[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 169 (Tuesday, September 29, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H4983-H4988]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY INSPECTION ENHANCEMENT ACT

  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 8134) to support the Consumer Product Safety Commission's 
capability to protect consumers from unsafe consumer products, and for 
other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 8134

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Consumer Product Safety 
     Inspection Enhancement Act''.

     SEC. 2. ENHANCED RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY.

       Section 17 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 
     2066) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(i) Enhanced Risk Assessment Methodology.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date 
     of enactment of the Consumer Product Safety Inspection 
     Enhancement Act, the Commission shall enhance targeting, 
     surveillance, and screening of consumer products entering the 
     United States at ports of entry, including ports of entry for 
     de minimis shipments, by--
       ``(A) working in consultation with Customs and Border 
     Protection to--
       ``(i) access and leverage all available data, including 
     manifest data, to enhance targeting of violative consumer 
     products, including de minimis shipments containing violative 
     consumer products;
       ``(ii) access and leverage intellectual property rights 
     seizure data to target products that may have both 
     intellectual property rights infringements and consumer 
     product safety violations;
       ``(iii) prioritize shipments coming from the People's 
     Republic of China; and
       ``(iv) use the Participating Government Agencies Message 
     Set, or any successor program, and additional consumer 
     product specific data elements, including certificates of 
     compliance and any other data that the Commission needs, to 
     help risk assess and target violative consumer products; and
       ``(B) building and improving information technology systems 
     to support electronic access to and connection with the data 
     and targeting systems associated with express consignment 
     carrier facilities, international mail facilities, electronic 
     commerce platforms, and other applicable system participants.
       ``(2) Electronic filing of certificates of compliance.--
     Beginning not later than 2 years after the date of enactment 
     of the Consumer Product Safety Inspection Enhancement Act, 
     certificates of compliance shall be filed electronically for 
     consumer products intended for entry into the United States 
     to enhance risk assessment and target de minimis shipments 
     containing violative consumer products.
       ``(3) Definitions.--As used in this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `de minimis shipments' means articles 
     containing consumer products entering the United States under 
     the de minimis value exemption in 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C);
       ``(B) the term `express consignment carrier facility' means 
     a separate or shared specialized facility approved by the 
     port director solely for the examination and release of 
     express consignment shipments;
       ``(C) the term `ports of entry for de minimis shipments' 
     means environments where de minimis shipments are processed, 
     including express consignment carrier facilities, 
     international mail facilities, and air cargo facilities;
       ``(D) the term `violative consumer products' means consumer 
     products in violation of an applicable consumer product 
     safety rule under this Act or any similar rule, regulation, 
     standard, or ban under any other Act enforced by the 
     Commission.''.

     SEC. 3. ADDITIONAL CPSC SURVEILLANCE PERSONNEL AT KEY PORTS 
                   OF ENTRY FOR DE MINIMIS SHIPMENTS.

       The Commission shall hire, train, and assign not fewer than 
     16 full-time equivalent personnel during each fiscal year and 
     to be stationed at or supporting efforts at ports of entry, 
     including ports of entry for de minimis shipments, for the 
     purpose of identifying, assessing, and addressing shipments 
     of violative consumer products. Such hiring shall continue 
     during each fiscal year until the total number of full-time 
     equivalent personnel equals and sustains the staffing 
     requirements identified in the report to Congress required 
     under section 4.

     SEC. 4. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Commission shall transmit to the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate, and make publicly available, a 
     study and report assessing the risk to consumers associated 
     with the targeting and screening of de minimis e-commerce 
     shipments.
       (b) Report Requirements.--In the study and report, the 
     Commission shall--
       (1) examine a sampling of de minimis shipments at a 
     sufficient and representative sample of all types of ports of 
     entry where de minimis shipments are processed, including

[[Page H4984]]

     express consignment carrier facilities, international mail 
     facilities, and air cargo facilities to assess the extent to 
     which such shipments include violative consumer products;
       (2) examine a sampling of shipments coming from the 
     People's Republic of China to identify trends associated with 
     the shipment of products containing both intellectual 
     property rights infringements and consumer product safety 
     violations;
       (3) detail plans and timelines to effectively address 
     targeting and screening of de minimis shipments to prevent 
     the entry of violative consumer products entering into the 
     commerce of the United States taking into consideration 
     projected growth in e-commerce;
       (4) establish metrics by which to evaluate the 
     effectiveness of the Commission efforts to reduce the number 
     of de minimis shipments containing violative consumer 
     products from entering into the commerce of the United 
     States; and
       (5) assess projected technology and resources, including 
     staffing requirements necessary to implement such plans.

     SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act--
       (1) the term ``Commission'' means the Consumer Product 
     Safety Commission;
       (2) the term ``de minimis shipments'' means articles 
     containing consumer products entering the United States under 
     the de minimis value exemption in 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C);
       (3) the term ``ports of entry for de minimis shipments'' 
     means environments where de minimis shipments are processed, 
     including express consignment carrier facilities, 
     international mail facilities, and air cargo facilities;
       (4) the term ``violative consumer products'' means consumer 
     products in violation of an applicable consumer product 
     safety rule under the Consumer Product Safety Act or any 
     similar rule, regulation, standard, or ban under any other 
     Act enforced by the Commission;
       (5) the term ``electronic commerce platform'' or ``e-
     commerce platform'' means any electronically accessed 
     platform that includes publicly interactive features that 
     allow for arranging the sale, purchase, payment, or shipping 
     of goods, or that enables a person other than an operator of 
     such platform to sell or offer to sell physical goods to 
     consumers located in the United States; and
       (6) the term ``express consignment carrier facility'' means 
     a separate or shared specialized facility approved by the 
     port director solely for the examination and release of 
     express consignment shipments.

     SEC. 6. SAVINGS CLAUSE.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit, affect, or 
     conflict with any other authority of the Commission or any 
     other statutory requirements governing the Commission.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Rodgers) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.


                             General Leave

  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H.R. 8134.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in support of H.R. 8134, 
the Consumer Product Safety Inspection Enhancement Act, and I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, this bipartisan legislation was introduced by Consumer 
Protection and Commerce Subcommittee chair Jan Schakowsky and 
Representative Jeff Duncan and advanced out of the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce on September 9 by a voice vote.
  This important legislation will empower the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission with the data it needs to protect Americans from the flood 
of unsafe products entering our Nation from overseas, especially e-
commerce shipments entering under the de minimis value exemption. It 
will also help ensure the Commission has adequate staffing to support 
these efforts.
  Madam Speaker, e-commerce spending has risen steeply during the 
COVID-19 pandemic as Americans turn to online shopping to safely get 
needed goods or to find scarce supplies. Even before the pandemic, 
however, the CPSC was projecting that the number of e-commerce 
shipments to the United States would soon reach 60 million per year and 
represent well over 50 percent of the total volume of imports under the 
agency's jurisdiction.
  Despite the rapid growth in e-commerce, these shipments entering the 
U.S. from overseas continue to face little scrutiny at our ports and 
often contain fake or dangerous products.
  Currently, CPSC inspectors are present at only 6 percent of U.S. 
ports and concentrated only at seaports that receive large, high-value 
shipping containers. The agency virtually has no presence at the kinds 
of ports where millions of e-commerce shipments enter the United 
States, such as express courier facilities, international mail 
facilities, and airports.
  We need CPSC inspectors stationed in all these types of places to 
prevent unsafe products from entering the U.S. and harming Americans. 
CPSC will also need more data and more advanced IT infrastructure in 
order to properly assess risk and target potentially unsafe e-commerce 
shipments.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 8134 addresses all these issues. It expands 
CPSC's presence at ports, to include the type of ports where e-commerce 
shipments enter. It also empowers the CPSC to collect the data it needs 
to identify and block e-commerce shipments that disregard our consumer 
product safety laws and standards.
  This bill would protect American consumers from unsafe consumer 
products, at the same time an expanded and enhanced import surveillance 
program will also protect manufacturers and retailers from having to 
carry out costly recalls.
  Madam Speaker, I, again, commend Chairwoman Schakowsky and 
Representative Duncan for introducing this bill. I also thank Ranking 
Member Walden and subcommittee Ranking Member Rodgers for working with 
us to move this bill through the Committee on Energy and Commerce on a 
bipartisan basis.
  Madam Speaker, I call on my colleagues to support this measure, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 8134, the Consumer Product Safety 
Inspection Enhancement Act.
  This bill will give the Consumer Product Safety Commission important 
tools to crack down on unsafe and counterfeit products at our Nation's 
ports.
  As dangerous items and products that infringe on our companies' 
intellectual property flow into the country from China and other 
countries, it is essential that we empower the CPSC to find these 
products before they enter the country.
  Madam Speaker, I applaud Mr. Duncan and Chair Schakowsky for their 
leadership, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), the subcommittee 
chairwoman.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding to 
me. I rise in strong support of H.R. 8134, the Consumer Product Safety 
Inspection Enhancement Act, a bill that I introduced with my friend and 
colleague, Jeff Duncan.
  E-commerce spending is surging right now during the COVID-19 pandemic 
as Americans turn to online shopping for household essentials, personal 
protective equipment, back-to-school supplies, and more.
  However, e-commerce shipments entering the United States from 
overseas face little scrutiny and often contain fake or dangerous 
products. It is time that we empower the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission to collect the data it needs to identify and block e-
commerce shipments that can harm consumers and that don't offer the 
protection and safety that they need.

                              {time}  1330

  This legislation would give the CPSC the data that it needs to 
protect Americans from the flood of unsafe products that are coming in.
  This legislation is a critical first step to restoring confidence in 
e-commerce sites, but this bill is not a silver bullet. Much more needs 
to happen.
  Earlier this month, CNN reported that products sold on Amazon had 
burst into flames, causing significant bodily harm and property damage 
as well.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record that article.


