[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13553-13555]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 13554]]

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 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

[[Page 13555]]

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.

                          ____________________