>> it opens the door come and that's the most recent iteration of international civil aviation recession annex 17. that does opened the door to more stringent activities regarding cargo. but our cargo training has been focusing very much on using actual technology, not just physical screening, but the use of x-rays can use of explosives trace detectors, looking at what we've been doing and specific

countries, high-risk countries. we have a team that is departing yemen tomorrow who's been working with them on the use of et become explosive trace detectors for the cargo come for passengers, for checked baggage it would also provided to them on a long-term loan portable etd them affordable and stand-alone you would see at a u.s. airport. so we've been identifying those locations where post a great concern to us. going there and providing the training, and in some cases than the long-term loans of the etd. >> anything -- anyone want to add anything? just one other thing, i know this isn't the focus today but i was talking to some of our tsa people when i came home from the holidays, to come back you. i just want to pass on the good word that the do. i think through the public brouhaha last week, i think there were some issues with education of the public on this

policy. i understand the concerns raised by people that called me, but i think this idea of that it should somehow be taken out on these front-line employees who are simply doing their job, i think what they told me which was good is that the passengers were unappreciative of their work or not i think they went through the ringer and i think appreciative of the support they got from the department. so i wanted to put my appreciation for their work, whatever the policy changes may be. all right? thank you. >> i think that's an important statement to understand, that the folks who are at our airports that are doing the day-to-day screening, they're working under the orders of the process and procedures and supervision. they by and large deliver the outstanding job. like everyone else, you could find one that is crappy or had bad taken now doing quite as well as you would hope. but by and large, you know, i've traveled a lot and i think day

in and day out they do a pretty good job. and given the patdown issue, given the advanced imaging issues and the 24/7 news about -- >> and the "saturday night live" commercial. >> all of that. i think it's been a pretty tough time. and i think, i know mr. pistole wishes and the department which is that perhaps they don't have a more advanced work to explain to people what they are doing. given a choice in getting on an airplane with a large number of passengers who have not been properly screened, and who could possibly have an explosive device, or getting on an airplane in which passengers haven't been -- has-beens screens officially, i think most passions would choose the latter by far. that's a we expect i want to say that the sum total of all that we've been talking about is for you and around the world to try to keep people and luggage off of airplanes, and other methods

of transportation from especially airplanes, key people and luggage off of airplanes that would be containing a bomb or a weapon. and it's not easy to do. especially inasmuch as in recent years what has happened is we now have people that are perfectly willing to kill themselves while they commit an act of terror. that's a change. we haven't always seen it in our lifetime, so it seems to me kind of a race between offense and defense. who are the terrorists, how do you identify them how do you keep them and the things they want to carry onto an airplane? they want to care -- kill people. we want to protect people. it's that simple, and yet it's that complicated as well. and so the purpose of this hearing is to once again, get a status report of where we are, what we are working on trying to do, and as i said at the outset, not just with respect to the airport in fargo or minneapolis

or somewhere else in this country, but a network of airports and a network of screening around the world by which someone could enter the system and move around the world within the process of providing security in the circumstances, both people and luggage come is enormously complicated in a very big undertaking. one thing i don't quite understand pressure is, have the good fortunes of, we have experienced, and that is, being able to at least see the prevention of the bombs that we are aware of, that he didn't detonate and so we've been fortunate. and we haven't seen other acts. is that good governance or good fortune? i don't know the answer to that, but i know there's a lot of work underway, and a lot more is necessary to provide the kind of protection the traveling public demands and deserves. i want to thank all of you for repairing testimony ending with

us. and i know you'll be asked again and again to come before this committee and give a status report on the work that you're doing. thank you very much. this hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> each year we conduct a video documentary competition called student can. the competition ask students in grades six through 12 to think of issues affecting our nation. we chose this topic because we would like you to limit the federal government has affected an issue or event in your life or your community.

select a topic that interests you, when sugar topic you can begin your research. the goal is for you to fully develop an researcher topic, provide different points of view and include c-span footage to support her thing and a five to eight minute documentary. for more information visit our website or e-mail us, any questions you have that educate at c-span.org. get started. >> mike crapo and tom coburn announced they will vote in favor of the report released wednesday by the national commission on fiscal responsibility and reform. the plan cuts the deficit by almost $4 trillion over the next decade. 14 of the 18 commission members need to vote in favor of the vote for it to be especially -- officially endorsed by the group.

>> everybody ready? all right. tom and i have put out a statement which i think you all should have now, and we are both going make brief remarks. our purpose are being had to do is to announce that we are going to support the debt commission report and encourage its adoption by congress. as we stayed in our announcement, our debt crisis is a threat not to our way of life, but to our national survival. and the threat we face is so real and so close that we do not have further time for gridlock or inaction. if necessary that we take strong, aggressive action now. in the near future if we take no action we can see it collapse and the value of the dollar, hyperinflation or other consequences that would force congress in this country to take

actions that are far more serious and far more painful than anything in this proposal, as painful as some of the provisions in this proposal are. i want to talk for just a moment about what our current circumstance is. we agree at the beginning of deliberations of the debt commission to use cbo numbers. if you do that, you would note the death of our nation has risen from 32% of our gdp, just about eight or nine years ago, to 62% today. and the alarming thing is that if we continue on our current policies, that that debt will begin to skyrocket. it is projected if we do not change our course to hit approximately 90% in 2020. and grow as high as 180% by 2035. it probably will never hit that because if we don't take decisive action, then you

economy will. and we will see the kinds of forced consequences that will change those dynamics. in very, very painful, difficult and damaging ways to every american. the reason that we are supporting this plan is because, although it is not everything we wanted, and although it contains things that frankly i painful to us and raise heartburn, it does take us dramatically down the path in the right directions toward addressing these issues. first and foremost it addresses the spending issue. under the proposal there'll be definite hard caps on spending put into place, and to quickly summarize, it will result in us returning to 2008 spending levels by 2013, and reaching a balance in our budget by 2035. but if you look at those debt numbers come it will stop that skyrocketing debt that i just

talked about and actually, by 235 to return our ratios down to 41% of gdp. still not adequate but for different and far better than what we would see if we take no action. i think equally as important, if one of these most beneficial parts of this plan, in my opinion, is that it doesn't only focus on tax policies, but it also focuses on revenue policy. and doesn't in a way that does not continue our debate in congress and in this country over whether we should raise taxes or reduce tax rates, but instead engages us in tax reform. if we are going to strengthen our nation and reserve the american dream, for our people. we need to have a strong robust economy. yet if you look at our current tax code, i'm not sure you could construct one that is more complex, more unfair, more costly to comply with, and, frankly, as anti-competitive to

our own businesses as our current tax code. and we expect the reforms that are proposed in this plan, which are some of the most dramatic and extensive reforms that i've seen in my lifetime, to changing our tax code will help us to move to a more fair, less complex, a less costly and a more competitive tax code. that will generate a stronger, more robust and more dynamic economy. and one of the other beneficial parts of this is that in using the cbo numbers, we have not projected the dynamic impact of that kind of tax reform on our revenue. in other words, if there is a dynamic impact and where both confident there will be, that additional revenue as a result of a stronger economy is locked in by this plan to be utilized for either further rate reductions, or further debt reduction, and is barred from being utilized to justify additional spending relief.

it's these kind of measures among many others that cause me to be ready to support this plan. like i said at the outset, there is much in this plan with which i have problems. but there is a necessity that we move forward. and this plan will get us on the way. as we bring this plan before congress, i'm sure there will be need to adjust and to add to it. there are significant things missing from the plan that need to be included. but as we debate about whether to add or adjust to this proposal, we must get started. i would end as i conclude, as i started, by saying that the time for divisiveness, for gridlock, and delay has ended. we must take decisive action now. thank you. >> thank you, mike. the best quote i have heard so far about this plan is the only thing worse than being for it is

being against it, from kent conrad. and i think a truly accurate. it says a whole lot. i'm not typically -- i can say right now i significantly worried about our short-term future, not our long-term future. i think we are in a precarious balance. i think we are at a day of reckoning. and it doesn't matter what your political party is, or what your philosophical didn't is, this is a starting point. and that's all it is. it's a starting point. more will have to be done. there will not be one american that is not called on to sacrifice if we are to get out of the hole that we are in. the time for action is now. the threat is real. it's urgent. we cannot wait for another election. we cannot wait until we get more of what we want your this more in this plan that i dislike that

i like, but the urgency requires me to put aside anything other than my constitutional obligation to try to get the federal government reined in to the realm and in size and content that it was originated upon your country. this bill does not cut spending enough. we documented to the press multiple times over $350 billion in wasteful spending, duplicates spending, fraud. we didn't get there. we got 200 plus billion. we need to get more. that tax rates are not flat in a. they need to be flatter. we really want a robust economy and use both growth and, and commonsense to get out of the province we are in. the challenge is a matter of national survival. let's not understate the case. if you look at history, no republic has survived as long as

