[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12684-12690]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING GREATER AUTHORITY AND DISCRETION TO CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 
                               COMMISSION

  Mrs. BONO MACK. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 2715) to provide the Consumer Product Safety Commission with 
greater authority and discretion in enforcing the consumer product 
safety laws, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 2715

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

     SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON LEAD IN CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS.

       (a) Prospective Application of Lead Limit for Children's 
     Products.--Section 101(a) of the Consumer Product Safety 
     Improvement Act of 2008 (15 U.S.C. 1278a(a)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Application.--Each limit set forth in paragraph (2) 
     (except for the limit set forth in subparagraphs (A) and (B)) 
     shall apply only to a children's product (as defined in 
     section 3(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 
     2052(a))) that is manufactured after the effective date of 
     such respective limit.''.
       (b) Alternative Limits and Exceptions.--Section 101(b) of 
     such Act (15 U.S.C. 1278a(b)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) Functional purpose exception.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Commission, on its own initiative or 
     upon petition by an interested party, shall grant an 
     exception to the limit in subsection (a) for a specific 
     product, class of product, material, or component part if the 
     Commission, after notice and a hearing, determines that--
       ``(i) the product, class of product, material, or component 
     part requires the inclusion of lead because it is not 
     practicable or not technologically feasible to manufacture 
     such product, class of product, material, or component part, 
     as the case may be, in accordance with subsection (a) by 
     removing the excessive lead or by making the lead 
     inaccessible;
       ``(ii) the product, class of product, material, or 
     component part is not likely to be placed in the mouth or 
     ingested, taking into account normal and reasonably 
     foreseeable use and abuse of such product, class of product, 
     material, or component part by a child; and
       ``(iii) an exception for the product, class of product, 
     material, or component part will have no measurable adverse 
     effect on public health or safety, taking into account normal 
     and reasonably foreseeable use and abuse.
       ``(B) Measurement.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)(iii), 
     there is no measurable adverse effect on public health or 
     safety if the exception described in subparagraph (A) will 
     result in no measurable increase in blood lead levels of a 
     child. The Commission may adopt an alternative method of 
     measurement other than blood lead levels if it determines, 
     after notice and a hearing, that such alternative method is a 
     better scientific method for measuring adverse effect on 
     public health and safety.
       ``(C) Procedures for granting exception.--
       ``(i) Burden of proof.--A party seeking an exception under 
     subparagraph (A) has the burden of demonstrating that it 
     meets the requirements of such subparagraph.
       ``(ii) Grounds for decision.--In the case where a party has 
     petitioned for an exception, in determining whether to grant 
     the exception, the Commission may base its decision solely on 
     the materials presented by the party seeking the exception 
     and any materials received through notice and a hearing.
       ``(iii) Admissible evidence.--In demonstrating that it 
     meets the requirements of subparagraph (A), a party seeking 
     an exception under such subparagraph may rely on any 
     nonproprietary information submitted by any other party 
     seeking such an exception and such information shall be 
     considered part of the record presented by the party that 
     relies on that information.
       ``(iv) Scope of exception.--If an exception is sought for 
     an entire product, the burden is on the petitioning party to 
     demonstrate that the criteria in subparagraph (A) are met 
     with respect to every accessible component or accessible 
     material of the product.
       ``(D) Limitation on exception.--If the Commission grants an 
     exception for a product, class of product, material, or 
     component part under subparagraph (A), the Commission may, as 
     necessary to protect public health or safety--
       ``(i) establish a lead limit that such product, class of 
     product, material, or component part may not exceed; or
       ``(ii) place a manufacturing expiration date on such 
     exception or establish a schedule after which the 
     manufacturer of such product, class of product, material, or 
     component part shall be in full compliance with the limit 
     established under clause (i) or the limit set forth in 
     subsection (a).
       ``(E) Application of exception.--An exception under 
     subparagraph (A) for a product, class of product, material, 
     or component part shall apply regardless of the date of 
     manufacture unless the Commission expressly provides 
     otherwise.
       ``(F) Previously submitted petitions.--A party seeking an 
     exception under this paragraph may rely on materials 
     previously submitted in connection with a petition for 
     exclusion under this section. In such cases, petitioners must 
     notify the Commission of their intent to rely on materials 
     previously submitted. Such reliance does not affect 
     petitioners' obligation to demonstrate that they meet all 
     requirements of this paragraph as required by subparagraph 
     (C)(i).'';
       (2) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``include to,'' and 
     inserting ``include''; and
       (3) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (8) and 
     inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
       ``(5) Exception for off-highway vehicles.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to an 
     off-highway vehicle.
       ``(B) Off-highway vehicle defined.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `off-highway vehicle'--
       ``(i) means any motorized vehicle--

       ``(I) that is manufactured primarily for use off public 
     streets, roads, and highways;
       ``(II) designed to travel on 2, 3, or 4 wheels; and
       ``(III) that has either--

       ``(aa) a seat designed to be straddled by the operator and 
     handlebars for steering control; or
       ``(bb) a nonstraddle seat, steering wheel, seat belts, and 
     roll-over protective structure; and
       ``(ii) includes a snowmobile.
       ``(6) Bicycles and related products.--In lieu of the lead 
     limits established in subsection (a)(2), the limits set forth 
     for each respective material in the notice of the Commission 
     entitled `Notice of Stay of Enforcement Pertaining to 
     Bicycles and Related Products', published June 30, 2009 (74 
     Fed. Reg. 31254), shall apply to any metal component part of 
     the products to which the stay of enforcement described in 
     such notice applies, except that after December 31, 2011, the 
     limits set forth in such notice shall not be more than 300 
     parts per million total lead content by weight for any metal 
     component part of the products to which such stay pertains.
       ``(7) Exclusion of certain used children's products.--
       ``(A) General exclusion.--The lead limits established under 
     subsection (a) shall not apply to a used children's product.
       ``(B) Definition.--In this paragraph, the term `used 
     children's product' means a children's product (as defined in 
     section 3(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 
     2052(a)) that was obtained by the seller for use and not for 
     the purpose of resale or was obtained by the seller, either 
     directly or indirectly, from a person who obtained such 
     children's product for use and not for the purpose of resale. 
     Such term also includes a children's product that was donated 
     to the seller for charitable distribution or resale to 
     support charitable purposes. Such term shall not include--
       ``(i) children's metal jewelry;
       ``(ii) any children's product for which the donating party 
     or the seller has actual knowledge that the product is in 
     violation of the lead limits in this section; or
       ``(iii) any other children's product or product category 
     that the Commission determines, after notice and a hearing.
     For purposes of this definition, the term `seller' includes a 
     person who lends or donates a used children's product.''.

     SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF THIRD PARTY TESTING REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 14(d) of the Consumer Product 
     Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2063(d)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)(B)(ii), by striking ``random'' and 
     inserting ``representative''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Reducing third party testing burdens.--
       ``(A) Assessment.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this paragraph, the Commission shall seek public 
     comment on opportunities to reduce the cost of third party 
     testing requirements consistent with assuring compliance with 
     any applicable consumer product safety rule, ban, standard, 
     or regulation. The request for public comment shall include 
     the following:

[[Page 12685]]

       ``(i) The extent to which the use of materials subject to 
     regulations of another government agency that requires third 
     party testing of those materials may provide sufficient 
     assurance of conformity with an applicable consumer product 
     safety rule, ban, standard, or regulation without further 
     third party testing.
       ``(ii) The extent to which modification of the 
     certification requirements may have the effect of reducing 
     redundant third party testing by or on behalf of 2 or more 
     importers of a product that is substantially similar or 
     identical in all material respects.
       ``(iii) The extent to which products with a substantial 
     number of different components subject to third party testing 
     may be evaluated to show compliance with an applicable rule, 
     ban, standard, or regulation by third party testing of a 
     subset of such components selected by a third party 
     conformity assessment body.
       ``(iv) The extent to which manufacturers with a substantial 
     number of substantially similar products subject to third 
     party testing may reasonably make use of sampling procedures 
     that reduce the overall test burden without compromising the 
     benefits of third party testing.
       ``(v) The extent to which evidence of conformity with other 
     national or international governmental standards may provide 
     assurance of conformity to consumer product safety rules, 
     bans, standards, or regulations applicable under this Act.
       ``(vi) The extent to which technology, other than the 
     technology already approved by the Commission, exists for 
     third party conformity assessment bodies to test or to screen 
     for testing consumer products subject to a third party 
     testing requirement.
       ``(vii) Other techniques for lowering the cost of third 
     party testing consistent with assuring compliance with the 
     applicable consumer product safety rules, bans, standards, 
     and regulations.
       ``(B) Regulations.--Following the public comment period 
     described in subparagraph (A), but not later than 1 year 
     after the date of enactment of this paragraph, the Commission 
     shall review the public comments and may prescribe new or 
     revised third party testing regulations if it determines that 
     such regulations will reduce third party testing costs 
     consistent with assuring compliance with the applicable 
     consumer product safety rules, bans, standards, and 
     regulations.
       ``(C) Report.--If the Commission determines that it lacks 
     authority to implement an opportunity for reducing the costs 
     of third-party testing consistent with assuring compliance 
     with the applicable consumer product safety rules, bans, 
     standards, and regulations, it shall transmit a report to 
     Congress reviewing those opportunities, along with any 
     recommendations for any legislation to permit such 
     implementation.
       ``(4) Special rules for small batch manufacturers.--
       ``(A) Special consideration; exemption.--
       ``(i) Consideration; alternative requirements.--Subject to 
     subparagraph (C), in implementing third party testing 
     requirements under this section, the Commission shall take 
     into consideration any economic, administrative, or other 
     limits on the ability of small batch manufacturers to comply 
     with such requirements and shall, after notice and a hearing, 
     provide alternative testing requirements for covered products 
     manufactured by small batch manufacturers in lieu of those 
     required under subsection (a) or (b). Any such alternative 
     requirements shall provide for reasonable methods to assure 
     compliance with any applicable consumer product safety rule, 
     ban, standard, or regulation. The Commission may allow such 
     alternative testing requirements for small batch 
     manufacturers with respect to a specific product or product 
     class or with respect to a specific safety rule, ban, 
     standard, or regulation, or portion thereof.
       ``(ii) Exemption.--If the Commission determines that no 
     alternative testing requirement is available or economically 
     practicable, it shall exempt small batch manufacturers from 
     third party testing requirements under subsections (a) and 
     (b).
       ``(iii) Certification.--In lieu of or as part of any 
     alternative testing requirements provided under clause (i), 
     the Commission may allow certification of a product to an 
     applicable consumer product safety rule, ban, standard, or 
     regulation, or portion thereof, based on documentation that 
     the product complies with another national or international 
     governmental standard or safety requirement that the 
     Commission determines is the same or more stringent than the 
     consumer product safety rule, ban, standard, or regulation, 
     or portion thereof. Any such certification shall only be 
     allowed to the extent of the equivalency with a consumer 
     product safety rule, ban, standard, or regulation and not to 
     any other part of the consumer product safety rule, ban, 
     standard, or regulation.
       ``(iv) Restriction.--Except as provided in subparagraph 
     (C), and except where the Commission determines that the 
     manufacturer does not meet the definition of a small batch 
     manufacturer, for any small batch manufacturer registered 
     pursuant to subparagraph (B), the Commission may not require 
     third party testing of a covered product by a third party 
     conformity assessment body until the Commission has provided 
     either an alternative testing requirement or an exemption in 
     accordance with clause (i) or (ii), respectively.
       ``(B) Registration.--Any small batch manufacturer that 
     utilizes alternative requirements or an exemption under this 
     paragraph shall register with the Commission prior to using 
     such alternative requirements or exemptions pursuant to any 
     guidelines issued by the Commission to carry out this 
     requirement.
       ``(C) Limitation.--The Commission shall not provide or 
     permit to continue in effect any alternative requirements or 
     exemption from third party testing requirements under this 
     paragraph where it determines, based on notice and a hearing, 
     that full compliance with subsection (a) or (b) is reasonably 
     necessary to protect public health or safety. The Commission 
     shall not provide any alternative requirements or exemption 
     for--
       ``(i) any of the third party testing requirements described 
     in clauses (i) through (v) of subsection (a)(3)(B); or
       ``(ii) durable infant or toddler products, as defined in 
     section 104(f) of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act 
     of 2008 (15 U.S.C. 2056a(f)).
       ``(D) Subsequent manufacturer.--Nothing in this paragraph 
     shall be construed to affect third party testing or any other 
     requirements with respect to a subsequent manufacturer or 
     other entity that uses components provided by one or more 
     small batch manufacturers.
       ``(E) Definitions.--For purposes of this paragraph--
       ``(i) the term `covered product' means a consumer product 
     manufactured by a small batch manufacturer where no more than 
     7,500 units of the same product were manufactured in the 
     previous calendar year; and
       ``(ii) the term `small batch manufacturer' means a 
     manufacturer that had no more than $1,000,000 in total gross 
     revenue from sales of all consumer products in the previous 
     calendar year. The dollar amount contained in this paragraph 
     shall be adjusted annually by the percentage increase in the 
     Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers published by the 
     Department of Labor.
     For purposes of determining the total gross revenue for all 
     sales of all consumer products of a manufacturer under this 
     subparagraph, such total gross revenue shall be considered to 
     include all gross revenue from all sales of all consumer 
     products of each entity that controls, is controlled by, or 
     is under common control with such manufacturer. The 
     Commission shall take steps to ensure that all relevant 
     business affiliations are considered in determining whether 
     or not a manufacturer meets this definition.
       ``(5) Exclusion from third party testing.--
       ``(A) Certain printed materials.--
       ``(i) In general.--The third party testing requirements 
     established under subsection (a) shall not apply to ordinary 
     books or ordinary paper-based printed materials.
       ``(ii) Definitions.--

