[House Report 107-485]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
107th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 107-485
======================================================================
CONSUMER PRODUCT PROTECTION ACT OF 2002
_______
May 23, 2002.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Sensenbrenner, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 2621]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 2621) to amend title 18, United States Code, with
respect to consumer product protection, having considered the
same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment and
recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
The Amendment.................................................... 1
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 2
Background and Need for the Legislation.......................... 2
Hearings......................................................... 3
Committee Consideration.......................................... 3
Vote of the Committee............................................ 3
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 3
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 3
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 4
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 4
Constitutional Authority Statement............................... 5
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion....................... 5
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 5
Markup Transcript................................................ 7
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Consumer Product Protection Act of
2002''.
SEC. 2. UNAUTHORIZED PLACEMENT OF WRITING WITH A CONSUMER PRODUCT.
(a) In General.--Section 1365 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as (g) and (h)
respectively;
(2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following new
subsection:
``(f)(1) Whoever knowingly stamps, prints, places, or inserts any
writing in or on any consumer product that affects interstate or
foreign commerce, or the box, package, or other container of any such
product, prior to its sale to any consumer, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
``(2) This subsection shall not apply in any case in which the
manufacturer, retailer, or distributor of the product in the due course
of business consents to the stamping, printing, placing, or inserting
of a writing.''; and
(3) in subsection (h) (as redesignated by paragraph (1))--
(A) in paragraph (3)(D), by striking ``and'';
(B) in paragraph (4), by striking the period and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding after paragraph (4) the following:
``(5) the term `writing' means any form of representation
or communication (including handbills, notices, or advertising)
that contains letters, words, graphic, or pictorial
representations.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 2332b(g)(3) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``1365(g)(3)'' and inserting
``1365''.
Purpose and Summary
H.R. 2621, the ``Consumer Product Protection Act of 2002,''
would criminalize the unauthorized placement of any writing in
consumer product packages before their sale to customers. Both
adults and children throughout the country have been subjected
to violent, racist, gory, and/or otherwise disturbing materials
hidden in tampered products. This legislation would prohibit
the unscrupulous from inserting into commercial products, such
as cereal boxes, this type of improper material. Moreover, by
fixing this gap in Federal law, H.R. 2621 would appropriately
punish, and likely prevent, individuals whose current
activities damage the value of manufacturers' brand names,
tarnish companies' well-deserved reputation for safe, high
quality products, and violate the integrity of the food that
reaches consumers' homes and families.
Background and Need for the Legislation
In the past 5 years, manufacturers of food products
regularly found that grocery stores have received complaints
from consumers about hate-filled, pornographic, or political
literature found in groceries. It appears that the literature
is being folded and inserted into certain groceries that are
packaged in boxes. Cereal boxes, frozen pizza boxes, and
macaroni and cheese boxes are among the more frequently
tampered product packages. Kraft Foods has reported over 100
incidents in the past 5 years. It is likely that many more
cases go unreported by consumers who simply throw away the
offending material and do not report the event.
The incidents involve pamphlets espousing racist, anti-
Semitic, and white supremacist sentiments. Also, leaflets have
been found that attack African-Americans, praise the Holocaust
and encourage the killing of immigrants. For example, one
leaflet showed a ``coupon'' with racial slurs thereon and a
demand for African-Americans to go back to Africa.
Under current Federal law, tampering with a product's
packaging is not illegal, so long as the actor does not cause
the labeling to become false or misleading. Current consumer
protection legislation, under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1365, governs this
area. It focuses on tampering which endangers the health or
safety of consumers or renders the labeling of a product false
or misleading, but leaves unregulated conduct which neither
adulterates the actual product nor alters the labeling.
This type of conduct harms both businesses and consumers.
Businesses should be able to control the messages associated
with their products and persons who interfere with their
products and the image of their company should be prosecuted.
Such conduct also harms consumers. The insertion of
materials into a box does not render the labeling misleading or
false; however, it does serve as a vehicle to sneak messages
into homes. Parents can monitor their children's television
shows, the music they listen to, the books they read, but they
cannot anticipate that harmful messages may be in a cereal box.
Nor can they be expected to open all packages before they are
brought home to ensure that they do not contain more than the
box claims. Very few would guess that such activity is not
already illegal. The Consumer Product Protection Act of 2002
would prohibit the placement of any writing or other material
inside a consumer product without the permission of the
manufacturer, retailer, or distributor.
