[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 105 (Tuesday, June 24, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H5997-H5998]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 4040, CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY
MODERNIZATION ACT
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, I offer a
motion to instruct conferees.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Kirk moves that the managers on the part of the House
at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses
on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 4040 be instructed
to insist on the provisions contained in the House bill with
regard to the definition of ``children's product''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon)
each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in June of 2007, the United States Consumer Product
Safety Commission and toy company RC2 announced the recall of 1.5
million various Thomas & Friends wooden railway toys because they
contained dangerous amounts of lead.
Lead poisoning causes vomiting, diarrhea, convulsions, anemia, loss
of appetite and abdominal pain, irritability, fatigue, constipation,
difficulty sleeping, headaches, and coma. Of course, it can even be
fatal. The toys on recall were made in China and retailed throughout
our country.
Just about every family with young kids in America knows Thomas the
Tank Engine well. And that's why I stand here this evening.
In 2004 the Consumer Product Safety Commission reported 121 United
States product recalls. By 2007 that number had fallen to 83.
Meanwhile, the commission recorded 148 recalls of products from China.
But last year Chinese recalls totaled 287.
Now, last July I joined with Congressman Rick Larsen, the co-Chair
with me of the United States China Working Group, in introducing H.R.
3100, the bipartisan Import Safety Act of 2007, to increase penalties
for willful violators of Federal regulations on imported goods and
increase our commitment to overseas inspections by the FDA and the
commission. Our effort brought needed attention to this critical issue,
and the legislation that we are discussing today, H.R. 4040, included
provisions to increase penalties for violators.
Last August Congressman Larsen and I led a delegation to China for
intense discussions on product safety. We met with the Vice Minister
Wei at China's General Administration For Quality Supervision,
Inspection and Quarantine. We told him that we would not stop until
China allowed the Food and Drug Administration and the Consumer Product
Safety Commission to deploy United States product safety officers to
China. When we returned, we made good on our promise. After months of
work and intense consultations with the State Department, the FDA, the
Chinese Foreign Ministry, and the commission, we are pleased to report
that we now can announce the FDA will be deploying eight full-time
United States product safety officers to China later this year.
Just a few hours ago, Congressman Larsen and I met with Mr.
Christopher Hickey, who will be America's incoming FDA country director
for China. We will continue working with our colleagues to ensure that
Mr. Hickey has all of the resources he requires to get his work done
and keep families safe. We particularly stressed on him the importance
of having a letter from the Secretary of Health and Human Services
giving him as country director power to stop a dangerous shipment from
being unloaded in a U.S. port if, in his view as a country director, he
feels that Americans could be at risk. We feel that this letter will
give him important powers and negotiating leverage to make sure that he
has access where needed on behalf of the FDA and the Department of
Health and Human Services to make sure that Americans are safe.
At a hearing of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services
in March of this year, I pressed Chairman Nord to follow FDA's lead and
immediately deploy United States product safety officers from the
commission to China. After weeks of intense follow-up discussions, we
are pleased to have the commission's commitment to send its first full-
time American product safety officer to Beijing. As a member of the
Appropriations Subcommittee that will fund this effort, our
understanding is that the startup costs for this effort will total
$310,000 with reoccurring costs of $550,000 per year to support the
commission's deployment to China.
I want to thank our ambassador to the People's Republic of China,
Sandy Randt, for working with us to secure the physical space in
Beijing and Shanghai and Guangzhou to accommodate these critical
deployments, and staffers from the Kirk and Larsen offices on behalf of
the China Working Group did inspect those facilities just a few months
ago.
Mr. Speaker, on December 19 of last year, the House passed H.R. 4040,
the Consumer Product Safety Commission Reform Act, by a unanimous 407-0
vote. This House came together on a bipartisan basis and defined a
children's product as a consumer product designated or intended for
children, and here's the key phrase, ``up to age 12.''
{time} 2130
It would mean that toys for kids up to age 12 would be subject to
lead testing. Now our colleagues in the Senate took up a bill and
amended this definition and lowered the age requirement to just 7
years.
I take this action tonight on behalf of Americans like Ryan Fischer,
age 3, who is now recovering from lead poisoning. Ryan's mother, Beth,
came to the Congress to highlight the danger that she faced, among
other Americans, including the toys of Ryan's 8-year-old brother that
contained lead but would not be covered under the Senate bill. The toy
in question in this case was a figure from a Nickelodeon character,
Diego, that was among the 17 pounds of toys that had high lead levels
in the Fischer home.
Today, I rise to offer what I think is a commonsense motion to
instruct conferees on H.R. 4040 to insist on the House definition of a
children's product over what the Senate chose.
Now, earlier this evening, I logged onto Etoys.com, a very popular
Web site for children's toys. When I clicked on toys for children ages
9 to 12, I found 21 products in the Thomas and Friends line available
for sale.