       ``(I) Ordinary book.--The term `ordinary book' means a book 
     printed on paper or cardboard, printed with inks or toners, 
     and bound and finished using a conventional method, and that 
     is intended to be read or has educational value. Such term 
     does not include books with inherent play value, books 
     designed or intended for a child 3 years of age or younger, 
     and does not include any toy or other article that is not a 
     book that is sold or packaged with an ordinary book.
       ``(II) Ordinary paper-based printed materials.--The term 
     `ordinary paper-based printed materials' means materials 
     printed on paper or cardboard, such as magazines, posters, 
     greeting cards, and similar products, that are printed with 
     inks or toners and bound and finished using a conventional 
     method.
       ``(III) Exclusions.--Such terms do not include books or 
     printed materials that contain components that are printed on 
     material other than paper or cardboard or contain nonpaper-
     based components such as metal or plastic parts or 
     accessories that are not part of the binding and finishing 
     materials used in a conventional method.

       ``(B) Metal component parts of bicycles.--The third party 
     testing requirements established under subsection (a) shall 
     not apply to metal component parts of bicycles with respect 
     to compliance with the lead content limits in place pursuant 
     to section 101(b)(6) of the Consumer Product Safety 
     Improvement Act of 2008.''.
       (b) Prohibited Act.--Section 19(a)(14) of the Consumer 
     Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(14)) is amended by 
     striking the period and inserting ``, or to subdivide the 
     production of any children's product into small quantities 
     that have the effect of evading any third party testing 
     requirements under section 14(a)(2);''.

     SEC. 3. APPLICATION OF AND PROCESS FOR UPDATING DURABLE 
                   NURSERY PRODUCTS STANDARDS.

       (a) Updating Standard.--Section 104(b) of the Consumer 
     Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (15 U.S.C. 2056a(b)) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Process for considering subsequent revisions to 
     voluntary standard.--
       ``(A) Notice of adoption of voluntary standard.--When the 
     Commission promulgates a consumer product safety standard

[[Page 12686]]

     under this subsection that is based, in whole or in part, on 
     a voluntary standard, the Commission shall notify the 
     organization that issued the voluntary standard of the 
     Commission's action and shall provide a copy of the consumer 
     product safety standard to the organization.
       ``(B) Commission action on revised voluntary standard.--If 
     an organization revises a standard that has been adopted, in 
     whole or in part, as a consumer product safety standard under 
     this subsection, it shall notify the Commission. The revised 
     voluntary standard shall be considered to be a consumer 
     product safety standard issued by the Commission under 
     section 9 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 
     2058), effective 180 days after the date on which the 
     organization notifies the Commission (or such later date 
     specified by the Commission in the Federal Register) unless, 
     within 90 days after receiving that notice, the Commission 
     notifies the organization that it has determined that the 
     proposed revision does not improve the safety of the consumer 
     product covered by the standard and that the Commission is 
     retaining the existing consumer product safety standard.''.
       (b) Application of Standard.--Section 104(c) of the 
     Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (15 U.S.C. 
     2056a(c)) is amended by redesignating paragraph (3) as 
     paragraph (4) and inserting after paragraph (2) the 
     following:
       ``(3) Application of any revision.--With respect to any 
     revision of the standard promulgated under subsection 
     (b)(1)(B) subsequent to the initial promulgation of a 
     standard under such subsection, paragraph (1) shall apply 
     only to a person that manufactures or imports cribs, unless 
     the Commission determines that application to any other 
     person described in paragraph (2) is necessary to protect 
     against an unreasonable risk to health or safety. If the 
     Commission determines that application to a person described 
     in paragraph (2) is necessary, it shall provide not less than 
     12 months for such person to come into compliance.''.

     SEC. 4. APPLICATION OF SECTION 106 TO FDA-REGULATED PRODUCTS.

