we need to look into it before any further activity is taken on it this. andening we ought to get in the position. -- mr. chairman. parliament tear. the -- stage inquirer. >> the rules of the committee, mr. chairman, require that members contain their questions to the subject matter of the hearing. those are the rules of the committee. your invitation, mr. chairman, parliament tear, did your inty elevation, mr. chairman, in the letter to notify her the clam out issue would be a topic today? if not, then i would ask this line of questioning be ruled out of order because there is an implication being made by the gentleman that the mrs. kendall is not answering her questions

when she was invited here under the rules to answer a whole out set of material. and under the rules she was cardiologying here knowing that other material could not be put up. i would ask for a ruling on that, mr. chairman? >> the gentleman asked parking parliamentary was within the scope of hearing. and i would tell the gentleman from massachusetts that the title of the hearing is as such: oversight of the actions and cability of the acting inspector general of the department of interior. and then the invite letter goes on to talk about the conduct of the inspector general, and four

specifically, independent effecting of the inspector general in acting example and five on the invite receiptor in the second paragraph and other matters and the gentleman from california is talking about other matters. it falls within thescope. >> mr. chairman -- falls with within the scope of the hearing today. >> mr. chairman, i would also -- because i had time remaining. the gentleman from massachusetts interrupted me point out that the base issue was raced until the chairman's letter to mrs. kendall dated may 0th 2012 and was referred to in her letter back to the chairman date dated july 20th. this is not unexpected for her. it was raised in the letter. she responded specifically on this issue, in the letter back to the committee, which i already asked to be added into the record. i would suggest the gentleman from montana read the briefings before he comes to meeting. >> the gentleman had time.

i'm anticipating he had approximately 30 second left in his time gentleman yield back. it in response to the ranking member. this falls the line of questioning from the gentleman from california falls in line with the invitation to the acting inspector general. recognize the gentleman from . >> thank you very much. mr. chairman, i'm going on four years that i have serve order the committee. we have hearings, there are times when i agree with the other side and there are times when i disagree with my side. and there are times i think about the -- [inaudible] the vote we had yesterday, mr. chairman, was, i think, very difficult one for me. i wanted to vote no. i thought there was a chance still to have more conversations with the department of entire your rather than issue the

subpoena. i didn't think yesterday that the extraordinary effort has been exhausted, but chairman knows i have a great deal of respect for him. i still do. i just -- last night, you know, just before i went to bed thinking about about what we did yesterday, mr. chairman, and just couldn't find comfort with did. that. we d.a. d take a vote. we are issuing subpoenas. i like would like to brick the secretary of interior here. we need him to give us the answer and urge the chairman to include the secretary in the -- this time i yield my remaining time to the ranking member. >> i thank the gentleman very much. again, let me just state for the record, we have not invited the ceos of bp, transocean,

halliburton to sit here. this is the greatest time in history of america against the environment. bringing in mid level officials of these companies is not taking this issue seriously. so when they -- when you bring in the ceos of these companies, you are staring them down, you are getting the answer, then it's serious. this is not serious. mrs. kendall, mark udall used to have a saying he used to say everything has been said but not everyone has said it. they keep saying the same things over and over again. you keep giving the same answers. they hate the answers. they hate these answers because at this point. we still don't have any

understanding of what it is that they're saying went wrong. this is executive prirnlg. it's controlled by the president. everyone can have an opinion on executive privilege, but the president, the secretary, they exercise the decision on executive orders. not you. it's not your decision. isn't there a point you have to ask, you know, again, what is the legal basis for askings? are you familiar with the works of frans -- [inaudible] in the trial, a man is charged with a crime without being told the process of the trial or even what he is being charged with. mrs. kendall, you seem to be in a similar situation. at this point, i don't even know

what you're being attacked for. i can't figure it out still. is it that you are the ig? is it the clam moth river basin hydroproject unrelated to the hearing? is it secretary sal will salazar's decision to issue the moratorium in is it that president obama is president which i suspect is at the heart of all of this. but for you to be sitting here? hour after hour without anything thus far that i can ascertain is something that can point to you and say you did wrong. i'm waiting for that sentence to be uttered other than the set of questions that are ask the without any evidence of anything that has not been con closively proven to not future feature it. this is the essence of what we

have here. those who are guilty, the ceos of these company. they are not here. those who have really the responsibility to make the decisions, even at the agency we can can bring in the secretary. but everyone else is just kind of a side show. you know,let have the real answers and let's have the real showdown here on what happenedded in the gulf of mexico! with the ceo of the company. until you invite the ceos, this is not a serious investigation at all. and the absence of any specific charges that you is evidence that have. the time has expired. recognize the gentleman from florida. it. >> thank you, mr. chairman along those lines right there, as far as ceos incoming the secretary of the interior is the ceo. the department issued over 700

