districts.
International travel has increased in North America and in
Europe, but it has been more difficult for folks in South
America, Asia, and Australia, potentially, because of pandemic-
related delays, and so we want to make sure we are organized,
have a plan to boost international tourism, and that's going to
be exactly what the Travel and Tourism Act does.
It's going to require the secretary of commerce to
establish an annual goal; and for international visitors, it
will allow the secretary to develop and implement a COVID-19
pandemic recovery and strategy to assist this recovery, as well
as statutory authority for U.S. Travel and Tourism Advisory
Board to make sure the secretary is engaging with industry as
we are developing and implementing COVID-19 pandemic recovery
strategies.
Madam Chair, I want to make clear that I support both H.R.
7820, the Travel and Tourism Act, as introduced by Mr. Dunn and
myself from Florida, as well as H.R. 6965, the Visit America
Act, as introduced by Ms. Titus of Nevada.
As a sponsor of the Travel and Tourism Act, I want to make
clear our intent is to have the bill be complimentary of the
Visit America Act, and not a substitute for it. Is that also
your understanding, and would you support moving the bills
through committee through an open amendment process to ensure
(audio disruption), and I ask, Madam Chair, if you wouldn't
mind yielding for that question?
Ms. Schakowsky. I'm sorry. What was the question? Excuse
me. I'm sorry.
Mr. Soto. I am asking, is it your understanding, and would
you support moving the bills through the committee through an
open amendment process to ensure the proposers are
complimentary to each other, and I ask if the chairwoman would
like to yield to that question?
Ms. Schakowsky. This is not a question that the chair can
answer, if you want to yield to the chair of the committee.
Mr. Soto. Yes.
Ms. Schakowsky. Chair of the full committee? Yes.
Mr. Soto. I am happy to yield to the Chair Pallone.
Ms. Schakowsky. I don't know that he is still here.
Mr. Soto. Well, thank you, Madam Chair, this was my
understanding. It's something that I will look forward to
working with you and the ranking member and others on, so we
get a bipartisan product that we all can support going forward
and thank you for your time, and I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. Well, thank you, and I know that there is
certainly a lot of bipartisan support for this legislation, so
we will work together to move it forward.
And now, I call on Representative Armstrong for his 5
minutes.
Mr. Armstrong. Happy birthday, Madam Chair.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thanks.
Mr. Armstrong. Before I start, I would like to seek
unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from the
American Land Title Association and 17 other organizations in
support of H.R. 3962, and I think, your staff has got that
letter this morning.
Ms. Schakowsky. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Armstrong. All right.
H.R. 3962, the Secure Act, is legislation to permit the
nationwide use of remote online notarization which is simply an
electronic notarization where the party and the notary are in
different locations.
Even before the pandemic, we were rapidly transitioning to
a world where the business is conducted through remote and
electronic transactions. You can bank by a remote electronic
transaction, testify in a judicial ?
Voice. Hey.
Mr. Armstrong. -? proceeding.
Voice. (Crosstalk), I think, I was ? had to text real
quick, and I wonder if that is why it happened because--?
Ms. Schakowsky. So ?-OK.
Mr. Armstrong. And you can even draft eState documents that
will eventually need to be notarized. There simply is no reason
we should not allow remote online notarization.
Mr. O'Neal, is remote online notarization the equivalent or
even superior to in-person notarization?
Mr. O'Neal. Thank you, Representative Armstrong. Thank you,
again, for your strong bipartisan leadership on this bill.
I think, comparing remote online notarization with
traditional notarization is really instructive. Obviously,
remote notarization is more convenient, but actually, it is
also safer and more reliable too. You can see that in several
ways:
One is the ID verification process. In a remote online
notarization, you use the latest technological tools with
multifactor authentication which is far superior to a notary
trying to detect whether an ID that is handed to the notary is
fraudulent or not.
Second is that remote notarization results in a much more
robust audit trail, an audio/video recording. Traditional
notarizations oftentimes don't have any evidence. Only a few
states even require a notary to keep a paper journal.
Finally, the outcome of the notarization. A traditional
notarization results in a paper document with notarization
typically at the end, and it's relatively easy to slip a page
or modify the document. Remote notarization, by contrast,
results in a tamper-sealed electronic document. You see exactly
what the document was when it was notarized and any changes
made afterwards.