       Section 106(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement 
     Act of 2008 (15 U.S.C. 2056b(a)) is amended by inserting ``or 
     any provision that restates or incorporates a regulation 
     promulgated by the Food and Drug Administration or any 
     statute administered by the Food and Drug Administration'' 
     after ``or by statute''.

     SEC. 5. APPLICATION OF PHTHALATES LIMIT.

       (a) Accessible, Plasticized Component Parts.--Section 108 
     of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (15 
     U.S.C. 2057c) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (c) through (e) as 
     subsections (e) through (g), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Application.--Effective on the date of enactment of 
     this Act, subsections (a) and (b)(1) and any rule promulgated 
     under subsection (b)(3) shall apply to any plasticized 
     component part of a children's toy or child care article or 
     any other component part of a children's toy or child care 
     article that is made of other materials that may contain 
     phthalates.
       ``(d) Exclusion for Inaccessible Component Parts.--
       ``(1) In general.--The prohibitions established under 
     subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply to any component part 
     of a children's toy or child care article that is not 
     accessible to a child through normal and reasonably 
     foreseeable use and abuse of such product, as determined by 
     the Commission. A component part is not accessible under this 
     paragraph if such component part is not physically exposed by 
     reason of a sealed covering or casing and does not become 
     physically exposed through reasonably foreseeable use and 
     abuse of the product. Reasonably foreseeable use and abuse 
     shall include swallowing, mouthing, breaking, or other 
     children's activities, and the aging of the product.
       ``(2) Limitation.--The Commission may revoke an exclusion 
     or all exclusions granted under paragraph (1) at any time and 
     require that any or all component parts manufactured after 
     such exclusion is revoked comply with the prohibitions 
     established under subsections (a) and (b) if the Commission 
     finds, based on scientific evidence, that such compliance is 
     necessary to protect the public health or safety.
       ``(3) Inaccessibility proceeding.--Within 1 year after the 
     date of enactment of this subsection, the Commission shall--
       ``(A) promulgate a rule providing guidance with respect to 
     what product components, or classes of components, will be 
     considered to be inaccessible for purposes of paragraph (1); 
     or
       ``(B) adopt the same guidance with respect to 
     inaccessibility that was adopted by the Commission with 
     regards to accessibility of lead under section 101(b)(2)(B), 
     with additional consideration, as appropriate, of whether 
     such component can be placed in a child's mouth.
       ``(4) Application pending commission guidance.--Until the 
     Commission promulgates a rule pursuant to paragraph (3), the 
     determination of whether a product component is inaccessible 
     to a child shall be made in accordance with the requirements 
     laid out in paragraph (1) for considering a component to be 
     inaccessible to a child.''.

     SEC. 6. AUTHORITY TO MODIFY TRACKING LABELS REQUIREMENT.

       Section 14(a)(5) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 
     U.S.C. 2063(a)(5)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Effective 1 year'' and inserting ``(A) 
     Effective 1 year'';
       (2) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses 
     (i) and (ii), respectively; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) The Commission may, by regulation, exclude a specific 
     product or class of products from the requirements in 
     subparagraph (A) if the Commission determines that it is not 
     practicable for such product or class of products to bear the 
     marks required by such subparagraph. The Commission may 
     establish alternative requirements for any product or class 
     of products excluded under the preceding sentence consistent 
     with the purposes described in clauses (i) and (ii) of 
     subparagraph (A).''.

     SEC. 7. IMPROVED PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION FOR PUBLIC DATABASE.

       Section 6A(c) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 
     2055a(c)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3)(A), by inserting ``or paragraph (5)'' 
     after ``paragraph (4)(A)'';
       (2) in paragraph (4)(A), by striking ``determines that the 
     information in such report or comment is materially 
     inaccurate, the Commission shall--'' and inserting ``receives 
     notice that the information in such report or comment is 
     materially inaccurate, the Commission shall stay the 
     publication of the report on the database as required under 
     paragraph (3) for a period of no more than 5 additional days. 
     If the Commission determines that the information in such 
     report or comment is materially inaccurate, the Commission 
     shall--''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Obtaining certain product identification 
     information.--
       ``(A) In general.--If the Commission receives a report 
     described in subsection (b)(1)(A) that does not include the 
     model or serial number of the consumer product concerned, the 
     Commission shall seek from the individual or entity 
     submitting the report such model or serial number or, if such 
     model or serial number is not available, a photograph of the 
     product. If the Commission obtains information relating to 
     the serial or model number of the product or a photograph of 
     the product, it shall immediately forward such information to 
     the manufacturer of the product. The Commission shall make 
     the report available in the database on the 15th business day 
     after the date on which the Commission transmits the report 
     under paragraph (1) and shall include in the database any 
     additional information about the product obtained under this 
     paragraph.
       ``(B) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this paragraph 
     shall be construed to--
       ``(i) permit the Commission to delay transmission of the 
     report under paragraph (1) until the Commission has obtained 
     the model or serial number or a photograph of the consumer 
     product concerned; or
       ``(ii) make inclusion in the database of a report described 
     in subsection (b)(1)(A) contingent on the availability of the 
     model or serial number or a photograph of the consumer 
     product concerned.''.

     SEC. 8. SUBPOENA AUTHORITY.

       Section 27(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 
     2076(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``and physical'' after 
     ``documentary'';
       (2) in paragraph (8), by striking ``and'';
       (3) by redesignating paragraph (9) as paragraph (10) and 
     inserting after paragraph (8) the following:
       ``(9) to delegate to the general counsel of the Commission 
     the authority to issue subpoenas solely to Federal, State, or 
     local government agencies for evidence described in paragraph 
     (3); and''; and
       (4) in paragraph (10) (as so redesignated), by inserting 
     ``(except as provided in paragraph (9))'' after ``paragraph 
     (3)''.

     SEC. 9. DEADLINE FOR RULE BY CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 
                   COMMISSION ON STANDARDS FOR ALL TERRAIN 
                   VEHICLES.