[[Page H4985]]


  


                       [From CNN, Sept. 10, 2020]

   Dozens of Amazon's Own Products Have Been Reported as Dangerous--
Melting, Exploding or Even Bursting into Flames. Many are still on the 
                                 market

                  (By Blake Ellis and Melanie Hicken)

       (CNN) When firefighters arrived at Austin Parra's home on 
     January 12, 2017, they could see smoke and the charred 
     remnants of an office chair outside.
       Parra, then 20, had been transported to the hospital. His 
     mother explained to firefighters that her son's chair caught 
     on fire while he was sleeping, and he was burned as he 
     carried the flaming chair outside.
       Anthony Dignoti, the Wethersfield, Connecticut, fire 
     marshal in charge of investigating the incident, could see 
     that the door and door frame were damaged by the fire as 
     well. He noticed bowls strewn about, which he wrote in his 
     official report had been filled with water in an attempt to 
     extinguish the fire.
       The fire at Austin Parra's home originated with an 
     AmazonBasics USB cord, Fire Marshal Anthony Dignoti 
     determined. (Courtesy Wethersfield Fire Marshal's Office)
       But most interesting to Dignoti was a white USB cord, Part 
     of the cord was hanging off the chair and still intact, but 
     the other side was stuck to the seat and had melted into a 
     bare wire, he said in his report and an interview with CNN.
       Dignoti ultimately concluded that the fire originated with 
     the cord Parra was using to charge his cellphone. His report 
     stated the cord experienced a short circuit, and while it was 
     unclear why this happened, ``the heat produced by the cord 
     ignited the upholstery for the office chair.''
       The cord had been branded with the name of the world's 
     largest online retailer: Amazon. It was sold by one of 
     Amazon's popular private label lines, AmazonBasics, which 
     offers budget-friendly products including consumer 
     electronics, household appliances, home goods and office 
     accessories.
       Launched in 2009, AmazonBasics has grown to offer more than 
     5,000 products, according to the retailer. Its mission: 
     identifying everyday items that Amazon can create at a 
     similar or higher quality and lower price point when compared 
     to existing name brands--a strategy also employed by 
     companies such as Costco and Target.