we have, and they have all failed, and they all failed for the same reason. they lost control of their fiscal policies long before they ever were conquered. we see it today in our weakness in our foreign policy. we see today in a weakness to finance our way to get out of the tremendous recession that we've been in. all those are having detrimental impacts, i'm not only our kids and grandkids, but us as well. the good news is there's not a problem in front of us that we cannot solve. the question is, is will we take off our particular hats and work in the best interest of america to to the real problems that als? we will take your questions. thank you. what does it mean to support his a few are also going to be changing it and voted for more spending cuts are less tax cuts in congress? i thought the idea was it was a

package. >> to begin with, you passed this package and you do more. this package doesn't solve our problems that it only cuts for trillion. we need to cut 10. and we need to grow the economy. and flattening the rates further, lasting adjudicative programs. you know, the real essence in terms of looking at america, individual initiative and self-reliance has been replaced in all too many instances by dependency and relies upon government. and the thing that build the country was a self-reliance and individual initiatives and individual responsibility. we have to get back to that if we are going to succeed. >> let me just add to what tom just said and make an exclamation point on it. this plan is a package and does come as a package, but it is not the end. it is the beginning of the

significant steps that we must take. and i believe every member of the commission recognizes that additional steps will be needed. and tom and i are already committed on a number of those that we believe are necessary to continue advocating for them. >> senator coburn, what do you say to the anti-tax -- [inaudible] what you say in response to that? >> the first thing i was a is our obligation is to the country as a whole can't not do any special interest group. number two, is i don't think we break that pledge at all with this bill. at all. it may in a cursory look at the letter that we do, but if you look at them we are at about 92% tax reduction versus tax

increase. if you score that dynamically we will get more tax reduction than you tax increase. so i don't believe we are in there. and if we are in there, so was ronald reagan because this tax plan is right on steroids that was passed in 1986. >> and to quick additions to that. you always come in every aspect of this plan, you have to look at what is coming if we do not take action. if we do not take action to that tax increases that this congress will face and probably have to pass are far greater than any tax increase in this bill. and secondly, we have put provisions in your as i mentioned earlier that if there is a dynamic impact on the economy, which we are confident there will be, that the revenue generated from that is to be used for further rate reduction and for further debt reduction which all of us those issues. i totally agree with tom, this does not break that pledge in any way.

>> just make sure everybody understands your this is a starting point. if we pass this bill tomorrow it doesn't get us out of the woods. everybody needs to understand that it does not get us out of the woods. there are many more difficult choices that this country is going to have to make. we are going to have to do something with medicare. it's impossible. the health care, one of the objections are this plan is it doesn't address the health care costs. and because there is a political reason why can't, because we just had a bill passed that nobody was going to go for on the other side. but the fact is we will have to come back and will have to have something like paul ryan's roadmap, or something else innovative, if we're going to achieve any semblance of stability financially in this country. so this is the beginning. this is the start. it's not the end. >> you talk about the provisions in the planet you think might be the most clinically difficult

for members of your party to accept. >> now, i probably can't. you know, it's not a day for politics. we don't have that luxury anymore. america needs to understand, there is not a luxury for politics anymore. it is time for us to get our act together. we are really at war. we are on three fronts that the iraq, afghanistan, and the financial tsunami that is facing us. and we need to bind together without a hat, without a philosophy essay, what do we do to fix our country? and i said in my opening statement it's going to take -- come a lot quicker than anybody in this room thanks. all you have to do is watch what's happening, and we are not far away. >> you mentioned mr. vine and making health care. this morning he indicated he would vote against concerns, or the lack of health care. any reaction to that? >> he is an independent number

of the commission. he gets to vote the way he wants. i believe will have to address that anyway, and i believe this is the first. i will tell you that we have to start somewhere. and it can't be on my way. i would've written a totally different plane than i would have eliminate the income tax completely and we would've gone to a national sales tax. it would be a medicare tax and there would be a social security tax. we would have done this at all. i can't have my way, but our country deserves us to sacrifice like to call we're going to make what else to sacrifice, to accomplish what we have to accomplish. and that is to get out of this whole. >> have you talked to senator mcconnell about this proposal or any of your other republican fellow senators? >> i have talked to several other senators. >> once the prospect? >> i'm not good at predicting of how things pastor i'm good at predicting of how things won't. [laughter]

>> i would say we both have talked to i think most of the members of our conference. and every other conference as well, the democratic operatives welcome many of them. i would say at this point other than the members of the commission you are starting to now express their position on the report, most of the other members i think of both caucuses are reserving judgment and studying right now. and my initial observations are bad, just like every other member of the commission, they are seeing pain and they are seeing gain in the proposal. let me ask you a question. most of you know me. what would cause me to move from multiple principal positions over the last six years to accomplish what we need to accomplish? do you think i'm fearful of what getting rid to happen to us? i am scared to death. at the potential that could unwind this country far greater than anything we've ever seen

before, and far sooner than anyone imagines. we have to send a signal to the international financial community. look at great britain. making it. they put in a budget. what's happening to the growth what they are starting to do this already. austerity works. and so what we are going to drive for austerity. i can promise you i'm going to drive austerity like crazy. because our kids and grandkids are worth it. >> can you tell us about the process when president obama create the commission they -- i think a lot of people were surprised there was so much bipartisan support. can you tell us how this played out in getting to this point? >> let me take a stab at that first at the outset i was very dubious, like many people in the country were. and i have to give credit to the six nominees or members of the commission who came in, and in a nonpartisan way, i addressed this issue and help the members

of the commission who are from the senate or the house achieved a bipartisan approach. now, the members of the commission, congress were also hopeful that we could do this. but having had sex set of members who were not voting members of congress in my opinion, actually helped significantly to move us in the direction of discussion that could get us here. one of the early things was come as you recall at the outset that was a concern that this commission might be a vehicle to great and that huge taxing engine on top of the income tax in this country. one of the early things that i think we were hoping to achieve there was an understanding that that would not be helpful to solving this problem. and that, in fact, a major reform and overall of our tax policy to help us become more competitive globally would be the better step for the commission today. and it is those kinds of

developers in the deliberations that i believe helped us then to move to this point. >> and i also would say, i think the members of the commission understand the severity of what we face. and failing to recognize that, and if the congress doesn't recognize that in this next year, no matter whether it is this plan or some of the plan if we don't act, we have shorten the timeline under which we will have an opportunity to act, no one. and the consequences will be grow daily that we will all suffer as americans if we don't. >> in terms of looking ahead, they're still an uphill climb it looks like to 14. so the white house said yesterday there will be this evaluate proposals for the budget commission. what do you guys see as the core

elements are principles that if this plan doesn't get sent to congress this year, that should be carried over into the framework for next year? >> well, first of all i'm hopeful we do get to 14, and i don't think it's out of the question yet. if we don't get to 14, nothing stops us as a country, whether it be through presidential initiative or to congressional initiative from considering all other provisions the proposals in this plan, or pieces of the. and i'm actually confident that will happen in one way or another. i am hopeful we can create a very strong dynamic that come as tom says, will cause congress to act. because for the very reasons he said, i agree, we do not have time to delay. in addition though, i believe that the core elements that we must focus on our, as i said at the outset, spending controls. i'm a strong advocate of cats with very strong enforcement mechanisms to make sure that congress is put on a glide path

that cannot get off of without extremely strong margins. secondly, i believe that putting it spending restraint and control come in place in denver and the enforcement obsessed in place to keep congress on spending path, we also need to address the second key big element, which is to make our tax code more competitive and reform it in a way that will give us a much stronger and more dynamic opportunity for economic growth. those two pieces i think are the core pieces that we've got to keep focusing on. >> do you think this will get an up or down vote regardless if it gets to 14? >> i'd like to see. >> speaking if it does get to 14 come is the time to draft legislation based on these proposals? could there be practically speaking -- >> you mean before?