And finally, I will of course, just add that, both consumer
and notary health and safety concerns make the remote option
attractive and brings stronger consumer protections.
Mr. Soto. As someone who has tried cases for a living, I
agree that video evidence is highly probative and a safe
considerable judicial resources. I have been a notary for two
different professions, and I always wanted to get the one where
you could actually pinch the paper and have the raised seal,
but alas, I only ever had the stamp.
So I don't know if there is a special level of notary you
get to where you get that, or if they just were transitioning
in the State of North Dakota, but what groups of people are
most likely to benefit from expanded access remote online
notarization services?
Mr. Armstrong. Well, obviously, all American consumers can
benefit from remote services, but of course, think of the sick
or elderly, people who are childcare givers, any immobilized
Americans, or of course, anyone exercising social distancing
could obviously benefit from remote notarization.
I will also highlight, any Americans who are traveling
overseas, including servicemembers, if you are overseas, you
often have to travel long distances to find an embassy or
consulate to get a document notarized.
Remote notarization allows you to connect with a U.S.
notary in real time and the resulting document is an electronic
document that can be used instantly in the United States as
opposed to trying to find a way to get a paper document
notarized overseas shipped back home for use.
So I think it benefits all Americans.
Mr. Soto. I actually remember when we had a lot of national
guards men and women deployed to Iraq. We had people in North
Dakota that would specifically go over there essentially as
couriers to get documents notarized from overseas guards men
and women and I mean, it just it was fascinating that, even at
that point in time, that we couldn't figure out a better way to
do it.
But this bill doesn't seek to Federalize the regulation of
notaries or otherwise replace authority of states to regulate
notaries, right?
Mr. Armstrong. That's correct. This bill does not replace
the states as the primary authority for both commissioning and
regulating notaries. It simply provides a legal foundation and
minimum consumer protections that states can exceed, and in
fact, every State should be encouraged to add additional
consumer protections and regulate notaries as they
traditionally have done.
Mr. Soto. And there is nothing in this bill that mandates a
specific use of any particular technology either; is there?
Mr. Armstrong. That's an extremely important point. This
bill is technology neutral, doesn't mandate the use of any
specific technologies, so the notaries can continually take
advantage of whatever latest technologies, fraud deterrent
technologies, come along.
Mr. Soto. And I just want to--I will just end with, you
know, I have actually had a lot of fun working with
Representative Dean on this issue. We have got to do some
different things, and it is not a trivial thing. The pandemic
showed us that people--and particularly with housing markets
and highly competitive things--that this is really something
that is more than just advancing technology. This can help
people in a very real way while still protecting everything
that notaries do.
So I appreciate the chance to do this. Thank you for your
testimony, and with that, I will yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
And now, I call on Kathleen Rice. I know you have been
patiently waiting, and I appreciate it for your 5 minutes of
questioning.
Miss Rice. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and again, happy
birthday to you. What a way to spend your birthday, but I'm
happy to be here with you.
First, I want to say a couple of things. There are very few
bright parts. There is really very little that you could say
positively about the pandemic, but one thing I appreciated
during the pandemic was that, I wasn't wearing clothes that had
to be dry cleaned anymore because I am sick and tired of paying
not just a dollar more to have the same article of clothing
cleaned, but multiple dollars more for no reason that I have
heard during this hearing.
It was said that ``disparity isn't always evidence of
discrimination''; but in the absence of the disparity being
based on something else, it is flat out discrimination it seems
to me; and instead of talking about the possible negative
economic impact of repealing the Pink Tax, how about the
negative economic impact that women are experiencing every
single day by spending more for the same exact thing and taking
that money out of something that can be put in the bank making
money for them given their lessor status already in the
workplace. So I just wanted to make those two comments.
I have to say that I have known Julie Manning for many
years, and I am so thrilled to have you here. You have been
such a fighter for consumers and thank you so much for your
time today.
I want to ask you, specifically--I would like to talk a
little bit about the New York State Pink Tax law that was
passed in 2020. Obviously, legislation aimed at ending gender-
based price discrimination, and it was based on the powerful
study that you did. Can you explain to us how the law is being
implemented in New York? Has it? Because it was claimed that
the New York law has not had a positive impact on lowering
prices for women.