                              Key findings

       Using keywords including ``fire,'' ``dangerous'' and 
     ``burn,'' reporters identified more than 1,500 reviews about 
     AmazonBasics electronics and appliances posted by US 
     customers on Amazon.com from 2016 through early 2020 that 
     described safety-related issues.
       More than 10 percent of the reviews identified by CNN 
     reported that products had caught fire--in some cases 
     describing how flames shot out of the devices.
       Nearly 200 included reports of damage to homes or 
     belongings, including charred walls and fried cellphones.
       A growing number of AmazonBasics products, which the 
     company promotes heavily on its site, have become bestsellers 
     since the line's inception, and many have ratings above four 
     stars, according to Marketplace Pulse research. In recent 
     months, the online retailer's sales have been soaring as 
     millions of Americans have been staying at home--and in many 
     cases working remotely--during the ongoing pandemic.
       But consumers have raised serious safety concerns about 
     AmazonBasics items in complaints to government regulators and 
     in reviews posted on Amazon's own website. Since 2016, at 
     least 1,500 reviews, covering more than 70 items, have 
     described products exploding, catching on fire, smoking, 
     melting, causing electrical malfunctions or otherwise posing 
     risks, according to an analysis of AmazonBasics electronics 
     and appliances listed on its website.
       The reviews identified represent a small fraction of the 
     overall purchases of the products, and fires caused by 
     consumer electronics are not unique to Amazon branded items. 
     User error can also be a factor, as can faulty or aging 
     wiring within a home or a defective device being used in 
     conjunction with the product.
       But when well-made and used properly by consumers, 
     electronics like those sold under the AmazonBasics name 
     should rarely pose dangers, said electrical engineers 
     interviewed by CNN.
       Dozens of AmazonBasics product are flagged as dangerous, 
     but many are still being sold. Within the more than 1,500 
     reviews, many consumers explicitly called out items as 
     potentially dangerous--using terms such as ``hazard'' or 
     ``fire'' or saying the product should be recalled. Around 30 
     items with three or more reviews like this remain for sale on 
     Amazon.com today. At least 11 other products that fit this 
     criteria were no longer for sale at the time of publication. 
     Some became unavailable after CNN began its reporting, and at 
     least four product pages were removed from the retailer's 
     site entirely--leaving behind dead URLs known by employees as 
     ``dog pages.'' Amazon confirmed that at least eight of these 
     products had been under investigation, but said the company 
     determined they all met its safety standards.
       Customers have written in their reviews and said in 
     interviews that they trusted that AmazonBasics purchases 
     would be safe and well made since they were branded with 
     Amazon's name and frequently touted as ``Amazon's Choice.'' 
     But even as complaints have mounted, the company has provided 
     little or no information to consumers or the public about how 
     it is handling allegations that some of its merchandise is 
     unsafe.
       This review was written about an AmazonBasics car charger 
     that has multiple consumer safety complaints.
       Amazon shoppers have recounted frightening malfunctions and 
     close calls in vivid detail: A surge protector turned into a 
     ``blowtorch,'' one father recalled--saying that flames shot 
     out of the device, which was near his baby's nursery. Phone 
     chargers were said to have burned peoples' hands and legs, 
     and exploding batteries allegedly sprayed chemicals in 
     someone's face. A USB cord burst into flames in a parked car 
     while a toddler was inside, according to one parent. A 
     charger in another car was reported as starting an electrical 
     fire on the freeway, allegedly burning the driver and a 
     jacket. Paper shredders turned on by themselves, according to 
     multiple consumers, and one reportedly blew up in a 
     ``fireball,'' burning someone's arm and singeing the hair 
     off. And a microwave suddenly caught on fire when an 8-year-
     old went to heat up her macaroni and cheese cup as she had 
     done ``a zillion times,'' a mother claimed, saying she had to 
     take the appliance outside and spray it with a hose. Each of 
     these purchases were ``verified,'' meaning Amazon confirmed 
     that the customer who wrote the review actually purchased the 
     product on the site and didn't receive a ``deep discount,'' 
     according to its website. Several were accompanied by photos 
     of the burned items.
       More than 150 reviews about the AmazonBasics microwave 
     describe safety concerns including flames and smoke.
       While the best way to determine why something malfunctioned 
     is to physically test it and take it apart, many customers 
     said they immediately threw out the defective devices or sent 
     them back to Amazon at the company's request.
       CNN obtained two damaged AmazonBasics products from 
     customers: a microwave that a customer said caught fire and a 
     USB cord a user said overheated and melted. These were tested 
     by researchers at the failure analysis lab at the University 
     of Maryland's Center for Advanced Life Cycle Engineering 
     (CALCE) at CNN's request.
       The USB cord was too burned for researchers to determine 
     what had gone wrong. The microwave testing found that the 
     design of the panel covering the heating device inside the 
     microwave could result in the machine catching on fire, and 
     determined that the way the panel was secured could allow 
     debris such as food or grease to collect behind it and 
     possibly ignite. As soon as the researchers turned it on, the 
     microwave began sparking and smoking, causing it to react as 
     if its user put foil or other metal inside. The testing was 
     cut short when the lab was closed due to Covid-19.
       ``There's a risk in using this machine for sure, and it's a 
     safety risk because this clearly heated up to the extent a 
     fire could occur,'' said engineering professor Michael Pecht, 
     who is the founder of CALCE and has previously assisted in 
     government safety investigations. ``This is more than a 
     reliability problem, this is a potential safety problem.''
       Amazon did not comment on whether any improvements had been 
     made to the microwave, but said it is confident the microwave 
     is safe to use and that it continues to ``meet or exceed'' 
     all of the applicable certification requirements.
       The retailer said ``safety is a top priority'' at the 
     company and that it takes a number of steps to ensure all 
     AmazonBasics products are safe and high quality, such as 
     selecting experienced manufacturers, monitoring customer 
     feedback and testing items to ensure they pass safety and 
     compliance standards both before and after they are 
     available. It also said AmazonBasics offers thousands of 
     products which combined have more than 1 million reviews, and 
     that concerns are thoroughly investigated and that the 
     company acts accordingly.
       ``Not safe,'' one verified purchaser wrote in a review 
     about an AmazonBasics microwave, including a home video that 
     shows the device sparking and making loud popping noises.
       ``The outcome of the investigation varies on a case by case 
     basis and may include removing the product from the store, 
     adjusting the design of the product, notifying customers to 
     stop using the product, or other appropriate action,'' a 
     company spokesperson said in a statement. ``We want customers 
     to shop with confidence and if ever a customer has a concern, 
     they can contact customer service and we will investigate.''
       Amazon said there are a number of reasons an item may no 
     longer be available, but that customers will be notified if a 
     critical safety issue is identified. When asked how 
     frequently the company has done this, Amazon said it had 
     notified customers about an AmazonBasics product less than 
     five times. It did not specify whether it did this for any of 
     the items reviewed by CNN.


                           `It's a red flag'

       Amazon has already been under intense scrutiny for allowing 
     third party sellers with allegedly dangerous offerings to do 
     business on the site, and multiple court rulings have found 
     that the retailer can be held liable for defective items sold 
     in its third party marketplace. CNN's analysis focused on 
     products sold with Amazon's own name on them--a growing part 
     of the retailer's business.
       The reviews come from people living all over the United 
     States and span five years, but they often call attention to 
     the very