they have gotten assurance from leadership in the house and the senate that they will allow that process to go forward in the near future. >> sometime early next year. >> what about john boehner? >> i know they did from harry reid. i don't have any idea if they get from john boehner. >> i'm confident if we have the votes that the congressional leadership on both sides in both congresses, this congress and the next congress, would give us the opportunity to. >> senator coburn, you know president obama pretty well. did you talk about the deficit issue? do you think he is committed to these things you guys have tackle? >> i have not talked to him at all in about five or six weeks. and we have not discussed this. but, you know, this is his commission. i voted against this process. i think we have a commission. but the commissiocommission of the congress has failed to act as we've seen just this week. we ought to be acting, and so he

set it up. it's his commissioreport. it's what his commission is taking. and now we are far desperate will be above the majority. so i think it sends a signal. >> can you talk about the tax code extensions? how does that fit in with -- >> that's now. but the point is, and what are the tax extensions about? it's about not hurting this very fragile recovery. and by the time this thing, if you took where we are in this entry that, i think you'd see a more buoyant recovery effort but this reform to the tax rates come, especially the corporate tax rate, into this in a way that will ultimately build greater revenues for the federal government. not to increase tax rates but to increase the size of gdp. >> let me make an observation of

the. a number of economists report to the commission during our deliberations told us one of the most important things, one of the biggest impacts we could have on our economic growth in this country would be to adopt a plan and give the world economy that confidence that america was going to reverse and correct its fiscal policy. whatever the concepts in the plan were. and so with regard to the tax question that you asked, i believe one of the important elements and with a very positive elements of this plan is that if adopted, it would out of this debate without whether to raise taxes or lower taxes, and a which category should taxes be raised or lowered. and instead would move us into a new dynamic of tax reform and how should our tax code look as we try to create the kind of code that would be as i said earlier more efficient, less complex, and more competitive. and so in this plan literally

changes the dynamic on the entire kind of discussion that we're having in congress today over just rate levels. >> all right. thank you all very much. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> in 2008 president bush signed a law that created tougher manufacturing guidelines for children's products, and which expanded the size of the consumer product safety commission. next, commissioners, consumer advocates and industry representatives to discuss how the law has been implemented over the last two years. the senate commerce subcommittee hearing is almost two hours. >> we will go ahead and call our hearing to order here in a consumer protection, product safety, and insurance subcommittee on the oversight of

the consumer product safety commission. i want to join, i want to thank my fellow senators for joining us today, and i want to join all my fellow senators in thanking the commission and the other witnesses for being here today. we really appreciate your time and your attention to these very important issues. this is a timely discussion in light of the current holiday shopping season, a time when the safety of products on store shelves is paramount. i'd like to express my gratitude to chairman rockefeller for allowing me to hold this hearing come into his excellent staff for all the great things that they have done in preparation of this. and also of course, of the minority staff as they been great to work with as well. each year billions of toys are purchased by consumers and independent hands of children. unfortunately, not all these toys are safe. last year 12 children died as a result of injuries related to

toys, and thousands ended up in emergency rooms. but it's difficult to prevent all such injuries, it is the mission of the consumer product safety commission to protect the general public against unreasonable risk of injury and death associate with toys and other consumer products. and to assist consumers in evaluating the comparative safety of those products. each year on average, over 28,000 deaths related to consumer products under the agency's jurisdiction occurs. researchers estimate the cost of death, injuries and property damage to associate with consumer products totals more than $800 billion annually in the united states. consequently, the importance of this agency and efforts to reduce these statistics while building safer communities and safer marketplace that safer marketplace cannot be overstated i welcome that commission, chairman tenenbaum took the helm

in june of 2009 come and since then she has demonstrated impressive initiative and energy in implementing the law in addressing product safety problems at other ford two-hitter tesla and exploring activities under her direction. just last week, the commission voted to adopt a final rule establishing the cpsc's public bashing publicly available product safety information database as mandated by congress. a repository of consumer complaints and incident reports, the database is designed to grant all of us time access to critical product safety information allowing us to scan for trends or patterns of potentially hazardous product in the marketplace. as one of the lead authors of the database provision, i support the commission's final rule. i am pleased the commission has crafted the rule in a manner that will make this information available widely to the general

public, in particular i endorse the commission's effort to empower all consumers who have verified information regarding a product safety hazard to report that incident. i applaud chairman tenenbaum's leadership in this area which is in keeping with congressional intent behind the provision. to maximize reporting for product safety incidents, and to make this information accessible to the general public as quickly as possible. and i look forward to the official launch in march of 2011. just as a reminder, before the congressional overhaul, the cpsc was an agency in distress. its staffing levels and funding levels had been choked over time. on numerous occasions it lacked a full quorum of commissioners, inhibiting its ability to be dubbed important official business. notification of public hazards was inadequate. the marketplace was dangerous enemy instances toxic products

that recover my sink american families, not least of all, our children. by 2007 news reports were exposing millions of defective toys in the stream of commerce, lead tainted chili, tiny magnets, aqua dots that converted to the date rape drug once ingested. the cpsc was slow to act to protect americans, and it was only after newspapers shone a spotlight on infant deaths and injuries that the commission chose to take action. congress and in particular committee responded to the crisis in product safety by overhauling the agency, drinking it essential new tools and authorities to enable it to properly execute its mission and to protect members of the public. the consumer product safety commission improvement act was the first significant overhaul of the federal consumer product safety law since the cpsc's inception. i'd like to now turn it over to

the ranking member, my neighbor and friend from mississippi, and say that we look forward to revisiting the cpsia over the course of this next congress, and we always have open doors to listen to industry and advocacy groups to talk about somebody, maybe some of the things we got back in some of the things made we didn't do so right, when we passed the legislation. but ranking member, thank you for being a. look forward to your opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for that concluding statement which i think is very viable and helpful prevented to look for to revisiting this issue during the next congress, should we be come at you and i be allowed to continue in this capacity. and thank you for holding this hearing. the cpsc is a small agency with a large but important mission to regulate more than 15,000 consumer products keeping the

public safe from preventable injuries and deaths caused by unsafe and effective products. as the title of our hearing suggests, we are especially reminded of the importance of this charge during increased consumer buying that comes with the christmas season. i thank the chairman for taking this opportunity to provide oversight and for his commitment to consumer safety. the cpsc is currently involved in many areas that affect american consumers from its efforts into looking to dangers and certain types of cribs, to the continuing investigation of drywall that's a given drive -- impacted many of my constituents but there are many activities which deserve our attention. however, for the last two years nothing has dominated the commission more than the implementation of the cpsia. the cpsia was enacted in august of 2008 largely in response to concerns over numerous toy recalls for violations of existing lead limits and painted it represents the most

significant changes to the commission's regulatory environment since it was first created. the intention was a noble one that i think we all support to improve safety. the law against to do so by tightening the regulations over children's products, focus primary on reducing the content of lead. unfortunately, despite hard work put into the law and the commission's efforts to implement it the result has not been what was intended to. the last two years have seen it create uncertainty for businesses requiring significantly increase compliance requirements and unnecessary testing of safe product. some effective businesses report that prior to the cpsia they were responsible for complying with lead, 200 pages of rules that but now that number has grown to nearly 3000 pages, from 200 to 3000 their kids will continue to increase as more rules are implemented and rewritten. many small kid businesses versus

-- is to be too much to bear. our government should be doing everything possible to promote job creation along with safety. this law has had the exact opposite effect, particularly on small business. cpsia has reduced the ability of many businesses to make a profit, create jobs. on second down today include jill chuckas who will testify on behalf of the handmade toys alliance. about the impact on their members to identify with a document called cpsia business casualties. which was 24 small businesses that cited cpsia as the reason for closing down. and 11 others cited the cpsia as one of the factors in their decision to close. we will also hear about the numerous other business that

have barely been able to continue operating under the bill's requirements. many of them will be forced to close in the next year. as different provisions of the law come into effect. further, the cpsia has reduced the incentive to innovate and invest in new markets. because it increased the cost of doing business through burdensome and expensive testing requirements. another list compiled by one business eating the burden of this loss was 22 different small businesses that have dropped children's product lines because of this act. neither of these lists include every business that has been affected your data is sent to a small representation of the negative effect of the cpsia on business. these numbers are particularly troubling, because of the impact has mostly been felt by businesses and products that are not and have never been a threat

to child safety. one of the primary concerns with the bill remains is to move of the commission's ability to use risk assessment in their determination. even if the commission determines that a product is not harmful, an exemption for product should result in the absorption of any lead cannot be used. i'm concerned with the upcoming and to this day on third party testing, and the next reduction and retroactive application of the lead standard. both of these will have significant impacts on small businesses. i also hope to discuss with chairman tenenbaum and commissioner northup, certain decisions the commission has made in into many a longer in some where the law actually does allow flexibility to provide needed relief. the commission has instead chosen to expand the laws reached an requirement, for the, getting an already confusing set

of rules and regulations. the application of third party testing under certain general product safety rules, the definition of a children's products, and plastics and limitation of the database are three such examples. while concentrating on the act, it is easy to forget that along with these mandates cpsc must still fulfill the rest of these charges and address other defective products that appear in the marketplace. we need to make sure the commission's resources are being used appropriately. and are not being forced to focus solely on implementing this law to the exclusion or detriment of the commission's other important work. i'm very interested to hear how the cpsc is coping with his challenge. so thank you all, and thanks to our witnesses for agreeing to appear today and sharing their expertise with us. and i look forward to a productive thing. thank you, mr. chairman,. >> thank you. senator udall. >> thank you, chairman pryor come and thank you very much for holding this hearing today and

for your leadership in consumer protection. i think all of us remember the notorious summer of recalls and all the problems with imported toys. and thanks to your efforts, and especially the landmark 2008 consumer product safety improvement act, parents can have more confidence this holiday season that their children's toys are safe. while we still have plenty of other recalls this summer, i'm pleased that there is a new emphasis on consumer protection and new leadership at the cpsc. it's good to see cpsc chairman tenenbaum here and commissioner northup, do i served in the house of representatives with. i think they are both care for the first time since senate confirmation. and it's good to have you here today with us. i look forward to hearing about the implementation of the 2008 consumer safety legislation. there is one issue though that i would like to focus on, and i'll