       The Commission shall issue the final rule described in 
     section 42(d) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 
     2089(d)) not later than one year after the date of enactment 
     of this Act.

     SEC. 10. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

       (a) CPSA.--Section 14 of the Consumer Product Safety Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 2063) is further amended by redesignating the 
     second subsection (d) as subsection (i).
       (b) CPSIA.--Section 101(a)(1) of the Consumer Product 
     Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (15 U.S.C. 1278a(a)(1)) is 
     amended by striking ``(as defined in section 3(a)(16) of the 
     Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(16)))'' and 
     inserting ``(as defined in section 3(a) of the Consumer 
     Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2052(a)))''.

     SEC. 11. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       Except as provided otherwise, the amendments made by this 
     Act shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from

[[Page 12687]]

California (Mrs. Bono Mack) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Butterfield) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.


                             General Leave

  Mrs. BONO MACK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on this legislation and to insert extraneous material on the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1250

  Mrs. BONO MACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 2715, a bill that modifies the 
Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, also called CPSIA, and 
provides relief to address a number of unintended consequences that 
arose after CPSIA became law.
  This bill is a win-win. It is good for American consumers and 
American businesses as well. It is also a bipartisan bill. And I want 
to thank Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Upton, as well as 
Ranking Member Waxman and my counterpart, Mr. Butterfield, for all of 
their hard work in getting this important bill to the floor today.
  We passed CPSIA almost unanimously in 2008, and many of its features 
have advanced the cause of children's safety. But there also have been 
unintended consequences for many businesses, small and large alike. For 
3 years now, we have heard the pleas of these businesses, asking for 
relief from the CPSIA mandates. We have also heard from the CPSC that 
it lacks the authority and flexibility to grant relief where needed.
  On August 14, the last deadline looms, the final drop-down to the 
0.01 percent lead content limit. Without swift action, we face empty 
store shelves that have been cleared of perfectly safe products because 
of what I believe was simply a drafting oversight. The bill makes the 
August 14 limit prospective in nature, permitting retailers to sell 
their existing inventory so long as it was made prior to August 14 and 
is compliant with the current lead limit of 0.03 percent, which was 
specifically approved by Congress for the last 2 years.
  In a true spirit of bipartisanship, Ranking Members Waxman and 
Butterfield agreed to act swiftly to address this situation. While we 
don't necessarily agree on the best way to address all of the 
unintended consequences of CPSIA, we move the bill in response to the 
enormous threat facing stakeholders in the children's product industry 
in just less than 2 weeks.
  In addition to addressing the immediate deadline, this bill goes a 
little farther to address the pain so many of our constituents are 
facing. ATVs, bikes, books, things that were never intended to be 
covered by the law but were ensnared by its wide reach nonetheless, 
will no longer face an uncertain future and are exempted from testing 
requirements.
  Used children's products were also banned for sale as a result of the 
2008 law. Thrift stores and charity retail outlets such as Goodwill 
Industries and even the local church bazaars were forced to toss 
anything made for a child under the age of 12 because it is impossible 
to tell whether an item was made in compliance with the law without its 
original packing or a dated sales receipt. As a result, the law 
essentially made all used children's products contraband. This wasteful 
result removed perfectly safe products from the reach of individuals 
who rely on the value and savings such stores provide in order to 
provide decent clothing for their children.
  Manufacturers of other products will also see some relief from the 
most costly mandate of the CPSIA--third-party testing and the 
continuing compliance testing. This bill directs CPSC to seek comments 
within 60 days on how the current third-party testing regime can be 
altered to reduce costs.
  Small batch manufacturers, who were among the hardest hit by CPSIA, 
will also find some relief in this bill. These manufacturers are 
generally stay-at-home moms with an entrepreneurial spirit or mom-and-
pop retail outlets that handpick unique toys and other items for sale 
in their community. Almost universally, these small businesses got into 
business because they wanted to ensure their own children had safe 
toys. Almost universally, these small businesses have either closed 
shop or are on the verge of closing shop because of the onerous 
requirements of the CPSIA and the costs imposed.
  The bill directs the Consumer Product Safety Commission to address 
the special situation of these businesses by finding alternative, more 
affordable testing methods or by exempting these businesses from 
testing altogether if no such alternative exists.
  The bill creates a functional purpose exception process that we hope 
will give the CPSC more flexibility to exempt products from lead limits 
where there is no health risk. The exception process created in the 
original CPSIA has failed to permit a single exception for any 
children's product from the statutory lead limits established in the 
CPSIA, even in cases where the CPSC determined that such products pose 
no risk to children.
  We have a narrow window of opportunity to address those mandates that 
threaten the survival of scores of businesses and the livelihoods of 
the individuals and families those businesses support. And I would like 
to thank the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Butterfield, as 
well as the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. 
Waxman, as well as their staffs for working throughout the weekend to 
find a compromise that we both can support.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise today in strong support of this very important bill. Almost 3 
years ago, President Bush signed H.R. 4040, the Consumer Product Safety 
Improvement Act, into law. While that bill passed this House by a vote 
of 424 to 1, it soon became evident to all of us that providing some of 
the extraordinary protections for children in that bill would be a 
challenge for some businesses, especially our smallest manufacturers. 
Many of them testified before our subcommittee, and we heard their 
concerns.
  So I have worked very closely with Chairman Bono Mack in crafting 
this compromise to provide targeted and sensible relief for businesses 
from some of CPSIA's requirements without sacrificing the health and 
safety of our children. I am pleased that we are able to present it to 
the House today for immediate consideration. The bill is a marked 
change from where we started with H.R. 1939, and I am pleased with the 
bipartisan changes reflected in today's bill.
  Businesses are provided with relief through prospective application 
of the 100 parts per million lead content limits. That means, Mr. 
Speaker, businesses won't have to pull products from store shelves that 
meet the current legal limit of 300 parts per million on the effective 
date of the 100 parts per million limit. We also include an exemption 
for off-road vehicles, like ATVs, snowmobiles, and dirt bikes, from 
meeting the lead content limit. The safety of our young people is 
paramount when designing and building off-road vehicles, and 
constructing strong, rigid parts for these vehicles often requires more 
lead than CPSIA would otherwise allow.
  Further, the bill codifies a stay of enforcement by the CPSC with 
respect to the lead content limit of bicycles until December 31, 2011, 
and relaxes the ultimate lead content of bicycles to 300 parts per 
million.
  This bill, Mr. Speaker, provides significant relief for small batch 
manufacturers. I have a tremendous amount of respect for America's 
small businesses and believe we must do all we can to protect them from 
overly burdensome regulations. At the same time, though,