Hearings
The Committee's Subcommittee on Crime held a legislative
hearing on H.R. 2621 on July 26, 2001. Testimony was received
from four witnesses. The witnesses were: Tracey Weaver, a
public citizen; David Zlotnick, Professor, Roger Williams
University, School of Law; Honorable Melissa Hart,
Representative of Pennsylvania, fourth congressional district;
and William Macleod, an industry representative testifying on
behalf of the Grocery Manufacturers of America.
Committee Consideration
On July 26, 2001, the Subcommittee on Crime met in open
session and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 2621 with
amendment, by a voice vote, a quorum being present. On May 8,
2002, the Committee met in open session and ordered favorably
reported the bill H.R. 2621, with an amendment in the nature of
a substitute, by a voice vote, a quorum being present.
Vote of the Committee
There were no recorded votes on H.R. 2621.
Committee Oversight Findings
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the
descriptive portions of this report.
Performance Goals and Objectives
H.R. 2621 does not authorize funding. Therefore, clause
3(c) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives
is inapplicable.
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures
Clause 3(c)(2) of House rule XIII is inapplicable because
this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or
increased tax expenditures.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with
respect to the bill, H.R. 2621, the following estimate and
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, May 14, 2002.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2621, the Consumer
Product Protection Act of 2002.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Lanette J.
Walker, who can be reached at 226-2860.
Sincerely,
Dan L. Crippen, Director.
Enclosure
cc:
Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Member
H.R. 2621--Consumer Product Protection Act of 2002.
CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 2621 would have no
significant impact on the Federal budget. Enacting H.R. 2621
could affect direct spending and receipts, so pay-as-you-go
procedures would apply to the bill; however, CBO estimates that
any impact on direct spending and receipts would not be
significant. H.R. 2621 contains no intergovernmental or
private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act and would impose no costs on State, local, or tribal
governments.
H.R. 2621 would make it a Federal crime to intentionally
tamper with a consumer product by placing writing on or inside
the packaging of the product. Violators would be subject to
imprisonment and fines. As a result, the Federal Government
would be able to pursue cases that it otherwise would not be
able to prosecute. CBO expects that any increase in Federal
costs for law enforcement, court proceedings, or prison
operations would not be significant, however, because of the
small number of cases likely to be involved. Any additional
costs to implement the bill would be subject to the
availability of appropriated funds.
Because those prosecuted and convicted under the provisions
of H.R. 2621 could be subject to criminal fines, the Federal
Government might collect additional fines if the bill is
enacted. Collections of such fines are recorded in the budget
as governmental receipts (revenues), which are deposited in the
Crime Victims Fund and spent in subsequent years. CBO expects
that any additional receipts and direct spending would be
negligible.
On September 26, 2001, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for
S. 1233, the Product Packaging Protection Act of 2001, as
ordered reported by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on
September 6, 2001. The bills are similar and the cost estimates
are identical.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Lanette J.
Walker, who can be reached at 226-2860. This estimate was
approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for
Budget Analysis.
Constitutional Authority Statement
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for
this legislation in article I, section 8 of the Constitution.
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion
Section 1. Short Title
The short title of the bill is the ``Consumer Product
Protection Act of 2002.''
Section 2. Unauthorized Placement of Writing with a Consumer Product
Section 2 of the bill amends 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1365 to make
knowingly stamping, printing, placing, or inserting any writing
(including graphic and pictorial representations) in or on a
consumer product prior to its sale to any consumer a crime.
This section shall not apply in any case in which the
manufacturer, retailer, or distributor consents to the writing.
A person who violates this section would be subject to a fine,
imprisonment of up to 1 year, or both. This section also makes
the necessary and conforming amendments to Title 18 of the
United States Code.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change
is proposed is shown in roman):
TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
PART I--CRIMES
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 65--MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1365. Tampering with consumer products
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f)(1) Whoever knowingly stamps, prints, places, or inserts
any writing in or on any consumer product that affects
interstate or foreign commerce, or the box, package, or other
container of any such product, prior to its sale to any
consumer, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not
more than one year, or both.
(2) This subsection shall not apply in any case in which
the manufacturer, retailer, or distributor of the product in
the due course of business consents to the stamping, printing,
placing, or inserting of a writing.
[(f)] (g) In addition to any other agency which has
authority to investigate violations of this section, the Food
and Drug Administration and the Department of Agriculture,
respectively, have authority to investigate violations of this
section involving a consumer product that is regulated by a
provision of law such Administration or Department, as the case
may be, administers.