citation to the owners in the deepwater horizon, as the acting ig, could you tell me about the investigation that you performed or your department performed on the department for their inaction after issues the 700 citations? i'm not sure what investigation you're talking about. >> well,, i mean, -- the department issued 700 citations. to the owners and i want to make sure the ranking member catches this, that mr. chairman, the 700 citations were issued to the owners of the deepwater horizon from the department and i ask you about the investigation into the inaction of -- you have a problem and you're telling me that you're not aware of an investigation. >> i'm aware of a number of

investigation. i'm not aware. . >> no. i'm talking about specifically to the department for issuing 700 citations and not moving it and step part. we are told that the government is here to protect the people. >> i'm telling you i don't know about an investigation about that. >> mr. chairman, i find it absolutely amazing and the ranking member talking about bringing ceos in here. and, by the way, i ask the ceo of the department of entire your last year, mr. chairman, i asked him the very question, and was giving, you know, absolutely no satisfaction that the department accepted any responsibility. that it failed after you know you had a problem, that there's no responsibility, no personal responsibility and no responsibility for the department. and now i ask the ig certainly after 700 citations were

examination and that is your role. as the ig. and why would there not be? with my remaining time left. why would there not be? is that not problematic? >> because i'm not familiar with the 700 citations. i could only speculate. i would assume that -- the succeeding agency after mms was

split in duo, and boem bessy tell me would be the appropriate body to conduct such an investigation or internal investigation. actually, i believe beesy is actually doing that as we speak. i want to conclude the learning by thank you for being here. i know, it was difficult. but we that sit on the panel because of what we have chosen to do find situations sometimes that are difficult also. but that comes with the responsibility of self-government. you're in a position of great deal of importance. -- as i mentioned in the opening statement. i have some questions and certainly members of the committee have questions about

the independents which lead to a decision that did cause economic harm. nobody disputes that. nobody disputes the fact that the initial incident caused economic harm. we do think it's important that the people get the facts and the schism fact that the executive summary caused such an immediate backlash from the peer review group where in some cases say that felt that they were being used, i think that is very important that we get to the bottom of why it happened. and that's what this -- that's what we are trying to ascertain whether you like it or not, you were caught in that discussion, and i think, as i have said

several times, that independents was comprised was something that the committee needs to look into. and that was the reason for this hearing i'm not sure we have gotten all the answers. i certainly have some questions in my mind, but i do appreciate your participation, and only thing i can offer you is that both of us probably at some time in our political lives have faced similar situations that you have. there is em em pa think from us to you. if it is part of your job to recognize the responsibility and part of self-government. that's what makes it self-difficult. there's no more business. stand adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] next senators on the cybersecurity bill. after that, a house hearing on the 2008 consumer product safety commission improvement act. and then another chance to see house members talk with the interior department inspector

general about the deepwater oil drilling freeze. tomorrow on woo journal, virginia congressman bobby scott on virginia's importance in campaign 2012, both in the president issue race and the contingent senate race. -- talks about the latest unemployment numbers. and steven director of the bureau row of economic analysis discos how national economic growth is measured and at tifer ways economists are looking tat to illustrate the state of the union. washington journal live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> the to the of that bridge i was beaten. i thought i was going to die. i thought i was dead. >> in 1965, a 25-year-old john lewis took part in a voting rights march from selma to

montgomery alabama on a route that would take them across the bridge. >> we came within this distance of the state troopers. a man identified him as major john with the alabama state troopers. this was an -- it would not be allowed to continue. it was an unlawful march. one of the young people walking besides me said major, give us a moment and the major said, troopers advance. across the bridge author and congressman john lewis. sunday on can on c-span and q and a. senate failed to approver vote on the cyber vote. they spoke with reporters about the legislation good morning major vote they

want to do something to protect our nation from cyber attack and cyber theft. unfortunately that was short of the 60 votes we needed to proceed to debate this very important measure. and am i pointed? you bet. am i angry? yes, i am. because once again, the members of congress have failed to come together to deal with a serious national problem to fix a problem, all the are u the more surprising in this case because of what is at stake here is the security and prosperity of the american people. it's not just another set of political arguement in a campaign. this is about what everybody acknowledges is rising to be the most serious threat to america's security in the years ahead. and that is the fact that we're not adequately depend against