be more in depth on it in my questioning, but i want to raise a pressing safety issue affecting millions of young athletes. and that's the issue of football helmet safety. it's an area where i think the cpsc could help improve children's safety, and i'll get come as i said, i will get into more detail in my questioning the i want to thank our witnesses today, and thank senator pryor once again for this hearing. >> thank you, senator udall. both of our witnesses on the first panel have long and very impressive resumes, but what i'd like to do, suspense with reading of those resumes and gesticulate that they are very well qualified and we're very honored to have been here today. but we have chairman of the consumer product safety commission, transfixed. and we have one of the new commissioners, anne northup. so chairman tenenbaum, would you

mind leaving off? think you. >> good morning, chairman pryor and ranking member wicker, members of the subcommittee and simmer protection product safety and interested i please have the opportunity to testify before the committee and share with you what the cpsc has done over the past you to make this holiday shopping season safe for families and safe for children. i will provide more details later in my remarks, but. and consumers should note that there are new safeguards in place that give them more confidence in the children's product safety for sale in a few hazard than in the past. since become the chairman of the cpsc in june 2009, i have focus on specific goals that i want to share with you. the cpsc has focused on fair and effective implementation of the cpsia, and less than two years the commission has improved more than 50 years -- growth. strategic plan, we recently released the commission's new five year strategic plan which

lays out our goals and objectives that will allow the cpsc to establish itself as the global leader in consumer product safety. the commission has great a new office of education, global outreach and small business ombudsman to provide parish stakeholders domestic and international including manufacturers, retailers, resellers, small business and foreign government more information. will have a full-time small business ombudsman who will be dedicated shutting the nation's many smaller manufacturers in the area of product safety. the commission's import surveillance division is working more closely with the customs border protection to keep dangerous products out of the united states the cpsc is increase the number of employees it supports from entry from five to 19 located in 15 different ports. in addition to these efforts to expand the overall capabilities of the cpsc we have also focused substantial resources on several specific hazard. one of the most important is addressing hazards. by the end of this will have this year a new creative safety will that will prohibit danger

to drop-side cribs from ever being sold again in the midst everything you stand requires higher quality wood and hardware. we also have continued our efforts to implement and enforce the virginia graham bakker safety act, or this year the cbs he its education campaign as part of the national effort to reduce child drownings and entrapment in pools and spas. during the thatcher alone there have been more than 100 million views of broadcast and print measures relating to pool safety campaign. the cpsc is also aggressively continuing efforts to provide relief to homeowners by contaminated drywall. since becoming chairman i personally visited homes in florida and virginia and now the frustration these homeowners are facing. to deal with this, the commission conducted the most extensive investigation in history and i look forward to sharing that with you later on in our question and answer

period. finally, we have redouble our efforts to provide rapid response to new and emerging hazard. we have taken aggressive action to release the market for children's products that contain harmful levels of cadmium, and will also be glad to show that in detail with you later. i.t. modernizations in march 2011 will also unveil our new public database on the safety consumer-products which is mandated by the cpsia, the database will provide a powerful source of information for consumers allowed them to quickly determine whether the products they already own or are considering purchasing our associate with safety hazards or recalls. in this holiday season a true measure of our success of the cpsc is how we can help a young mother or father who was out shopping for toys, a crib or a high chair find safe reliable consumer-products. is what the cpsc can promise them. that the toys they buy are not covered by mandatory safety standards to cut the lead content in lead paint limits for

toys and children's products are among the lowest in the world now. that children's plaza now required to be tested for lead by an independent third party laboratory. that the infant bath seats and baby walkers they buy are not covered by mandatory safety standards. that the most durable and infant toddler products such as cribs, strollers and play yards now have to that postage-paid registration cards that consumers can fill out and return to the be automatically notified for future recalls involving these products. that all children's products to the extent practical method of tracking levels that make it easier for parents to determine if the product is subject to a recall, even long after the packaging is thrown away. mr. chairman, the past 18 months we have made the cpsc integrated with agency that consumers can trust. we are putting the interests of families first in making sure the public knows that the cpsc stands for safety. thank you again for allowing me to provide this testimony today. i now look forward to answering

any questions that you are members of the subcommittee may have. >> thank you. commissioner northup. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and ranking member senator wicker. i'm delighted to be with you today. this is of course my first visit since i had the confirmation hearing about a year and a half ago. and i've learned a lot and have been very impressed with the work of the cpsc. it certainly is incredibly important. and our chair has just managed to juggle a lot of responsibilities assessing emerging hazards and setting up a customs program that customs and border patrol to intercept before the advocate to our shelves, products that might be hazardous to your families and children. but today, i feel like i would be remiss if i didn't focus most of my comments on what is preoccupying the overwhelming amount of money and time and at the consumer product safety commission. and that is the implementation of the consumer product safety

improvement act. and to share with you some of the unintended consequences that we have been asked about both by members of the consent and by members of the house, certainly by the public and give you an idea of sort of the challenges that we face. let me start with the question of lead. we all know that latest dangers if it is absorbed by a child. that means anything. that means endured, gasoline lead-based gasoline got into the dirt, track and to the house perfect child could absorb that lead. we know it is dangerous it is a lead that a child is small enough can swallow and can be filtered but we can't treat all lead a like come and that's the problem with the cpsia. it treats every component that contains lead exactly the same. it is not dangerous for a child

to lead in the handlebars. it is not dangerous for childhood lead in a screw that provide strength and machine ability and makes that a more secure product of so what we have done in this law by establishing a lead limit in every single component of every sale child's product is to equate lead in paint with that in things that are not dangerous. this has caused a huge disruption of the marketplace. first of all, it cost of jobs. senator wicker mentioned some of those that i would be happy to submit for the record a list of businesses that have closed entirely. businesses that have left the children's product market, and businesses that tell us that when we lived this day in february for third party testing and tracking, and labeling, that they will be closing their

doors. >> without objection. >> thank you. it is also cause a huge disruption and choice. parents cannot go into stores they went into before and see all the items, many that have been on our shelves for years and have not been dangerous to children but have not even been able to be remade with leadfree components, or the people that make them had just decided to sell them in stores all around the world, including the e.u., which has very high standards, but just not come into her the expense of complying with our limitations. and let me just say that none of these, many of these companies that have left have left because they have had a risky product on the market. mr. chairman, elements of this committee, when i spoke with

you, you talk about flexibility and looking for flexibility in the law. but i continued in many parts of this law, there simply is no flexibility. and even in areas where there is some flexibility, usually by a three to vote the commission has chosen not to exercise that flexibility out of caution. and so without changes by the congress, this law is going to continue to cost jobs, choice and raise a cost to consumers. when i was confirmed i promised you that i would work every day at the consumer product safety commission as if i were protecting my own six children your today, i have four grandchildren that i'm also thinking of everyday. and while many of the initiatives that are chairman just delineated for you will make an important difference in our children and our grandchildren's safety, many of

the provisions in the cpsia that are so costly, so complicated, and that are costing jobs would not be things that i would have welcomed for the sake of my children. and if my husband or i had lost our job because of a business that closing their doors, without any regard to safety, i would be heartsick. thank you very much. >> thank you. chairman tenenbaum, let me start with you, if i may, and i know you've really had your hands full with the implementation of cpsia, and it's just been more than a full-time job for you and the commission and all of your staffs. i would say over all, think people understand the effort that you put into this, and you guys have been a great job. not that everyone always agrees on everything, but you guys have worked very, very hard to implement the law. i would like to ask you, madam

chairman, about your safe sleep campaign. and i'm curious about what prompted that and how it's going come and what kind of result you are seeing around the country. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the safe sleep campaign was an effort that we created because of the numerous cribs that were recalled because of the drop-side cribs. and getting further into the data come it wasn't just the drop-side cribs where children were being suffocated. the number one reason why children were suffocated is because of soft bedding, not having anything to do with the product. people fill up a baby bed with comforters and toys and pillows, and the child will roll into the and suffocate. so what we wanted to do was to create this safe sleep campaign to talk about, and also have a new crib standard. so we looked at all, we created a new safe sleep team at the

commission in the wake of all the recalled because they were going back years even before i came into the commission. and what does safe sleep campaign did was we notify the public up 32 deaths reported to the cpsc in the past 10 years, a trivial to the drop-side cribs and less than nine months we fashioned taking voluntary crib recalls across all kinds of companies. so this month in december will have a new crib standard. we have not had one in 20 years to do we know more traditional drop-side cribs those are banned now. that we will have new would strike him that his support record so that it won't fall down and stronger hardware requirement of a new thing is we join with the american academy of pediatrics and keeping baby safe, a nonprofit organization, and we made a video. join london used to be a good point america hosted the video and we spoke with you about how

to keep your own child say, not only on the defective product also safe betting. and we launched this last month in new york at one of the hospitals come and what we would like to do is continue to seek private funding so we can have this video in physician's offices, pediatricians, anyplace come in airports where you have video playing constantly, so people know how to keep their own baby safe. los..