[(g)] (h) As used in this section--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) the term ``serious bodily injury'' means bodily
injury which involves--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(D) protracted loss or impairment of the
function of a bodily member, organ, or mental
faculty; [and]
(4) the term ``bodily injury'' means--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(E) any other injury to the body, no matter
how temporary[.]; and
(5) the term ``writing'' means any form of
representation or communication (including handbills,
notices, or advertising) that contains letters, words,
graphic, or pictorial representations.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 113B--TERRORISM
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2332b. Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g) Definitions.--As used in this section--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) the term ``serious bodily injury'' has the
meaning given that term in section [1365(g)(3)] 1365;
* * * * * * *
Markup Transcript
BUSINESS MEETING
WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2002
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James
Sensenbrenner, Jr. [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. [Presiding.] The Committee will be
in order.
[Intervening business.]
The next item on the agenda is H.R. 2621, the ``Consumer
Product Protection Act of 2001.'' The Chair recognizes the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith, Chairman of the Subcommittee
on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, for a motion.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, the Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism, and Homeland Security reports favorably the bill
H.R. 2621 with a single amendment in the nature of a substitute
and moves its favorable recommendation to the full House.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the bill will be
considered as read and open for amendment at any point. And the
Subcommittee amendment in the nature of a substitute, which the
Members have before them, will be considered as read and open
for amendment at any point and be considered as the original
text for purposes of amendment.
[The amendment follows:]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Texas to strike the last word.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to say that I appreciate the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania offering this bill, which I support, and I will
yield the balance of my time to her.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Texas
H.R. 2621, the ``Consumer Product Protection Act of 2001'',
introduced by Rep. Melissa Hart, would prohibit anyone from knowingly
stamping, printing, placing, or inserting any writing in or on any
consumer product prior to its sale without the consent of the
manufacturer, distributor, or retailer of such product.
Under current law, tampering with a product's packaging is not
illegal, as long as it does not cause the labeling to be false or
misleading or endanger the health or safety of consumers. Yet product
tampering can be harmful both to businesses and consumers.
Product tampering cases that the Subcommittee on Crime, reviewed
have shown that adults and children across the country have been
subjected to violent, racist, gory, or otherwise offensive materials
placed between layers of packaging. Tampering transforms businesses'
desirable products into vehicles for undesirable messages. This
legislation will deter those who would wrongfully insert these
materials into product containers by making it a criminal act.
Just one company, Kraft Foods, estimates that they receive nearly
twenty complaints a year, but they also believe that many more cases go
unreported. The manufacturers have determined that many of these
materials are placed in the packaging once the products have left their
control. Often, the products are tampered with while in the retail
stores or are bought, tampered with, and later returned.
Parents can monitor their children's television shows, the music
they listen to, the books they read, but they cannot anticipate
offensive messages that may be in a cereal box.
I would like to thank Ms. Hart for sponsoring this legislation, and
I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Ms. Hart. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for
bringing this legislation before this Committee, and also Mr.
Smith for his work on the amendment to the bill. I also want to
thank my colleague Representative Baldwin, with whom I am
sponsoring the legislation.
Protecting consumers from unsafe products is an issue that
I worked on as a State Senator and one that I am pleased that I
can continue to work here in Washington.
The issue that the Consumer Product Protection Act
addresses is the result of an omission in the Federal Anti-
Tampering Act. Under that act, it is a crime for an individual
to alter the label of a product or harm the safety of a
consumer. It is not, however, a crime to place an unwanted item
in or on a product or its package.
Imagine opening a box of your favorite cereal and finding a
hate-filled message or pornographic material. Even worse,
imagine if you children opened the box and found this material.
This is just the story that we heard from Tracey Weaver, when
her son opened a box of cake mix to find a message filled with
racial slurs.
In fact, this happens all too often. For example, Kraft
Foods records show that here have been more than 100 reported
incidents in the past 5 years.
Most unfortunate is that when consumers like Mrs. Weaver
contact the manufacturer to complain, the manufacturer is left
unable to help their consumer, as the authorities cannot trace
the source of the problem, noting a lack of authority under the
Federal Anti-Tampering Act.