[[Page H4986]]

     same problems: The same panel within a microwave catching 
     fire, USB cords melting or burning despite no visible wear 
     and tear or overuse, and paint on outdoor patio heaters 
     lighting on fire. Consumers alleged items malfunctioned the 
     first time they plugged them in. Others said electronics were 
     not in use when they began malfunctioning.
       In general, one or two reports of problems could be more 
     easily chalked up to user error or other external factors, 
     multiple electrical engineers said. But as the number of 
     reports about the same kinds of failures increases about the 
     same item, so does the likelihood that there is a defect in 
     the design or manufacturing.
       Researchers at the CALCE lab compare a new AmazonBasics 
     microwave to one that had visible burn damage.
       ``That would certainly lead to more suspicion that the 
     product is at fault,'' said Mark Horenstein, a professor at 
     Boston University's College of Engineering. ``It's a red 
     flag.'' Amazon said customer reviews are only one indication 
     of a potential issue, saying it looks at a number of other 
     factors such as sales history, returns and customer service 
     contacts when assessing potential problems. ``Using customer 
     reviews alone to conclude a product is unsafe or imply 
     there's a widespread issue is misleading,'' the company said 
     in a statement. Former Amazon employees said that even a few 
     reviews mentioning words like ``fire'' and ``hazard'' should 
     automatically prompt the retailer to take action. Amazon said 
     reviews are monitored and can trigger safety investigations, 
     but it declined to provide details about the specific 
     threshold needed for this to happen. The company said 
     products may be temporarily removed during such inquiries and 
     that in order to keep selling something, it must be 
     confirmed to be safe. It also said that if an 
     investigation uncovers a ``potential, non-isolated safety 
     issue,'' it takes appropriate measures to notify the 
     government and ``safely recall the product.'' This 
     AmazonBasics surge protector remains for sale despite 
     reviews about dangers and a report to the CPSC that it 
     ``made a loud popping noise, sparked, and the case was 
     opened by the force of the damage.'' Amazon said the 
     product is safe and that most reports involved customers 
     who plugged in multiple large electronics. Some reviews 
     identified by CNN said nothing was plugged into the 
     device, however.
       Businesses are required by law to immediately report 
     ``potentially hazardous'' items to the federal Consumer 
     Product Safety Commission (CPSC) so the agency can determine 
     whether an official recall is necessary. Companies can also 
     initiate voluntary recalls in cooperation with the CPSC. 
     Concerns similar to those detailed in Amazon reviews have 
     been relayed to the CPSC in at least 10 reports that 
     specifically mention an AmazonBasics product. The complaints 
     cover at least eight different items and date back to 2012.
       In the United States, Amazon publicly recalled two 
     AmazonBasics items in 2018 and 2019, after the company 
     received 53 reports in the US about power banks overheating 
     and 25 about versions of a space heater overheating, burning 
     or sparking. It said it proactively notified the CPSC of the 
     results of the company's own investigation and its intent to 
     recall the items. Beyond these two official recalls, the 
     company has never publicly acknowledged that AmazonBasics 
     products have any safety issues.
       The CPSC said it was prohibited by law from discussing any 
     item that had not been recalled and that in general, the 
     agency determines if a recall is necessary based on a number 
     of factors, including ``the nature of the defect, the level 
     of hazard associated with the issue, and the pattern of 
     similar problems (seen).''
       Customers reported being shocked or burned in at least 100 
     reviews on Amazon's website. Parra from the Connecticut 
     apartment fire said in a lawsuit that he suffered second-
     degree burns and injuries to his throat from smoke 
     inhalation. Dignoti's report shows Parra spent around a day 
     in the hospital. Parra sued Amazon in 2019, and the case 
     settled. He and his attorney did not respond to interview 
     requests.
       CNN used the information provided by the fire department to 
     determine that the type of cord Parra purchased had been 
     removed from Amazon's website. While it is unclear when the 
     cord was pulled, a version of the page captured by the 
     Wayback Machine, an internet archive, shows the product had 
     an average rating of 4.1 out of 5 stars. It shows the cord 
     was still available for purchase until at least June 2017, 
     and that there were warnings from other customers at least a 
     year before Parra's January 2017 fire.
       The link for the phone cord used by Parra now leads to 
     nothing but a dead URL known internally at Amazon as a dog 
     page.
       ``End of the cable melted and started smoking. Glad we 
     caught it before a fire,'' one verified purchaser wrote in 
     June 2016.
       ``DO NOT BUY! FIRE HAZARD!'' another customer with a 
     verified purchase of the cord wrote in May 2016, attaching 10 
     photos of the melted and warped cord--saying it ruined an 
     expensive iPhone and that he considered himself lucky that a 
     fire hadn't ignited. ``These should be taken off the market 
     immediately!!!''
       While fires caused by USB cords are uncommon, they are 
     possible, according to electrical engineers who said a range 
     of factors could be at play in situations like this--from 
     problems with whatever device the cord is plugged into to 
     defects within the cord itself.
       The AmazonBasics lightning charger that this review was 
     written about became unavailable after CNN began its 
     reporting.
       An industry non-profit, the USB Implementers Forum Inc, 
     said it docs not believe user error is a significant cause of 
     overheating USB cables. A cable that is substandard, whether 
     because of a design or manufacturing defect, can be dangerous 
     and lead to electric shock, overheating, sparks or fire, it 
     said. The group has certified a number of AmazonBasics cables 
     as meeting their standards, though it focuses on the 
     functionality of the cables and making sure their 
     specifications are in compliance--emphasizing that it is 
     ``not a replacement for industry best practices or any 
     applicable local, state or government statutes, rules or 
     regulations pertaining to safety.''
       The group also said it conducted an internal review of 
     several cables CNN brought to its attention and found them to 
     be compliant. It does not certify proprietary lightning USB 
     cords used for Apple devices, however, such as Parra's cord. 
     Apple said it allows manufacturers to use its lightning 
     connectors in their products if those items are tested and 
     confirmed to meet high quality standards, and that the 
     company expects manufacturers to meet any applicable safety 
     standards.