Can you talk a little bit about how it is being implemented
in New York, and has it been effective in curtailing
discriminatory gender pricing?
Ms. Manning. Yes. Absolutely great to see you, Congress
member Rice, as always.
So the New York State law was based on the study that we
did at the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs, and
the New York State law covers both goods and services that are
essentially similar.
It defines ``goods'' as ``substantially similar goods as to
goods that exhibit little difference in the materials used in
production, intended use, or design,'' and ``services''
definition is ``services that exhibit little difference in the
amount of time delivering, difficulty, and cost in providing
the service.''
It has been implemented, and fines are $250 for the first
violation. We think this law is incredibly important because it
covers both goods and services; and as you correctly pointed
out, women are being overcharged thousands and thousands of
dollars a year for no reason whatsoever.
And when, for example, our study of 800 goods showed that
42 percent of the time, women are being charged more than men,
the only natural conclusion there is that, there is
discriminatory intentional conduct.
Miss Rice. Well, I mean, I couldn't agree with you more. I
mean, the example that you gave about the scooter that is the
same product, literally the same product, and the only
difference is the color. I mean, that to me, is just the most
outrageous example of this.
Ms. Manning. Correct.
Miss Rice. Can you talk----
Ms. Manning. And Target apologized and changed it as a
result of the study. So the comment that was made earlier about
that other companies aren't, we really were able to get
companies across the board to stop this discriminatory
practice.
Miss Rice. So Target did that, Ms. Manning, and did it have
the impact of not having any scooters available for girls?
Ms. Manning. Absolutely not. Scooters are available for
girls. Scooters are available for boys. The only difference,
now, is that they are the same price as they should be.
Miss Rice. I have got about 50 seconds, and you know, we
talked before about the structure of the FTC working in
conjunction with State attorneys general. Can you talk about
the enforcement structure in New York and how that works?
Ms. Manning. Absolutely. So the State is the enforcer. The
City doesn't have the legal jurisdiction to enforce on the Pink
Tax, so the State is doing it. It is the State consumer affairs
department. They are the ones that are enforcing it. The State
attorney general also has enforcement.
This is why, again, it is so important to have the Federal
Trade Commission. That Federal Trade Commission, I have
practiced law before them for years. They have particular
expertise in ferreting out this exact type of content.
Miss Rice. I want to thank all the witnesses here. This is
incredibly important conversation on all of these bills, and I
yield back the 7-seconds I have left, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you so much.
And I am really--I would almost say, honored--to have
someone who has signed on to be at this hearing today, has
waited for quite a while, and I am proud to say that Paul
Tonko, Congressman Tonko, now has his 5 minutes, and this is--
if I am not wrong--last but not least.
Mr. Tonko. There you go. Well, thank you, Chair Schakowsky,
and thank you to you and Chair Pallone for holding this hearing
on these really important legislative issues, and of course, a
ringing happy birthday and thank you for your youthful activism
which cannot be denied.
I would like start by highlighting the Manufacturing.gov
Act which I introduced, with Representatives Upton and Axne
last year. Small-and medium-sized enterprises are the bedrock
of our manufacturing base employing about 43 percent of all
manufacturing workers in the U.S.
They play an instrumental role in producing critical
products essential to our economic vitality. They include
fabricated metal products, machinery, electrical equipment,
appliances, computers, plastics to name a few.
I think, we all agree the Federal Government needs to be
doing more to promote manufacturing here at home.
But, Mr. Hagopian, what are some of the current Federal
programs that assists small-and medium-sized manufacturers to
become more competitive, and how familiar are manufacturers
with these programs?
Mr. Hagopian. Thank you for the question. I would say that
manufacturers, especially small-and medium-sized enterprises,
are largely unfamiliar with government programs because the
owners of these--and managers--of these companies are largely
head-down leaders. They are very engaged in the day-to-day
activities of their business; and as such, find it difficult to
avail themselves of these resources mainly because they have to
search for them.
That being said, there are two particular resources that
are available that these companies do use on a large basis, and
those two things are Section 179 Accelerated Depreciation and
the R&D Tax Credit, both of which my company enjoys, and we use
that money to reinvest in our business.