Basically, it is currently not a crime to place an unwanted
message in a packaged food product. This bill will fix the gap
in the law by clearly stating that placing unauthorized
material in or on a product is a crime under the Anti-Tampering
Act. This legislation protects consumers by reassuring them
that the products they purchase for themselves and their
families are safe. In addition, if they complain about such an
incident, this legislation ensures that authorities have the
ability to find and prosecute the perpetrator.
Manufacturers are also helped by this legislation as they
will be able to address the complaints and the concerns of
their customers. This legislation will ensure that
manufacturers are able to maintain the consumer confidence that
is important to them, so that they can do their business. It
also assures their customers that the products that they
purchase and have grown to enjoy and rely upon are actually
safe.
Again, I'd like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing
this bill before us; Ms. Baldwin, for co-sponsoring the bill;
and Mr. Smith, obviously, for the amendment and for dealing
with it in the Subcommittee on Crime.
I yield back to Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the balance of
my time as well.
Ms. Baldwin. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I'll yield to the gentlelady from
Wisconsin.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia moves
to strike the last word and yields to the gentlelady from
Wisconsin.
Ms. Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am pleased to be the lead Democrat on H.R. 2621, the
Consumer Product Protection Act of 2001, and I also wanted to
thank the work of--recognize the work of Congresswoman Hart and
her efforts in introducing this bill.
I urge my colleagues to report this bill favorably to the
House.
Over the last several years, consumers have been finding
offensive materials attached to or inserted inside the
packaging of a variety of products. Most of these inserts are
material that are offensive in nature. Many are racist, anti-
Semitic, or anti-gay.
Finding offensive material can be shocking, and it is
especially objectionable when a child opens a box and finds
offensive and even pornographic material inside.
Responding to customer complaints, manufacturers have
sought law enforcement help to address this situation. However,
it has become increasingly clear that law enforcement officials
lack the authority to prosecute these crimes under State or
Federal law. Both the FBI and the FDA's Office of Criminal
Investigations do not believe that they have the authority to
prosecute these crimes.
The Consumer Product Protection Act would address this gap
in Federal law and give authorities the tools they need to
investigate and prosecute these acts.
Only two States, California and New Jersey, currently have
laws prohibiting this practice. This bill would amend the
Federal Anti-Tampering Act by making it a crime for a person to
place any writing either on the outside of the package or on
the inside prior to its sale to a consumer. There are
appropriate exceptions in the bill for promotional and sales
purposes, if approved by the manufacturer, distributor, or
retailer.
To address some concerns about the appropriate level of
punishment, the Crime Subcommittee amended the legislation to
make the crime a misdemeanor instead of a felony.
I am pleased to be an original co-sponsor of this bill and
strongly urge the Committee to report the bill favorably to the
House.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I yield back to Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. Scott. Reclaiming my time, I want to thank Ms. Baldwin
and Ms. Hart and Chairman Smith for working on this bill.
The activity we're speaking of is not illegal under Federal
law and may not be illegal under State law. Ordinarily, I would
prefer to see States develop the necessary criminal law
provisions for activities occurring within their States.
However, given the nature of this problem, where placing
writings in or on products in one State could end up in a
number of different States, to the extent that any criminal
provision is needed, it is appropriate that we consider Federal
action.
I believe we've structured the bill in such a way that it
allows law enforcement to deal effectively with this issue, and
provide for proportional penalties.
I support the legislation, thank the leaders of the
legislation, and ask my colleagues to support it. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Watt. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. Scott. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. Watt. There's been some reference to an amendment in
the nature of a substitute, which I don't seem to have. What
changes were made to the legislation?
Mr. Scott. I would ask the Chairman, has the amendment in
the nature of a substitute been offered?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The answer is yes.
Mr. Watt. I apparently didn't get a copy of it, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. It's the Subcommittee amendment in
the nature of a substitute. We're bringing the gentleman from
North Carolina a copy of it.
Mr. Watt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back to the
gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. Scott. I yield back.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, all Members'
opening statements may be included in the record at this point.
Are there amendments?
If there are no amendments, the question occurs on the
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Those in favor will say aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the
amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to.
The question now occurs on the motion to report the bill
H.R. 2621 favorably as amended by the amendment in the nature
of a substitute. The Chair notes the presence of a reporting
quorum.
Those in favor will say aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the
motion to report favorably is adopted.
Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to move to go
to conference pursuant to House rules. Without objection, the
staff is directed to make any technical and conforming changes.
And all Members will be given 2 days, as provided by House
rules, in which to submit additional, dissenting, supplemental,
or minority views.