[[Page 12688]]

we have an obligation to protect America's children from potentially 
dangerous products. The only way to know if those products are safe is 
to test them.
  Taking the unique circumstances of small batch manufacturers, the 
bill requires CPSC, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, to consider 
potential economic and administrative burdens to small batch 
manufacturers when developing third-party testing requirements. It 
further permits the CPSC to provide alternative testing requirements. 
After notice and a hearing, if the commission determines there is no 
economically practicable alternative, they can exempt the product from 
third-party testing altogether.
  I am pleased that this bill provides specific relief from testing for 
ordinary books and magazines. Our colleague, Mr. Edolphus Towns from 
New York, has been concerned about ordinary books becoming an 
unintended consequence of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. 
Manufacturers of ordinary books and magazines should not be subject to 
third-party testing. Still subject to testing will be books that have 
plastic parts, like pop-up books, those with nonpaper-based 
accessories, or anything else that has inherent play value.
  I strongly support the consumer product safety information database 
created by H.R. 4040, and that has been somewhat controversial. But I 
support the database creation. It went live earlier this year and has 
been extremely successful in helping to educate the public about 
potentially unsafe products. This bill takes some sensible steps to 
make the database even more effective.
  The bill requires the commission, the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission, to seek out more information about the products reported by 
consumers to the database, like a product's serial number, a model 
number, or a photograph of the product in question. I think the more 
information that is provided, the better and more effective the 
database will be for consumers and businesses alike.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I support this bill. I believe it 
provides a strong compromise that will reduce burdens on businesses and 
continue to protect American consumers.

                              {time}  1300

  Again, I want to thank our distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee, Chairwoman Bono Mack, for working with me in a bipartisan 
fashion to find solutions, commonsense, practical solutions for the 
American people.
  I thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the chairman of the full 
committee, the ranking member of the full committee, all of the 
stakeholders who had a part in crafting this compromise.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BONO MACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Montana (Mr. Rehberg).
  Mr. REHBERG. First of all, Madam Chairman, thank you for the fine 
work on this piece of legislation, something that's truly overdue.
  Mr. Speaker, the difficulty we had was a number of years ago, a piece 
of legislation went through this Congress with all the right things 
attached. We wanted to address lead in children's toys. True to 
Washington, D.C., form, the bureaucrats carried it to the extent that 
no longer made any kind of a common sense.
  When it came to time for the regulations to be crafted, I started 
receiving phone calls from my motorized vehicle dealers around the 
State of Montana, those that sold youth motorcycles, snowmobiles and 
ATVs, and they were being told that they had to take those units out of 
their showroom, eat the inventory, and could no longer sell their parts 
for repairs. Why? Because there was lead in some of the repair parts or 
on the units themselves.
  Now, I don't know if there is anybody in America that allows their 
children to chew on battery cables and valve stems, but they were 
determined to be toys, and it doesn't make sense. I come from a 
ranching family, and on my place we allow our children the opportunity 
to be trained on the smaller units to herd our livestock for the 
specific purpose that we don't want them on the larger vehicles. Try as 
we might to get the administration to change their regulations, they 
were not willing to do that.
  Today we are dealing with H.R. 2715, and it addresses a very 
important issue, kids just want to ride. They want the opportunity to 
ride the motorized vehicles, whether it is a snowmobile, a 4-wheeler or 
an ATV, for the specific purpose not just of recreation, but in a work 
setting as well.
  Because we could not make this change, we had to do it legislatively. 
We were successful in putting on riders on the appropriations bill year 
after year that said no money could be spent on the enforcement of this 
particular piece of legislation and the rules and regulations that were 
crafted thereafter. We will no longer have to do that with the passage 
of this bill.
  So it's with a great deal of appreciation that I say to Mrs. Bono 
Mack, thank you for bringing this piece of legislation forward; for the 
minority, thank you for your kind support as well in helping to move 
this forward and ultimately we can make the right commonsense decision, 
and that is to remove this aspect of this onerous regulation so once 
again, a kid, children, can ride the right vehicles so they won't be on 
the larger 4-wheel units, the larger snowmobiles and the larger 
motorcycles.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I want to thank the gentleman from Montana for 
working with us in crafting this compromise, and I hope he is satisfied 
with the ATV component. He has worked very hard and his staff has 
worked very hard to bring it to our attention.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished 
ranking member of our full committee, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bipartisan bill to 
amend the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008.
  The 2008 act was a historic piece of legislation, both because of the 
landmark health and safety protections in that bill for young children 
and because of the near unanimous support for that legislation from 
Democrats and Republicans. And it has been a success.
  Because of the Consumer Product Safety Act, we now have in place 
basic safety standards for keeping toxic lead and phthalates out of 
children's products. The CPSC has made long overdue revisions to safety 
standards for cribs. Manufacturers and retailers have begun the process 
of testing to make sure children's products are proven safe before they 
have been put on the store shelves and into the hands of children.
  The Consumer Product Safety Commission, after years of atrophy due to 
budget cuts and neglect, has been reinvigorated and become proactive, 
rather than reactive. As a result, we have seen a decline in the number 
of children's products that have to be pulled from homes and store 
shelves. The agency is intercepting more dangerous products at the 
border.
  And, finally, the American public has since March had access to 
consumer product safety information in a database that they can review 
about injuries from consumer products. Consumers now have free and open 
access to information that for too long remained hidden inside the 
CPSC.
  But like any law, the 2008 act had some rough edges that needed to be 
smoothed out.
  For example, there are some products that require a small amount of 
lead to maintain their strength and durability and don't pose a serious 
threat to public health or safety. ATVs and bicycles are examples of 
these.
  Some businesses expressed concern that they could find themselves 
with inventory that meets the current legal limit of 300 parts per 
million that can no longer be sold when the limit drops to 100 parts 
per million on August 14, just 2 weeks away.
  The smallest of small businesses are worried that they can't bear the 
cost of complying with these requirements in the way that larger 
businesses can.
  This bill addresses these concerns without jeopardizing our 
children's