              Have you purchased an AmazonBasics product?

       Amazon meanwhile said it investigated the safety claims 
     about the kind of cord used by Parra and determined it met 
     the company's standards. ``If we determine that a product is 
     unsafe, we remove it from our stores and take all necessary 
     actions, which may include contacting regulators and 
     customers,'' it said, specifically in response to questions 
     about the cord used by Parra, which was removed from the 
     site.
       The retailer did introduce a new version of the product, 
     however, saying it made updates to improve the customer 
     experience.


                              Losing trust

       Matt Citro purchased his AmazonBasics surge protector to 
     protect his family from a fire. Instead, he said that in 
     January 2018, the surge protector itself caught fire. A 
     single phone charger was plugged into the device, but was not 
     being used at the time.
       Sitting on the couch as his 9-month-old son slept in his 
     nursery nearby, Citro said he noticed flames coming out of 
     the surge protector--turning it into what resembled a 
     ``blowtorch.'' He told CNN that he quickly pulled the flaming 
     device from the wall. He wasn't injured but said he was left 
     with more than $1,000 of damage after the surge protector 
     burned a hole in the wall outlet and seared part of his wall.
       Matt Citro says that he sent back his charred surge 
     protector so that it could be investigated by Amazon. He 
     never heard anything back, but did receive a payment to cover 
     damage to his home. (Courtesy Matt Citro)
       He had never experienced any electrical issues in his home 
     before this, he said, and was convinced the AmazonBasics 
     surge protector was to blame.
       ``DO NOT BUY THIS PRODUCT!!! . . . If I wasn't home my 
     entire house would have burnt down from this cheap product,'' 
     Citro wrote in a review. ``I'm extremely disappointed in 
     Amazon. We put a lot of faith in their products and to have 
     (one) almost burn down my home does not make me trust them. 
     This product has amazons name on it!''
       Citro said he immediately contacted Amazon and told the 
     company what happened. At first, he said he was offered a 
     replacement or a refund. Not satisfied, he continued to call 
     customer service.
       He said he finally got through to someone who connected him 
     with an insurance company, and he was ultimately paid $1,469, 
     according to a settlement document reviewed by CNN in which 
     Amazon denies any liability.
       Amazon continued to sell the surge protector for nearly two 
     years after Citro posted his review, during which time more 
     reviews about similar situations and other concerns piled up. 
     More than 40 customers reported that the product was a fire 
     hazard, had caused damage to their home or belongings or 
     described other dangers.
       These reviews represented around 1.7% of the roughly 2,600 
     US reviews posted about the $10.99 device as of late last 
     year, before Amazon removed it from the site. Several 
     included claims of flames and fires like Citro's. As a 
     comparison, a similar product made by a major consumer 
     electronics company and also sold on Amazon's site had six 
     reviews about possible safety concerns earlier this year, 
     representing .07% of its more than 8,000 reviews. And none of 
     the six mentioned actual fires. Amazon said its own analysis, 
     which added global reviews about the AmazonBasics surge 
     protector, found 1.1 % involved claims of overheating, fire 
     and other dangers.
       One former AmazonBasics product manager, who asked to 
     remain anonymous because she still works in the industry, 
     said she was surprised to hear that such a high percentage of 
     reviews raised safety issues about an AmazonBasics item. 
     ``Once you get 40, oh my gosh, no, that would not be 
     acceptable in any shape, way or form,'' she said of the 
     reviews found by CNN, adding that a ratio of around .05% 
     would have been seen as more acceptable when she worked 
     there. But she defended her former employer, saying this was 
     just one product and that during her

[[Page H4987]]

     time with the company, she believed the retailer was even 
     more vigilant than competitors in trying to react to safety 
     concerns.
       More than 40 customers reported dangers involving the same 
     surge protector that Citro said burst into flames.
       Weeks after CNN began reporting on the surge protector--
     reaching out to customers and employees and ordering the same 
     item as part of the investigation--Amazon pulled it from its 
     site in December despite its high average rating of 4.4 stars 
     as of a month earlier. The company did not appear to provide 
     any notification to customers, including to the reporters who 
     purchased it. And it did not post any message on its site 
     about why it was taken down.
       Amazon declined to comment on individual customers, and 
     would not say why the page was removed or whether Citro's 
     surge protector was tested. It did say an updated version of 
     the product had been released, but when asked for the link to 
     the updated version, the company said ``this product is 
     currently unavailable.''
       Citro, who said he still shops at Amazon frequently, said 
     he sent his burned surge protector back for testing as the 
     company requested, but never heard anything about what its 
     investigation found.
       ``I do wish this particular product was tested more 
     thoroughly,'' he said. ``A lot was on the line with my son's 
     bedroom in the next room.''
       Just like Parra's phone cord, this specific kind of surge 
     protector has not been officially recalled.


