[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 111 (Wednesday, July 16, 2014)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1177]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2015

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                       HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, July 14, 2014

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5016) making 
     appropriations for financial services and general government 
     for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and for other 
     purposes:

  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chair, on Wednesday, July 16, 2014, the House 
will complete its consideration of H.R. 5016, the Financial Services 
and General Government Appropriations bill. The bill includes two 
amendments that would weaken important consumer product safety 
protections. I strongly oppose both provisions, as well as the 
underlying bill.
  One of the provisions would reduce funding for the Internal Revenue 
Service (IRS) by $2 million and increase funding for the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by $1 million. If that money would be 
dedicated to strengthening the CPSC's efforts to protect consumers, I 
might support it. However, it is the sponsor's intention that those 
additional CPSC funds be used to support the Commission's analysis of 
third-party testing to determine whether those requirements should be 
eased. That analysis has already been conducted by the CPSC. It sought 
public comment, reviewed the comments it received, and has so far not 
decided to revise its third-party testing requirements--a decision that 
is allowed under the statute. Throwing more money at the CPSC to redo 
an analysis it has already completed is a waste of taxpayer dollars, 
and it would do nothing to further the Commission's role of promoting 
the safety of American consumers.
  The other provision would prohibit funds from being used by the 
Commission to finalize, implement, or enforce the proposed ``voluntary 
recall'' rule. It would limit the CPSC's ability to explore possible 
changes that could reduce or eliminate recall delays, make recall 
notices more effective, or address the small number of firms that do 
not follow through on agreed-upon corrective action plans. While we 
have seen significant improvements in recalls since the Consumer 
Product Safety Improvement Act was signed into law almost six years 
ago, there is no justification for preventing the CPSC from continuing 
to enhance the voluntary recall process.
  The Consumer Product Safety Commission plays a critical role in 
protecting all Americans from hazardous products. This mission is too 
important for Congress to constrain CPSC's flexibility in determining, 
through an open and responsive process, the best way to carry out its 
goals.

                          ____________________