[[Page 12689]]

 safety. It is a compromise bill in the best sense.
  Some Members on the other side wanted bigger changes to the 2008 act 
and some Members on our side do not believe every provision in the bill 
is needed. But thanks to the hard work of my colleagues, Mrs. Bono 
Mack, Mr. Butterfield, Mr. Barton and Mr. Dingell, and the leadership 
of Chairman Upton, we have arrived at a bill that I can support and 
urge my colleagues to join in supporting as well.
  I think we have struck the right balance. We have fixed valid 
problems and keep in place valuable health and safety protections for 
children. That has been my primary goal throughout this process.
  It was a long road to get to this place and after many hours and many 
months of tough negotiating, what we have here is a compromise that 
epitomizes bipartisanship. Neither side got everything it wanted, but 
both sides gave up enough that we were able to come up with something 
that was sensible and reasonable and that we can move quickly through 
this body. I hope the Senate sees it that way and can move quickly on 
this bill.
  We all share the belief that American businesses should be able to 
grow and flourish. I also think we all share the belief that consumers, 
especially children, deserve safe products.
  Again, I commend Chairwoman Bono Mack and Chairman Upton for their 
willingness to hear us out and to work with us. I thank Mr. Butterfield 
for fighting for a balanced approach that keeps large and small 
businesses competitive and continues to keep our children safe from 
potentially dangerous products.
  I also want to thank the other members of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee that have been active and helped us to get to today, 
including Mr. Dingell, Mr. Rush, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Markey, Mr. Towns, 
Ms. DeGette, and Ms. Eshoo.
  Mrs. BONO MACK. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, it doesn't appear that I have any other 
speakers on this side. I think their attention might be directed in 
another direction today; so I am prepared to close.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of the individuals, all of 
the Members, all of the staff who have played a part in crafting this 
compromise. It's a good bipartisan compromise that we can all live 
with. I look forward to the President signing it into law after the 
Senate passes it, hopefully very soon, and hopefully our small 
businesses will be able to continue to be profitable.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BONO MACK. Mr. Speaker, I also just want to echo the sentiments 
of both my colleagues who just spoke about the importance of this bill 
and thank them for their cooperation and the hard work that they put 
into this over the weekend. Again, I would like to thank the staffs of 
both the minority and the majority side.
  I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise as an original co-sponsor and in 
strong support of H.R. 2715, a bill that will fix many of the 
unintended consequences of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act 
(CPSIA) of 2008. I, along with my colleagues, Messrs. Rush, Barton, 
Whitfield, and Waxman, helped write CPSIA in response to the massive 
influx of dangerous and tainted Chinese imports during what some have 
termed ``the summer of recalls'' in 2007. The House's bill was 
negotiated in a bipartisan manner. It was reported favorably by the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce through a unanimous vote and then 
passed by the full House, 407-1. Then our dear friends in the Senate 
got hold of the bill, and we have been trying to fix the mess ever 
since.
  Although this process has taken over two-and-a-half years, I am 
pleased that H.R. 2715 will solve in great measure the problems CPSIA 
has caused. This bill will ensure that CPSIA's lead limits are 
prospective. It will put in place a waiver process to exempt from 
CPSIA's lead limits products that do not pose a danger to children's 
health and safety. H.R. 2715 will make the common-sense clarification 
that CPSIA's lead limits do not apply to bicycles, all-terrain vehicles 
(ATVs), and books. Finally, the bill will allow the Commission 
discretion to prescribe alternative third-party testing requirements 
with a view toward helping smaller businesses with more finite 
resources comply with the law. It bears mentioning that all of these 
changes will not undo the strict protections built into CPSIA to keep 
kids safe from dangerous products.
  H.R. 2715's significant improvements to CPSIA come as a result of 
bipartisan negotiation and cooperation. Despite the turmoil and rancor 
in Congress over the past few months, this bill shows that the House of 
Representatives can still legislate and do so in a manner befitting our 
Founding Fathers' vision of representative government. I would like to 
thank my friends and colleagues, Messrs. Upton, Waxman, and Butterfield 
for their fine work on H.R. 2715. Mrs. Bono Mack, in particular, 
deserves praise and congratulations for her success on this bill, her 
first as Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, 
Manufacturing, and Trade. Although often overlooked, the work of staff 
on H.R. 2715 demands deserved recognition, especially that of Gib 
Mullan and Michelle Ash, Republican and Democratic counsels, 
respectively. Their steadfast determination and hard work have made 
this bill a reality.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote in support of H.R. 
2715 and in so doing help put CPSIA's long and storied legislative sage 
to rest. We should all support this bill with the knowledge that it--in 
a manner pleasing to Hippocrates--will do no harm. I pray our 
colleagues in the other body will adhere to this principle in their 
expeditious consideration of H.R. 2715.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this bi-
partisan legislation that will help protect consumers against dangerous 
products that may do them harm. This legislation affects a broad 
spectrum of our economy, from the manufacturers of toys to the children 
that play with them. I am truly delighted that Democrats and 
Republicans were able to come together to support a plan to increase 
the safety of all children's products manufactured in this country. I 
am also pleased that this bipartisan agreement addresses some of the 
unintended consequences of the original legislation without sacrificing 
the safety requirements that I believe are necessary to protect our 
children.
  Our committee has had several months of consultation with industry 
officials to alleviate the burden placed on them by the Consumer 
Product Safety Improvement Act's (CPSIA) new standards and regulations. 
These common sense reforms such as allowing flexibility for the CPSC to 
exempt specific products and exclude certain used children's products 
were supported by many of the stakeholders that will be affected by the 
legislation we are considering today.
  I again want to commend Chairman Bono Mack and Ranking Member 
Butterfield for coming together and bringing this improved legislation 
to the floor. I encourage my colleagues to vote yes on this 
legislation, I also urge my colleagues to continue to work together in 
the spirit of bi-partisanship to protect the standards of safety that 
our constituents demand of us.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2715, a bill 
which places profits ahead of public health; especially the health of 
children. Though some flexibility in the Consumer Product Safety 
Improvement Act's implementation is warranted, this bill goes too far.
  According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, and 
the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, there is no safe level of 
exposure to lead. Even the most minute exposures, including so-called 
``trace'' amounts, have enduring health effects. Lead has many of the 
same chemical properties as calcium, which is why the body takes it up 
and deposits in the brain and in bone. However, once lead enters the 
brain, it doesn't leave. Commonly seen health effects of lead exposure 
include delays in neurological and physical development, learning 
disabilities, hyperactivity, lower IQ, hearing loss, reduced attention 
span, and extremely aggressive behavior. A growing body of research 
links criminal activity to exposure to lead, which stands to reason 
given this list of effects.
  This bill provides industry with several exemptions from the law and 
enhances its ability to self-regulate, an approach that has already 
proven to fail to protect public health. First, the bill exempts all 
products from the lead standards contained in the Consumer Product 
Safety Improvement Act except children's products. Though children are 
disproportionately susceptible to lead exposure, it is a disproven myth 
that adults are not susceptible. Adults suffer many of the same effects 
which are harder to detect because there are no programs to test blood 
lead levels, BLL, in adults.
  This bill sets forth a series of harmless-sounding criteria to be 
used to grant specific