>> for products that could contain lead and one of them lead that was in products where lead could not be absorbed. this would be handle bars, this would be atvs, for example. >> right. >> and what the commission has decided is that there's not one single product that would benefit from that exclusion. that the fact that you could rub your hands on a handle bar and get one molecule on you and one-tenth of percent and 1% of that molecule is lead and you could put it in your hand and your mouth that would be absorbability and so absolutely no component would qualify for that flexibility. i guess i presume that when you write -- when you wrote that exclusion into the law, you meant for it to actually mean

something. that there actually would be components that would qualify for that exclusion. but the majority has decided that not one single component does qualify and that's why every snap, every spoke of a bicycle, every hinge on a dresser, every -- and let me just carry that a little further and point out that a child doesn't stay in a bubble with children's products. they get in a car and for millions of dollars, they refashioned the car seats so that the buckle no longer has lead in it. it provided strength. and protection. so reengineering it was very expensive but the child can reach right down on the seat and pick up the adult's seatbelt and play with it. and it's loaded with lead. and a child is going to crawl right out of their room onto the

carpet of the house into the kitchen, open the drawer with door handles that have lead on them and none of this raises our concern because when lead in very small amounts is embedded in metal, it's not going to be absorbable in any measurable level. so that would be one of the areas. >> but my question was -- >> yes, let me give you another one definition of a child's product would be another one. all of the requirements of the cpsia are extremely expensive. not just that you have to that you have to comply with the lead, you have to have a third-party test and certify those third-party tests and have tracking labels that show every single test that was relevant. so when it comes to carpet and all these other things, the question is are you going to put a fence around children's products to capture as many products as you can including lamps, including, say, something

that spins on the ceiling the child could never touch or are you going to put a fence around fewer products that would be determined to be children's products. and i guess i felt that we should, if there were no risk involved, that we should have put that fence around the definition of a children's product more narrowly so that things like beyond the tests that are required in the cpsia test for plantibility of rugs, test for other components now not only are people who will have to make children's products will test them to the lead standards, coating standards. they are also going to have to do third-party tests for any other applicable standard that wasn't really clearly mandated in the law. and now we have captured as many of these products as we possibly can in this trap by setting a

very broad fence instead of a more narrow fence that might have just focused on risky products. >> let me ask one more thing about your testimony. i've overstated my time here but i would like to ask one more question. in your written testimony on page 2, you said that it's a law that has almost nothing to do with improving safety. and to me that's an astounding statement because when we've added staff there, don't you agree that has to do with improving safety? >> let me say that i think that the cpsc has done a fabulous job in improving safety. the cpsia in particular -- what we are working on, which is -- we haven't even gotten to thalates which is lead. it has not been focused on risk. there's no focus on risk. >> you said a law that has almost nothing to do with improving safety.

and my point is, part of the cpsia was to increase the staff leader so the consumer safety product commission staff could do more research to improve your facilities. i would think you would agree with me that improves safety. to do all the things that the cpsc has done under the cpsia to deal with imports. we've been flooded with imports in this country and many of them have not been safe and the commission has taken a lead role in the world to go and make sure that those products coming into the u.s. are safe. and i know you may disagree with some of the lead issues but still those are designed to improve safety. part of the cpsia is the atv rule which probably predates you being on the commission. i know, but to get some of these cheap imported atv's off the market, that didn't meet any safety standards that the atv's met, i think all of that has to do with improving safety but in your statement, you said this

all has almost nothing to do with improving safety. >> i probably should have clarified that. i agree. that is not a well-worded statement. let me just say that almost every provision in the law was meant to address a real risk. and i recognize that. and i think that the agency has done a good job at addressing risks. but when it comes to technically implementing the components of this law, because of some of the very narrow language or the narrow interpretation, what we're doing has less to do with safety then complying with very regimented requirements that gets away from risk. gets away from an agency that is -- has such a proud history. i mean, every night we get the overnight incident reports of children that have died. and you do see trends and you do

see ways of spending our resources in intervening. and the chair was to say sleep has been very creative in this. but that's not what the cpsia primarily is focused on. it's focused on very regimented requirements that -- you know, i'll give you one other example with the safe sleep. the drop-side cribs has been masterfully handled in my opinion. it did risk children's lives. and we did recalls. it's been a very step-by-step implementation. unfortunately, when we did recalls of drop-side cribs, every single daycare center had to replace immediately the cribs that they used that were drop-side cribs. so they have brand-new cribs. 60 days after we passed this new standard, or if we give them an extension in a year, up to a year, which we possibly might do, they're going to have to carry those brand-new cribs out

the door and throw them in the trash because even though there's no -- there's no determination that any of them are unsafe because the bill has an immediate effect residents saying just what's purchased in the market or what is determined to be risky. i sort of wondered if you intended. >> i don't know how that's going to play out and i overstated my time. but the cpsia did have a mandatory rule-making on cribs and i appreciate y'all doing it. but we need to probably talk about this, you and i, off-line at some point. and i know the ranking member and i have talked about this before and we mentioned it a few moments ago that we recognize, you know, this law on the books probably needs to be looked at again and there's probably some areas that maybe we should give

some more flexibility to cpsc and the chairman and i have talked about this a few times and i talked with joe barton about this as well and it's something we'll work through but i've overstated my time. senator wicker. >> i don't mean at all that the chair overstated his time because i thought it was a very interesting and informative line of questioning. i want to talk about the budget, the appropriation level that you've requested over time and see what we can do about that in light of the federal government's deficits during the past fiscal year of $1.3 trillion. in two short fiscal years this government has added over $3 trillion to the national debt.

is there is a human cry from the public for us to do something about that. and i think every agency is going to have to be involved in that. there was a debt commission report yesterday that should trouble every american and every policymaker. during the last two years, the appropriation for cpsc has increased 47%. and i know the chairman and ms. northup have talked about personnel. i assume that was a large part of that. but fy08 appropriation was $80 million. that increased some $25.4 million to $105 million in '09. the figure reached $118 million,.two in fiscal year '10 and there's a request for another $400,000 more. with that thought in mind, i'd

like to ask both of you, what suggestions you can give us of ways the cpsc can actually reduce its budget and be a part of the solution of reducing our federal deficit? ms. tenenbaum? >> senator wicker, one of the things that was brought about when the congress passed the cpsia was the fact that the cpsc was cut so many times that it was unable to fulfill its statutory duties. and so rather than just have three commissioners, it was decided that five commissioners would be funded and that we would have a higher authorization and we would also be encouraged to hire more people. in fact, our goal and every time i have testified in front of congress, people want to know where are you? in terms of our fte's this year. we are now at 520 fte's and we

have 19 conditional hires. that is because we had the new law, the cpsia. not only were we required to pass all these new rules we were also required to enforce them. we also needed a new laboratory and we're opening that new laboratory in april and we'd love for you and your staff to come tour the new laboratory. we also need to have more outreach -- >> i'll certainly do that. >> okay. please, thank you. more outreach to china. the fda has put people in china because so much of the food is coming from china. we put just -- opened our office at the embassy in china and have two staff members so that we can be on the ground working with the chinese on products. we asked to be held harmless. we have in terms of budget cuts because of the fact that we are just now implementing this very complex law. and we are now seeing a reduction in the number of recalls. our presence in the ports has gone from five people at the

ports to 19 people at the ports. but all that said and done, we realize we're a small agency and that we have to contain our budget and so what we've done is be much more creative in working with other agencies. our relationship with customs and border patrol is closer than ever before. we work with them to stop products from coming into the united states. we also are reaching out to colleges and universities. i've made visits to one university. we're going to another one to ask them if they could work with us in terms of research in terms of professors training manufacturers in foreign countries so that they will know what the rules are for products coming into the united states. we have identified certain line items that could be cut if we need to be cut. and we'll be glad to provide that for you and your staff. we can send it -- >> can i ask that you provide it to the record of -- >> sure, we will provide it for

the record. we've already -- >> when do we normally get those, mr. chairman? >> we can hold the record open for as long as we want but if we want -- >> look, how soon could you provide it? >> we can provide it today. >> ms. northup, i wonder this, what if every agency asked to be held harmless? we wouldn't be able to do anything about the budget deficit, would we. >> i'm reminded that you and i sat next to each other on appropriation committees for several years and i'm not surprised i got this question. let me make a creative suggestion. here's sort of an off the wall suggestion. go from five commissioners to one administrator. i have so much faith in my nez tenenbaum's chair in the agency and i would suggest you putting me out of a job but each one of

us have a staff and the rule-making is very, very complicated. but what happens is that we find ourselves, you know, investing great amount of time and effort and research and our staffs are involved in how to research, say, this rule-making. on the other side, the democrats, are involved in the same way. and so rather than the chair being able to just work with the general counsel and the departments at the agencies, she is pulled to the senators on one side and we pull on the other side of flexibility and so there's great polarization. i actually think that her ability to balance the initiatives, all the ones that she has brought up are probably the things that have had the -- made the most difference in safety. they are the thanks she is able to do individually as opposed to the rulemaking.

and i think the rulemaking would go smoother and quite honestly, i think it would have been more balanced had it not been five commissioners. so i would -- i would just say that you have a chance to debate the pros and cons of every single bill. you have people that -- on both sides of the aisle that have different opinions and people that come from different perspectives. once you write the bill, i'm not sure it's so helpful to have four more commissioners that are debating these same things for hours and hours and hours, hiring their own staffs, taking up a lot of office space, keeping the office of general counsel and the professional staff busy answering all of our questions when maybe the administrator should be charged with that responsibility. >> how large is your staff? >> i have three people, one that's paid $150,000 a year. one that's paid $100,000 a year. and one that's paid $50,000 a year.