                           Behind the scenes

       Three former Amazon employees said the vast majority of 
     AmazonBasics electronics are made in Asia. The company's list 
     of suppliers used for its various private label lines--
     including AmazonBasics--shows that only around 10% are in the 
     United States and nearly half are located in China.
       The retailer typically brings AmazonBasics items to market 
     in two ways, explained the former product manager. It either 
     goes straight to manufacturers that are able to meet its 
     standards and works closely with them to create items for the 
     AmazonBasics line. Or Amazon finds an existing product and 
     works with a third-party company, which may use an outside 
     manufacturer of its own, to brand the item with the 
     AmazonBasics name.
       The reviews
       More than 90% of the reviews CNN analyzed were about 
     ``verified purchases.''
       Some 400 reviews posted on the site included photos or 
     videos as visual evidence of their claims.
       Reviews came from around 70 product pages, which sometimes 
     included multiple variations of an item (such as USB cords in 
     different lengths or colors), which may have separate 
     identification numbers.
       Reviews were excluded if a product had clearly been used 
     incorrectly--for example, those saying non-rechargeable 
     batteries were placed in a charger.
       Most reviews did not include people's full names, but CNN 
     did reach more than 30 customers, and many provided 
     information such as evidence of their purchases, photos, 
     additional details and correspondence with Amazon.
       She said both methods have been implemented for 
     electronics, but that in this second scenario, Amazon 
     typically has less insight into the manufacturing process and 
     is less involved in quality and safety testing. Amazon 
     disputed this, saying it verifies that products meet the same 
     safety standards regardless of the business model. The 
     company also said it most frequently works directly with 
     manufacturers.


 Related: Fake and dangerous kids products are turning up for sale on 
                                 Amazon

       Another former employee who was involved with AmazonBasics 
     in its earlier years and asked to remain anonymous because of 
     a confidentiality agreement, said employees on the 
     AmazonBasics team would randomly order items to inspect and 
     stay on top of reviews to make sure red flags were being 
     caught. ``We didn't have a lot of problems in my time but 
     were much smaller than they are now so it was easy to keep 
     things under control,'' the former employee said.
       Former Amazon manager Rachel Greer, who left the company in 
     2015, said that when she worked in compliance at the company, 
     she believed AmazonBasics products were closely monitored 
     from conception to the years following their launch, saying 
     there was extensive testing done. She said safety issues were 
     rare, but when they occurred, they were caught quickly and 
     addressed as soon as possible. ``If someone complained on a 
     review, we took it very seriously,'' she said.
       This required staying on top of manufacturers and making 
     sure corners weren't cut, she and the AmazonBasics product 
     manager both said. In the case of USB cords, for example, 
     Greer described how she made sure there was frequent testing 
     of the cords to ensure that manufacturers hadn't begun to 
     swap in thinner wiring which could be more likely to cause 
     cords to overheat.
       A customer said this AmazonBasics retractable USB cord 
     began melting only a few months after he purchased it. ``Had 
     my wife not heard it crackling it could have started a 
     fire,'' he wrote in a review.
       ``When you're in charge of compliance for something that 
     has the Amazon brand on it, I didn't think it should be 
     something we're messing around with,'' Greer said. ``When 
     you're outsourcing production there's a lot of things that 
     can go wrong.''
       When she left Amazon, she said she was growing concerned 
     that a drive to increase sales would overshadow a focus on 
     safety as the number of AmazonBasics offerings continued to 
     rise. Prior to her departure, she would increasingly disagree 
     with product managers, who she said pushed to get items into 
     the pipeline faster and more cheaply. Performance evaluations 
     reviewed by reporters backed up the idea that Greer had 
     clashed with colleagues but also described her as ``an 
     evangelist for product safety,'' saying ``she is passionate 
     about keeping customers safe.''
       Greer now works as a consultant to third-party sellers, and 
     said she wasn't surprised to hear that customers were 
     complaining of alleged dangers. She said that when she worked 
     for Amazon, she was never aware of anything close to the 
     number or level of seriousness of the reviews identified by 
     CNN, and questioned whether testing was still as rigorous as 
     it had been in the past.
       ``If this had happened on a seller product, the second 
     complaint of fire it would have been taken down,'' she said, 
     while scanning through some of the more than 150 reviews 
     about serious problems with a voice-activated AmazonBasics 
     microwave--the same product tested by CALCE.
       Greer said that if she was still at the company and had 
     seen so many reports of fire about a single item, she likely 
     would have reported the microwave to the CPSC and worked with 
     the business teams to enact a voluntary recall by the 
     company.
       Since the microwave's release in the fall of 2018, its 
     product page has been flooded with reports from consumers 
     about problems including flames, smoke and sparks. These 
     kinds of reviews made up roughly 5% of the AmazonBasics 
     microwave's more than 3,000 reviews as of February, when 
     CNN's final analysis was conducted. Another roughly 1,000 
     reviews have been posted since then, with fires being 
     reported as recently as September. A microwave that has been 
     reviewed less frequently but is the same size and wattage had 
     only 10 reviews describing similar safety issues--amounting 
     to around .7% of its roughly 1,350 reviews on Amazon.
       Research scientists use x-ray CT scanning to test 
     AmazonBasics retractable charging cords and microwave parts.
       While the retailer did not provide unit sales, Amazon said 
     that as the best-selling microwave on the site, it may have a 
     higher number of sales and reviews, which could result in 
     more mentioning possible concerns.
       The company disputed Greer's comments, saying safety 
     testing had not become any less rigorous and that it was not 
     aware of any manufacturers using thinner cables ``than they 
     were directed to use.'' It said safety testing is handled by 
     reputable third-party labs with global facilities, including 
     in China and that her statements about the microwave were 
     speculative since she was not part of the team that worked on 
     this item and was not involved in the testing of the device. 
     Amazon also said it proactively sends safety-related customer 
     reports to the CPSC and noted the agency has not issued any 
     consumer warnings about the AmazonBasics microwave.