Did our colleagues in the Senate think that dangerous toys coming
from China could only harm kids below 8 years of age? If so, the Senate
would be out of touch and is not listening to the concerns of many
American families.
On May 15, 2008, Linda Ginzel, the cofounder of Kids in Danger,
called on conferees to adopt the House definition of a children's
product. Linda knows what it's like to lose a child from an unsafe
product. In Linda's words, ``Kids in Danger especially urges the
conferees to include the definition of children's products that go up
to age 12. Stopping at age 7 would effectively stop protecting children
in the second grade.'' I agree with Linda, as I think do most
Americans. The American Academy of Pediatrics agrees with her as well.
On November 6, 2007, Dr. Dana Best testified before the Congress on
behalf of the AAP, issuing the following statement, ``The AAP further
recommended that children's products be defined as one used by children
under the age of 12 years in order to provide a standard that protects
most children throughout periods of rapid brain development.''
In her later testimony, Dr. Best went on to say, ``The AAP further
appreciates the fact that this legislation requires lead testing in
products designed or intended for use by or with children up to age 12
years. Children's brains develop rapidly throughout childhood, and
significant damage would occur from lead exposure at any point during
this time. This provision represents a vital protection for child
health.''
Now, for some reason, our colleagues in the Senate disagreed with
Kids in Danger. Our colleagues in the Senate disagreed with the
American Academy of Pediatrics and, in my judgment, the
[[Page H5998]]
common sense of the American people. For some reason, our colleagues in
the Senate may have never logged on to Etoys.com to find out that
products recalled less than 1 year ago because of dangerous lead
content targeted children between the ages of 9 and 12.
Mr. Speaker, we should not allow toy manufacturers to stop protecting
American children once they hit the second grade.
Mr. Speaker, legislation of this type has now been under
consideration in the Congress for almost a year. We passed this very
legislation in December. We went to conference on this bill over 4
weeks ago. As we work tonight, it is only 4 months until the Christmas
shopping season goes into high gear. Likewise, Hanukkah begins 4 days
before Christmas.
Time is quickly running out to send a very clear signal by this
Congress in this month that lead standards in toys will not just be a
recommendation of major retailers, but will have the force of law and
will apply to products for children age 12 and down.
In my view, this is a commonsense, bipartisan issue that the House
should insist on as it rapidly concludes its conference. We should
maximize protections for our Nation's children.
In this effort, I want to thank Will Carty from Mr. Barton's staff
for helping us out on this; Brian Diffell from Mr. Blunt's staff for
this important motion today; and my key staffers, Richard Goldberg and
Patrick Magnuson, for their assistance and work on this effort.
I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense motion to instruct,
and reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MELANCON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, tonight I happened to talk to my 2-year-old grandson,
Jackson, in his home in south Louisiana. He is just 2 so we didn't talk
a lot of details about his pap and what his pap was going to be doing
tonight. But I thought it fitting to call him before speaking in favor
of this motion to instruct.
For the next couple of years, he will play with just about anything
put in front of him. He will clap blocks together, chip paint off of
model cars, and I will bet chew on anything that is handy. We owe it to
him, his mother, his dad, his grandmothers, his other grandfather, and
to me, to do what we can to make certain the toys he plays with won't
make him sick. It's that simple. We have that responsibility, and I
believe this underlying bill gets us closer to fulfilling it.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud of this bipartisan bill. It passed out of the
committee 51-0 and passed the House 407-0. It bans lead beyond the
tiniest amounts in products intended for kids 12 and under. That is an
important age, as kids are exposed to so many different toys and
products as they grow up. I believe the House bill takes this into
account, and I am proud to support it.
Mr. Speaker, this motion is a good one. I thank my friend from
Illinois for offering it. I urge that the House support the motion to
instruct offered.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. His State has gone
through enough, and I am glad for the attention and time he has spent
on this issue.
I think most Americans know with regard to Thomas and other faulty
products from China, we have known about this problem for a year, and
that the House of Representatives has passed completely bipartisan
legislation on this subject 7 months ago. We have been in conference
for 4 weeks now.
Quite frankly, our colleagues in the Senate made a mistake by making
the protections cover only toys from zero to age 7. We risk having a
situation in which parents who do not follow the rigid declarations of
what is available on the labeling on the box may make a mistake, and we
do not offer protections under the Senate bill; or, that older brothers
and sisters may have toys available which clearly fall outside the
Senate definition but would come clearly inside the House definition.
That is why I think this is a very important motion to instruct.
I think this calls attention to this issue for a piece of legislation
which should be rapidly finished to send a clear signal to the holiday-
buying public. I think it gently corrects our colleagues in the other
body that they made a mistake and they should back down to the House's
position.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to instruct.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
____________________