>> well, i followed the chair's example and overstayed my time. let me just say this. we hear a lot of talk about moving the appropriation level back to the '08 level. of expenditure. what the chair -- chairman tenenbaum has suggested that this agency be exempted from that. ms. northup has suggested or what i think probably amount to modest savings. i just have to say this, if we're going to be serious about this, and if there are ways that we can provide flexibility, keep people employed in the private sector and quit talking about products that have never been

unsafe, and toys that have never caused a problem and led containing handle bars that have never harmed one single human being in the history of their manufacturer, then we need to think about those solutions and if we don't, we're going to have a real problem with doing the simple things of cutting back on discretionary expenditures, much less the excruciating and much more difficult issue of the entitlements. and i thank you, mr. chairman. i thank these witnesses. >> thank you. senator udall i believe has to leave here in a few minutes. so -- >> thank you. thank you, chairman pryor. it was a very good exchange but i think one of the important things, ranking member wicker,

when we talk about safety and talk about budgets at the same time -- i think it is very important that we give the agency the budget they need in order to product consumers and to product safety. and i think that's what the chairwoman is talking about. let me thank you, chairman tenenbaum for your testimony today and cpsc's work to protect consumers from unsafe products. i have some additional questions for the record but i'd like to focus on the safety issue that i brought up in my opening statement. you know, fall is football time in america. and every year more than a million high school kids put on their gear and take to the gridiron including about 8,000 in my home state of new mexico. this weekend, in fact, teams from our larger high schools will compete for the state championship. football is a uniquely american

tradition. but football is a contact sport. and thousands of student athletes are injured every year, many of those injuries are concussions. for young people between the age of 15 and 24 years old, playing sports is the second leading cause of traumatic brain injury, second only to motor vehicle crashes. new mexico has actually one of the best school sports concussion laws. we retire athletes and it was authored by a fine young state senator named senator michael sanchez. we require athletes who suffer a concussion to sit on the sidelines for one week. and until a medical professional approves their return to play. but i'm concerned that our young athletes may not be using the best safety equipment. traditional football helmets -- i had a couple here but i don't want -- first, i was just going

to bring one up and then my staff said well, you can't -- this is our two-college football and you can imagine they compete with each other. and so i said well, we'd just need one, they said, no you can't put up one without putting the other, university of new mexico and new mexico state. so, anyway -- >> and where's the gopher, the gopher, minnesota gophers? >> well, these are lobos. >> i want you to expand. >> you can bring your helmets, amy, if you want. [laughter] >> these helmets are to prevent injury from a direct blow that can crack someone's head open. but they are to a safety standard that specifically addresses the dangers from a less severe impact and in direct hits that can cause concussion. more advanced football helmet designs are available.

but the voluntary industry standard has not kept up with the latest technology. the current helmet standard is also a one size fits all approach. from kids playing pop warner, the younger kids to the pros in the nfl. so one size fits all. i believe that the cpsc has a responsibility to ensure that football helmets meet safety standards that address concussion hazards and reflect the state-of-the-art helmet technology and there's a lot of -- a lot of discussion out there with neurosurgeons and other experts. and really my question to you -- i guess i have two questions. will you review whether the voluntarily football helmet standard and certification practices adequately protect high school and younger athletes from concussion? and will you follow up with the football helmet standards organization to make sure they address these safety concerns

especially complaints that the standard is out of date. please, go ahead. >> thank you, senator udall. i completely share your concerns and i want to provide you and the rest of the members of the subcommittee with some specifics on what we're going to do on this issue and going forward. first of all, in keeping with this mission of protecting consumers from unreasonable risk of serious injury or death from consumer products, including sports equipment such as football helmets. cpsc is committed to working within the standards development community to improve helmet safety standards and testing. more specifically, i felt that it was vital for the cpsc staff to establish contact with the personnel of nocse the standard-setting body and we already made contact with them and we'll continue working on them. the cpsc technical staff will be joining nocse standards development process in january

in order to monitor and update the appropriate standards so we've already started that. in addition, we continue to consider other avenues to augment this effort. i will use the bully pulpit as the chairman of the product safety commission and we will do all that we can to make sure that the standards-making organization is looking at the best engineering and science. every man in my family plays football. i still have pictures of my father in high school and college with his leather football helmet on. we're great football fans. we're looking forward to the university of south carolina playing auburn for the scc championship on saturday. but i'm very concerned as you are about the safety of people and the number of concussions. i followed the news stories about how many people are hurt. and particularly high school students who are just learning how to tackle and can get hurt more seriously. so we are with you on this and we want you to know that we will keep you updated periodically on our progress.

>> thank you very much. and i went over a little bit in my time so i appreciate the courtesies from the chairman. but i really appreciate you moving ahead aggressively and doing what you've done already. and really look forward to working with you and all of the people out there across the country that i think have a great concern about these serious safety issues. thank you. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> senator klobuchar? >> thank you very much. thank you very much for your service. and i just remember back in the early days when i got here, which was not that long ago, and the issues i know chairman pryor remembers with the cpsc and our frustrations with a lot of the toys that were coming in from china. we had everything from the aqua dots that were making kids go into a coma to the little charm that was swallowed by a little

boy in minneapolis, a 4-year-old boy had gotten him a pair of tennis shoes and swallowed the charm and dies and when they tested the charm, it was 99% lead. that kid didn't ask for that charm. the mom didn't ask for that charm. it was given free with a pair of tennis shoes. and so we realize at that point that we needed to update our statutes. and i think at the same time with legislation, as detailed and sweeping as the cpsia it should come as no surprise that certain clarifications and adjustments knead to be made as small manufacturers, retailers, secondhand stores and atv, bicycle enthusiasts are trying to comply with the law and there's issues that need to be handled in a pragmatic way. i know the commission granted a one-year stay of enforcement of the testing requirements and a two-year stay of enforcement for the lead content limits on atvs, snowmobiles and motorcycles and

so that is where some of my questions are. i guess the first one would be just general question for you, chairman tenenbaum. how would you compare the safety of toys today versus in 2007 before the bill was passed? and what kind of information do you think parents should now have available as they go into the holiday season? >> well, thank you, senator klobuchar. we have worked very hard to impress upon manufacturers that they need to get lead out of children's products. and we are seeing the number of recalls decline. we've seen the number of recall products with lead decline and that is why we think given the resources and the renewed vigor that you provided the cpsia you're going to see even more improvements over time. we realize that the -- and another thing we did -- i'll focus on just your question and not the issue of lead content.

but consumers are safer. one, you had third-party testing, you know, it is onus for people to have to third-party test but you have products coming in from china 80% of all the toys that we sell in the united states are manufactured in china. i have toured factories in china where they tell me with american brand names and they said we need the third-party testing because we have a complex supply chain and it protects us and remove our risk. -- removes our risk. we now have tracking labels that we didn't have a one size fits all. we took into account small manufacturers but tracking levels will help a consumer, parent know where that product was manufactured if there's problems with them. we also have -- worked very hard with small businesses. we've provided seminars, we've had outreach. i have an open door policy. the first year of my tenure, i had meeting after meeting with all kinds of industry to hear

their concerns. >> can i just follow up on that a bit because again i appreciate the work that's been done. there are a lot of businesses involved in getting this law done including the atv industry which is major in my state. and they actually, as chairman pryor mentioned, were very concerned about some of the imports that were coming in from other countries that didn't meet your safety standards but what they didn't expect because of some provisions added at the last minute that this bill was going to cover thinking kids were going to suck on brake pedals. i want to get to some of those concerns and as you know i was supportive of this bill in general but maybe i'll start with some of the atv issues. and i do appreciate the stay with regard to enforcing the cpsia against atv's built for the youth market until this april. 4 out of 8 major manufacturers have nonetheless removed themselves from the youth market. and maybe some people think that's good.