                             Still for sale

       Amazon declined to provide details about why certain 
     products were investigated and removed from its site, while 
     others with repeated complaints about the same hazards are 
     still available to purchase today.
       Leeona Smail said her AmazonBasics battery charger began to 
     melt and smoke.
       New mom Leeona Smail posted her review about an 
     AmazonBasics battery charger late last year. When CNN reached 
     her, she recounted how she and her husband were forced to 
     evacuate their home in the middle of the night when they 
     detected the unmistakable smell of something burning. They 
     gathered their dogs, cats and 4-month-old baby by their front 
     porch, called 911 and waited for help to arrive.
       It wasn't until after the firefighters left that the Smails 
     said they found what they believed was the culprit: an 
     AmazonBasics battery charger. They had used the device for 
     several years to charge batteries. But this time, Smail said, 
     after unplugging it from the wall and placing it in a box on 
     their coffee table, it began to melt and smoke. When the fire 
     chief returned the next day to check on them, she said, he 
     was amazed to see the source of the smell.
       A Vandergrift, Pennsylvania fire chief confirmed that his 
     team was dispatched to investigate ``a smoke odor and light 
     haze'' at the Smail home. He said they ultimately learned 
     that a battery charger ``overheated and melted,'' and said it 
     was unclear whether it would have caused the house to catch 
     fire if it hadn't been found.
       Other reviews about the same battery charger have described 
     similar concerns. It is still available for sale.
       Smail posted a photo of the burned device along with her 
     review before throwing it away. Amazon eventually gave her a 
     refund--though she said she only received a partial one 
     because the warranty window had passed.
       Credits
       At least 21 other reviews about the same battery charger, 
     which had around 2,000 total reviews at the time of CNN's 
     analysis, also said the device had overheated, melted or 
     burned. Three described the same situation that Smail 
     reported: the charger had not even been plugged in and had no 
     batteries in it at the time.

[[Page H4988]]

       The item was still for sale on Amazon at the time of 
     publication.
       The company said an investigation confirmed the product was 
     safe, and that there were no broader design or safety 
     concerns. But when asked whether it tested any of the actual 
     chargers customers had flagged, and if so, what those tests 
     had found, Amazon said it did not have ``information to 
     share.''

  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. In July, I introduced the INFORM Consumers Act with 
Congresswoman Kathy Castor, which would require platforms such as 
Amazon to verify third-party sellers. It is my sincere hope that this 
body can move, first, on the legislation that we are addressing today 
and, finally, on legislation that would protect consumers in a deeper 
way.
  I thank Representative Duncan, my friend and colleague, for 
introducing this legislation with me, this important consumer safety 
legislation. I would also like to take a moment to recognize both 
majority and minority committee staff who worked hard on this and each 
of the other bills that are before us today that moved through the 
subcommittee that I have the privilege of chairing: Lisa Goldman, Anna 
Yu, Daniel Greene, Chloe Rodriguez, Alex Hoehn-Saric, Tim Kurth, and 
Bijan Koohmaraie.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the former 
chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. I appreciate his 
leadership.
  Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I thank the leaders of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee on both sides of the aisle for moving forward with 
H.R. 8134, the Consumer Product Safety Inspection Enhancement Act.
  I especially want to thank Chairwoman Schakowsky, who has worked so 
hard on this, and Representative Jeff Duncan, who has also led on this 
bill. This bill will improve coordination with U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection, the CBP, to target and prevent consumer products that 
violate American laws from entering the United States. Importantly, 
this effort prioritizes shipments from China, where we know the 
overwhelming majority of counterfeit goods originate.
  By prioritizing inspection of shipments from China, H.R. 8134 will 
help the CPSC and the CBP identify trends and better position us to 
prevent goods that violate our laws and, by the way, hurt our small 
businesses from entering our country.
  The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the importance of addressing supply 
chain threats. This bill is an important step in making that happen.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to support this 
legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 8134, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________