[[Page 12690]]

exemptions that facilitate exposure to lead. If a company decides it 
wants to manufacture a product that can only be made with dangerous 
amounts of lead, that is now perfectly acceptable. In exchange, that 
company would need to show that the product is unlikely to be eaten, 
even though most lead exposure actually occurs through habitual hand-
to-mouth activity after hands come into unwitting contact with the vast 
array of consumer products that contain lead. That company would also 
need to show that blood lead levels--of children only--would not be 
affected. That is not a difficult hurdle since blood only remains in 
the body for about two weeks before it is expelled or taken up into the 
brain or bone, where it is nearly impossible to detect.
  This bill also gives manufacturers the ability to initiate a petition 
to exempt their products, without any way to prevent the well-worn 
tactic of applying for so many exemptions, and submitting so much 
information, much of which is meaningless, that the agency is 
effectively paralyzed with work. Worse, the bill allows the CPSC to 
make decisions about exemptions based solely on information submitted 
by the manufacturer. It is an inherent conflict of interest to turn 
over the burden of proof of harm to the company that stands to profit 
handsomely if no harm is proven. Citizens, advocates, and the CPSC do 
not have the resources to be able to generate enough information 
arguing against exemptions to match the volume of applications and 
information the manufacturers will put out. Chemical companies have 
been using this tactic for decades to push toxic chemicals through the 
approval process.
  The bill also contains blanket exemptions for narrow interests like 
off-road vehicles, bicycles, books, and magazines, even though the 
products are meant for children and most Americans would be surprised 
to learn that they contain lead at all.
  There is a balance to be struck between unnecessarily burdensome 
regulations and protection of public health. This bill fails to strike 
that balance.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to applaud House passage of H.R. 
2715, the Enhancing CPSC Authority and Discretion Act of 2011, ECADA.
  I voted in favor of this long-awaited bill, because it addresses the 
needed reforms of the 2008 Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, 
CPSIA, without undoing its core protections of consumers from unsafe 
toys and other products.
  This landmark legislation came in the wake of one of the biggest wave 
of consumer product recalls in American history. In excess of 10 
million toys were estimated to have been recalled due to lead paint and 
other product safety standards, standards that have been on the books 
for decades. This was and is unacceptable, and Congress responded 
accordingly.
  Specifically, Mr. Speaker, this bill adequately addresses what I 
believe is the key provision of CPSIA--that consumer products, 
especially children's products--should be tested as being in compliance 
with mandatory safety standards.
  And testing is the key. We live in a global supply chain environment, 
where any given product has a dozen or more part suppliers from a dozen 
or more countries, where safety standards may be weaker than our own.
  That is why, Mr. Speaker, I am proud and pleased that the final ECADA 
bill passed by the House today maintains the requirement that products 
be tested to CPSC lead and other standards. But I am equally pleased 
that the final bill reflects the need to make such testing affordable.
  Additionally, H.R. 2715 directs the CPSC to look for ``other 
techniques for lowering the cost of third party testing consistent with 
assuring compliance with the applicable consumer product safety rules, 
bans, standards and regulations.''
  Mr. Speaker, this last language is critical because it will protect 
consumers and create jobs here in America. I know this because in my 
Congressional District a company, XOS, Inc. has developed state of the 
art instruments for detecting lead, mercury, cadmium and other heavy 
metals in children's toys and other products.
  This new technology is the only CPSC approved method for the 
detection of lead paint without using wet chemistry. This method was 
also adopted by one of the most widely respected voluntary standards 
development organizations in the country (ASTM).
  Finally, I would suggest that, as this bill is on the precipice of 
becoming law, we consider that, if a small company in upstate New York 
can find a solution to ``how much lead is in this product,'' we can 
find more home-grown solutions to many of the other pending issues 
facing our country. We need to focus all our efforts on investing in 
our people and in creating jobs and this bill does just that.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono Mack) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2715.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mrs. BONO MACK. 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 question will be postponed.

                          ____________________