but the problem is that i'm afraid that kids are going to ride adult atv's now and even the cpsc's own study show that 90% of atv-related injuries to injury occur while riding the adult atv's. and so what can you do to get a permanent solution here? i know the electronics industry got itself exempted out of this. atv was supportive of this bill because of the import issue and it's ironic indeed that there isn't some way to resolve this and i do think we need legislation or what do you think we need to do to fix this? >> well, on the temporary basis, we've asked the atv industry to provide us with information because the stay for testing does lift on next may for atv's and bicycles. and we asked them to provide us information on how they intend to apply. if these manufacturers believe they are not going to be able to comply with the requirements,

then they can submit a petition to the commission asking us to extend the stay. but in meeting several times with the atv industry, they need a permanent solution. >> uh-huh. >> and so when we all work together commissioner northup and i disagree on this approach. on a functional purpose exemption. under the federal hazardous substance act you always had a functional purpose. if you came with a chemistry set you had to have a toxic chemicals in the set in order to make it a functional purpose. so you were giving an exemption by the cpsc under the fhsa. we wanted a functional purpose instead of just wholesale gutting the cpsia, let's do some surgery on it. under the functional purpose, if you came in with atv and said, look, we need lead in this machine to make it stronger, children are not going to mouth or swallow any of these components. and it's not going to be pose a risk to the health of anyone who rides it in terms of lead exposure. we can give you an exemption.

a blanket exemption for the whole industry. a blanket exemption for bicycles. however, to make it more complicated and, commissioner northup, has pointed this out you don't need regulations on this. if we have to write rules to have a functional purpose it will bog us down and we'll have to go through all this extensive rulemaking. just let us give the extension. we don't have to make it overly burdensome. we don't want people to have to spend thousands of dollars coming up with this petition and proving to us there's, you know, it's too costly to have something else in the market. just file the petition. we'll look at it. we'll make a determination. and that's how we thought we could get atv's and bicycles and products that are not a high risk out of it. but if you make us do the rulemaking and make it overly burdensome, it's going to be too expensive. for industry to comply with. >> i know ms. northup wants to respond.

and were we going to have a second round here 'cause i have -- >> i wasn't going to. why don't you let her respond. >> okay, ms. northup. >> let me see the goal is some sort of realistic allowing the lead content to be whatever it is. that's necessary to hold the atv or the bike or whatever together. but functional purposes has been proposed. any proposal i have seen for it has said if there is -- no alternative, material that will provide the same thing. if there's no harm to the children. well, first of all, i'd just say if there's no harm to the child, why would there be any other -- any other reason any way to outlaw this screw, nut, bolt, whatever. but it means the big industries like atv -- and i respect how important that is to you particularly. they can summon the money. and the met lurj cal studies to show there's nothing that meets

that standard or whatever. but small businesses or businesses that make school science kits, they don't have the number of products and the price range in order to spread out the cost of a petition. and especially for toys or for science kits that may evolve. you know, the atv may get an exemption across the industry. but so many other companies -- this would be far too complicated, far too expensive for them to file a petition to wait until we can act on it. the petitions we have acted on so far have taken months and we've turned every one of them down. i would just say there are people that believe you should never give an exemption if there's any possibility you don't have to. regardless of risk. and because of the precedent-setting. and you're going to continue that debate if it's just a functional purpose exemption.

>> and i know the chairman wants to respond but i am heartened somewhat. you both have the same intent to be pragmatic about how to respond to this. >> we do. commissioner northup gets into, if it's not a risk then just exempt it. you can't exempt it. if you want to exempt atv's out of a piece of legislation or bicycles, you have the power to do that. if you ask the commission to go back and look at risk of every product to determine whether or not there's any lead absorbed and whether it changes the blood lead level we will be back where we were before the cpsia. you decided in congress that you would go with the content standards, 300 parts per million is going to be reduced to 100 parts per million. you did not do a solublity standards and there's no known safe levels of lead. this morning's "washington post" about the lead pipes here in washington, d.c., there is no blood lead level that is considerable safe for children

and so that's where we are. we go back and forth about -- well, this isn't a risk. look, it's not a risk and they have to have it, then we will give them a functional purpose exemption. we don't have to make it expensive or complicated. but you chose the total lead limit and set a solublity for several reasons. viability which she talked about, commissioner northup talked about, whether how much lead you can get by rubbing a bicycle depends on the child. every child is different. if you're a young child, you're going to absorb more lead. if you're a malnutritioned child -- i'm sorry. i'm using your time. it also depends on the product. vinyl degrades with age and produces more lead. and it also -- the viability test are deferred and so there are so many variables and that's why you stopped at -- >> right. so there some degree -- until we solve this, which approach we want to take here to address these pragmatic concerns that is another extension of possibility then and --

>> it is a number -- a strong possibility if we can start this conversation in congress about making these changes to the law. >> do you want -- what i'll do is put some questions in writing so that we can continue this discussion and maybe in my office as well because i know we have another panel waiting and then i also had some follow-ups which i can do in writing, and we have a baby care store in st. paul they have concerns with the third-party testing and how that applies to small businesses and i will raise those in writing as well and then the last thing that i wanted to follow up on was again to thank the commission for its work on the graham-baker safety act something i worked very hard on, senator pryor worked hard on. and i know that we're seeing some good compliance rates with the pool safety act and i wanted to thank you for that. both of you and the commission and the work that's going on. it's a very important thing.

we had a little girl die in minnesota and that bill has meant a lot to the people of our state and that that family. so thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you for being here. our time for this panel is up. what we will do is we will leave the record. and i have some follow-up questions as well and i know senator klobuchar does and i want to say senator wicker and a few others who couldn't be here because there's a lot going on today in the senate. they have the arms services committee hearing but lots of other things as well. so we'll leave the record open. and we will send you written questions -- and how long will we leave it open? we'll leave it open for two weeks and we'll get those as quickly as possible. there will probably be some other dialog that happens here, not just in the next couple months. thank you for being here but i'm going to introduce our second

panel. thank you for your time and your service. the second panel -- i'm going to go ahead and read their names and give a super short introduction for them. like the first panel they all come with great credentials and great backgrounds. but what i will do as the staff is rearranging here and as the folks are coming and going here, our first panelist will be ms. rachel weintraub. she's director of product safety and senior council at the federal commission of america. second is mr. steve lemar, he's the executive vice president of american apparel and footwear association. third is dr. garry gardener, american academy of pediatrics chair committee on injury by poison prevention.

and third, ms. jill chuckas, a board member handmade toy alliance and i believe the owner of crafty baby, llc. so what i would like to do is just do a five-minute introduction for each one of you all, and then we'll have questions. so ms. weintraub, you want to lead off here? thank you. >> okay. thank you. thank you, chairman pryor. i'm rachel weintraub director of product safety and senior counsel with consumer federation of america. cfa is an association of nearly 300 nonprofit consumer organizations. that was established in 1968 to advance the consumer interest through research, advocacy and education. i offer this testimony on behalf of cpsc as well as consumers union, kids in danger and the u.s. public interest research group. thank you very much for inviting

me to testify before you today. today is the first day of chanukah, christmas is just 23 days away. and the holiday buying season has officially begun. our country's tradition of gift-giving provides a youthful perspective through which to comment on the consumer product safety improvement act in particular, and the consumer improvement commission in general. while consumers should think about how the child interacts with the product, if there are other children in the house or whether the product has been previously recalled before a product is purchased, there are some issues that no amount of planning or thought can detect. it is this realm of hidden hazards that the cpsia and the cpsc have sought to detect and to prevent. before passage of the cpsia, congress undertook a year-long process to consider the implications of this act and the subcommittee was an essential and important part of that process. the cpsia's passage followed a period of a record number of

recalls of hazardous products that injured, sickened or killed vulnerable consumers. and sought to repair a weakened oversight agency that failed in its meager effort to protect public health and safety. in response, congress passed the cpsia which makes consumer products safer by banning lead and sail eighties in toys creating a publicly accessible database giving the cpsc more resources, increasing civil penalties and requiring toys and infant products be tested for safety to strong standards before they are sold and in our children's hands. this proactive approach will benefit the public as well as manufacturers by avoiding costly recalls. there have been numerous successes in implementing the cpsia. the mandatory crib standard that's close to finalized is an important example. we applaud the cpsc for prioritizing the safety of

infant sleep environments in light of the deaths of many children due to poorly designed cribs, bassinets and cradles which have led to the recall of more than 7 million cribs over the past two years. only since passage of the cpsia has an effort been made to strengthen crib standards. another success of the cpsia is last week's passage of the final rule implementing the consumer product safety information database. as a result of the cpsc staff leadership and commitment, consumers will have access to life-saving information and the agency will more nimbly be able to identify and act upon safety hazards. the final rule is consistent with congressional intent, responsive to the public interest need tore disclosure and protective of a manufacturer's effort to protect their brand and confidential business information. when consumers purchase toys for children online this year, the same choking hazard warnings that appear on toys packaging will also appear online. that's an important consumer protection considering today's

shopping trends. the cpsia requires that infant durable products such as cribs, strollers and high chairs have a public registration cards in their packaging and provide an opportunity to register online. this will give manufacturers information necessary to directly communicate with consumers, the consumers who bought the products in the event of a recall. or other product safety and this will grately increase. from the passage of cpsia there have been challenges. the cpsc that initially moves slowlily and gave out confusing information and economic downturn that has affected businesses, the realization that lead and other heavy metals such as cadmium are more pervasive in consumer products than had been expected as well as concerns about the laws implementation consistently raised by manufacturers, small businesses, crafters and thrift stores. cpsc has been managing these challenges. they've held numerous public meetings and hearings. cpsc has provided clear information to stakeholders