Mr. Tonko. So, sir, I would ask you then, Mr. Hagopian, you
know, would the Manufacturing.gov Act assist small-and medium-
sized manufacturers in terms of awareness of Federal programs?
Mr. Hagopian. Yes. So certainly, we need a place, a central
repository, where the information is easy to access and
understand; and again, through our industry association and the
National Tool and Machining Association, we'll assist the
government in promoting all of those benefits to the small-and
medium-sized enterprises.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And this bill has already passed the
Senate, and I hope that we can pass it here in the House as
well to deliver on a bipartisan basis for our U.S.
manufacturers. I am going to switch gears now.
As co-chair of the congressional Horse Caucus, and as one
who worked with Chair Schakowsky with the ASPCA to develop our
Horse Racing Integrity and Safety Act, I would like to provide
or State my support for two vital bills to protect horses: the
SAFE Act and the PAST Act.
As we have heard, the SAFE Act would finally put in place a
permanent Federal ban to protect horses from slaughter. It is
critical for the welfare of our equines, the sustainability of
the equine industry, and the protection of horse owners across
the country that we end this predatory practice for good.
The PAST Act ends the failed system of industry self-
policing on abusive soring practices and strengthens
enforcement measures for those caught continuing this horrible
practice. It passed the House in 2019 on a bipartisan basis, as
you all know, and I hope we will be able to pass this into law
this year.
So Ms. Kraska, can you tell us why it is so important to
pass these two bills to protect our American equines and those
equine athletes?
Ms. Kraska. Thank you so much, Congressman Tonko, and you
have been a real leader in this phase, and we greatly
appreciate everything that you have done for horses and the
people who love them in this country.
So I am here, of course, representing an animal protection
organization, the ASPCA; and from our perspective, both of
these practices need to end because they are extremely cruel,
but we are on the Consumer Protection subcommittee, and one of
the additional most important reasons that we need to pass both
of these bills is because of the people that they impact in
this country--the impact of this cruelty on industries, on
horse owners, on the people who care about horses in this
country.
There are 38 million, you know, self-described horse
enthusiasts. That's a ton of people, and horse soring and horse
slaughter are both black eyes on the overall industry, and that
is why we see so much industry support for passing these
measures.
We also know that these practices impact the entire equine
community. They drive down participation in shows, they cause
owners to be fearful of rehoming their horses which has some
really distressing negative externalities. They (inaudible]
predatory behavior practices like kill pen bailouts, and we
know that there are even some individuals who will buy
racehorses and then go back to their previous owners to try to
extort them for funds before sending them to slaughter.
So there is really no reason for these practices to exist
anymore. That is why we need these bills.
Mr. Tonko. Wonderful. Well, thank you for your advocacy and
let's get it done.
I have exhausted my time, Madam Chair, again, wonderful
happy birthday to you, and I hope you and Bob celebrate
wickedly. So I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. Well, I really want to express my real
gratitude to the witnesses today. I think, all of you did an
extraordinary job of making your positions very clear answering
the questions.
I want to remind Members that, pursuant to committee rules,
they have ten business days to submit additional questions for
the record to be answered by the witnesses who have appeared
today, and I ask each of the witnesses to respond as promptly
as possible to questions that you are getting in writing. I
would appreciate it so very, very much.
Ms. Schakowsky. And before I adjourn, I just wanted to--
where is it?
Voice. It is right here.
Ms. Schakowsky. OK. Yes. Before we adjourn, I request
unanimous consent. Well, first, let me see if there anything
that Mr. Bilirakis wanted to add before we adjourn about the
hearing--the ranking member.
Gus, do you want any final----
Mr. Bilirakis. I tell you, it was an extremely productive
hearing, and I appreciate it very much, Madam Chair. We learned
a lot, a very diverse amount of bills, and extremely
informative, and I want to wish you, again, a very happy
birthday.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. Thank you.
So I request a unanimous consent now to enter the list of
47 documents as reviewed by Democratic and Republican staff
into the record. Is there any objection?
And hearing none, so ordered, and without objections, then,
we will enter that into the record.
Ms. Schakowsky. And with that, this wonderful hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:35 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]