through numerous publications. in addition cpsc is establishing a new office of education global out reach and small business to carry out education out reach activity to stakeholders. the cpsc also issued an internment enforcement policy related to component testing that should be finaled soon but some efforts in response to these challenges go too far. and would open a series of gaping loopholes in the cpsia that would allow more lead into a host of children's products. first some have argued that the cpsia scope should be limited to children under 6 from what is now 12 years and younger. the reality is children younger ages play with their older siblings toys all the time and the voluntary standard goes up to 14. many companies already are complying with those voluntarily safety standards. second have proposed that risk analysis be applied for regulating lead and products. requiring a piecemeal approach for lead which is a known toxin

would be wasteful of taxpayer money and government resources. it would reverse the presumption for safety of products and allow all products to be sold and be exempt for testing for lead has in cpsc finds otherwise. this would be a return to the state of the law before cpsia was passed. cpsc would not act until a child has been harmed by a lead-laden product. this would result in an unreasonable risk. to children. cadmium has been another challenge. and there is now a voluntarily standard that is moving -- that hopefully will be proactive and if that is not proactive enough, cpsc should move on a mandatory standard for cade meium. we thank you for your important leader on product safety issues. we look forward to working together to protect the public from harms posed by hazardous products and i wish everyone a happy and safe holiday season. >> thank you. mr. lemar? >> my name is steve lemar and

i'm part of the with a national trade association of the industry. and thank you for allowing us this opportunity to appear before you. at the outset let me have a strong support for product regulatory system that ensures only only safe or compliant products are produced and market sold. we take our role in product safety education and advocacy efforts seriously. we view this obligation ascii to the success of the industry. not only because such an approach is the right thing to do but because we're also consumers and parents and grandparents ourselves. i'd like to focus my remarks on the consumer product safety improvement act. and offer several recommendations for the subcommittee to consider in the weeks and months ahead. the cpsia was a dramatic overhaul to the nation's product safety regulatory regime. while this had a positive impact to increase funding and awareness, this also lead to many unintended consequences that have caused confusion, create a compliance burdens and adversely impact the business

community. tight deadlines, rigid -- tight deadlines, rigid definitions, retroactively applied standards requirements that do not reflect risk and a one size fits all approach are among the many problems that have made cpsia implementation challenging. as with others in the regulated community have actively worked the regulatory process to make sure that rules can be understood and implemented. we've had some success in working with the cpsc to use the limited regulatory flexibility that the cpsia does permit to make some important determinations. in my written i have a written example. i also pointed out how the it's still incomplete and it came at considerable expense to prove what everybody knew. the common expense is relief was denied or the regulatory process is should burdensome to have a truly commonsense result. the states of enforcement of testing and certification have provided some relief and we would strongly encourage that

they be continued while the rules and a path forward are still being worked out. it's becoming clear every day that congress needs to step in and make some legislative fixes to address the many concerns that have been raised from all across the private sector. and because the timetables mandated by the cpsia are unforgiving, congressional action is needed immediately. a number of legislative fixes have been proposed over the past two years by stakeholders across the business community by members of congress from both parties and both chambers and even by commissioners and cpsc staff alike. they include changes to the lead and falats and rules stronger preemption to prevent proliferation of contradictory rules at the state level and clearer man dates for the public database. i could go on. it's our hope that congress can immediately begin with all stakeholders to fully identify and implement these fixes. with an eye toward hanukkah

which began last night. number one sure all product safety decisions are based on risk and are supported by data. number two, give the cpsc more flexibility to interpret the cpsia. number three, ensure that new regulations do not contradict existing ones. number four, ensure prospective applications of all rules. number five, establish deadlines that permit and encourage compliance. number six, publicize all pending regulatory developments. number seven, avoid one size fits all approaches. and finally, number eight, remember that there is more to the cpsc than cpsia. the most effective product safety system we can have is one that recognizes that the regulated companies are active partners of the cpsc. but if these companies are constantly subjected to burdensome costly and in some cases silly requirements that partnership is severely strained and the public's interests are not served. ultimately product safety takes

a black eye. mr. chairman, the cpsc and the regulated community have come a long way. since congress passed the cpsia. thanks to your leadership, we now have five commissioners and an agency that is more fully funded. the cpsia was indeed a wakeup call for the agency. and for many in the business community to tighten their own product safety regimes. but the cpsia also created extraordinary problems for competency who are already doing the right thing in ensuring product safety and many cases, those problems came with little gain for public safety. with an eye to maximizing public health and safety, it is our hope with the legislative amendment, continued congressional oversight and continued dialog between the agency, industry, and other product safety stakeholders we can create a stable, predictable risk-based regulatory environment. thank you again for providing us this opportunity to testify. i'm available to take any questions. >> thank you. >> dr. gardener? >> good morning.

my name is dr. garry gardener. and i'm proud to represent the american academy of pediatrics at this hearing today. the aap was pleased to work closely with members and staff of this committee and subcommittee over the course of the development and passage of the consumer product safety improvement act. over a period of close to two years, the aap provided expertise, and input on a range of child health and safety issues. including the proposed limitations on lead content and the definition of a children's product. as passed, the cpsia ultimately rejuvenated a flagging cpsc, gave it additional tools and authority to achieve its mission and helped improve the safety of consumer products for children. let us take a moment to reflect back on the state of product safety and the cpsc during the 2007 holiday season. our nation had just experienced a flood of product recalls including several involving some

of the best known and most loved brands and toys. many americans were shocked to learn that the majority of toy safety standards were voluntary and not mandatory. with fewer no consequences for violations of those voluntary standards. the cpsc was struggling to perform its mission with limited statutory authority and atrofeed staff and a budget of $2 million less than congress has allocated for the hubble space telescope and less what was spent on specific coastal salmon habitat restoration. three years later the state of consumer product safety is very different. the cpsia has already created a range of new safety standards for toys and other children's products including strict limits on lead content in all materials. the cpsc has increased its staff and its budget has almost doubled. manufacturers will soon be required to test for and document compliance with a range of safety standards giving

retailers and consumers a high degree of confidence in the safety of these products. unsafe cribs have been recalled and dangerous drop-side cribs will soon be banned. these new safety standards are having a meaningful impact on the lives of children and families. though sometimes in all but invisible ways. we cannot literally see that a toy is now led-free or that a dangerous feature on a stroller has been re-engineered to be safe. it may seem perhaps that these are unimportant changes that cause only minor or incremental improvements in safety. but it would be a mistake to fall into the trap of believing that these small changes cannot also be significant. these changes save lives and prevent life altering injuries. the loss of a few i.q. points across the child population has marked impacts on educational spending and future potential. over my 37 years in practice, i have seen a dramatic changes by

my patients over injury of products. things that were relatively common do not occur anymore. as a pediatrician i'm grateful to congress and the cpsc for your ongoing work to make product safer for our children. i'd like to offer some very brief comments on the subjects of lead, safe sleep, cadmium and emerging hazards. with the efforts to implement section 101 of the cpsia which set the first ever comprehensive limits on lead in children's products. the new lead limits are being phased in over three years to allow manufacturers and retailers sufficient time to ensure that their products comply with the new rules. the aap looks forward to the completion of the standards implemention with the total lead limit tropicals to 100 parts per million in august, 2011. the cpsia and section 101 in particular is truly a significant step in protecting children from the real hazards of lead.

safe sleep, the aap is pleased to have partnered with chairman tenenbaum and the cpsc on a safe sleep initiative. in multifaceted campaign aimed at reducing deaths and injuries associated with unsafe sleep environments. as part of this campaign, the cpsc collaborated with the aap keeping babies safe and adjourn will say joan lunden with providing recommendations, information to parents and families on safe sleep practices. aap supports and has submitted extensive comments on rulemaking processes to establish new mandatory safety standards for bunk beds, cradles, bassinets and full-size and nonfull-size cribs. finally, the aap has consistently recommended that people not use sleep positioners and we fully support cpsc and fda's recent warning to parents about the dangers of these products. cadmium, recent press reports have brought to light the

potential danger of another heavy metal in products, cadmium. it appears some manufacture injuries have begun adding yaibd to children's product because the cpsia limited the use of lead. this is clearly a case of abiding by the letter but not the spirit of the law. congress hardly intended for companies to substitute one poison for another. the aap urges the establishment of a systemic transparent process by which cpsia should review the literature and data and consult with experts and update each of the heavy metal standards found in the astmf963 toy standard. this process should not be delegated to nongovernmental entities or be inaccessible to the public or stake hordes. moreover, the standards established should apply to all children's products and not just toys. the aap looks forward to engaging with the cpss throughout such a process in making our members expertise available to the agency. and finally, emerging products safety hazard. ensuring the saf