cyber attack. what -- what broke down in the case? it's standard stuff. failure to comprise, i must say, we feel that we comprised quite a lot from our original bill. it a failure to control once impulse to see bill that come before the senate no matter how important as nothing more than that a vehicle to put on one's favorite political issue or favorite governmental issue. unrelated to the cybersecurity of the united. so this is a moment of disappointment they really cannot conceal, but the threat of cyber attack is so real, so urgent and so clearly growing that i am not going to be pent lent about this. i'm not optimistic but i'm going

remain open through every day of this session to doing what the majority said he wanted us to do is come up with a huge list of amendments that are germane and relevant to the topic of cybersecurity and he would bring the bill to the floor. some of the folks on the other side, again, said to us they want to do that. frankly, we said to them all our conversations we still haven't had what we call bill language. actual language of amendments that they would like to submit to change the bill. and they said we'll work on that and submit them to us and obviously we will consider them. and, you know, i hope and pray we can find a way to get back to common ground to protect america's common ground. america's common cyber ground. it's hard to see today as anything but a failure of the

senate and setback for a national security. senator collins? >> thanks, mr. chairman. what most astonishes me about the volt that was taken on the cybersecurity bill today is the lack of sense of urge sei among too many of our colleagues. we often hear members on both sides of the aisle, but particularly republican members say why aren't we listening more to the generals on the ground? well, listen to what the generals who have responsibility in this area have told us over and over again. and, of course, the general with the most responsibility is general keith alexander the head

of cyber command and the head of the national security agency. he has written to us over and over again. he's testified and just this week, he wrote to say that the cyber threat facing our nation is real and demand immediate action. the time to act is now, we simply cannot not afford further delay. secretary of homeland security janet napolitano wrote to us to say that the threat of a cyber attack with catastrophic consequence is the greatest threat that we fashion -- face. how can the senate ignore he's repeated warnings from the

experts of how at risk our national security, our economic prosperity, and indeed our american way of life is. it just incomprehensible to me that we would not proceed to the bill. there certainly is plenty of blame to go around, but i believe with good faith on both sides we could have completed action on this issue. and let me just close by saying that i have been working on homeland security issues for more than a decade. i cannot think of another area where the threat is greater and we are less prepared.

as general alexander put it on a scale of one to ten, he would rank our preparedness to combat a serious cyber attack at the three. that is not good enough! and it is a shameful day that the senate ask not proceed to act on this bill. [inaudible] consider this in the six months between october and march of this year, 50,000 cyber attacks issue reported. those were just the ones reported. of these, 86 were against critical infrastructure. you see company after company weather it's google, whether it's any other company you see banks being robbed. you see efforts from bad actors

across many seas attacking the country in acts of industrial espionage. they can continue to do this while we don't take action. and there is little we can do about it. i think this bill is a critical bill ooze the chairman said, we have asked for bill language. people have critique about the bill then submit bill language. how would you change it? in what respect. it you want information sharing part of the bill, which i had something to do with. if you want the protection for immunity against liability strength end. give us bill lang. how and where would you want it? we think it's as god as it is now. we are ohm to ideas. what has to come together is the senate. it there has been to be a recognition there is the bill before us. this is the bill and there's a bill that's going to pass.

this is the bill a is the most complete bill. we need to get on with. nasdaq, nasa, google, all the big security firms attacks. got to stop. we have to have a the mechanism to fight back. during the vote that is underway one of my colleagues said to me, what are you doing now? and i said, this is not a -- maybe this is time to cool our jets, this is not to time to turn them off. i was kidding. senator collins who going to be getting married later this year. suggested the two secrets to the strong marriage are the two c.s communicate and comprise. they are a descroat vibrant disple and getting things done

in the chamber. and the communication has been getting better. the comprise i'm afraid is pretty much one sided. and the willingness of senates lieberman and collins to take ideas and make changes in the legislation were really rather dramatic. my fear is that hay are willing to make the changes is making time filtering back to in some cases the business community. they're not sure given the changes they've been making that we've made what the status of the bill is. in real time. and i think that lead to reluctant of them and the chamber and other to go along with them and to move on to the bill. my hope is that, you know, one of the stories has been in the news a lot this woke. it comes out of india say that

lost power for several days for about half the country. not a cyber attack. just a break down in the electricity grid. it i hope it doesn't take something that dramatic a failure whether it's the financial systems, the telecommunications systems, or water supply, electricity, i hope it doesn't take something that dramatic to come back here in the middle of august. maybe it will. we'll do a better job legislating for we do it not on a heels of sibber attack. we'll do it before then. thank you thank you. ..

to reconsider. so the cybersecurity act of 2012, which is our proposal will now stay on the calendar, ready for a vote on reconsidation. senator reid has said anything very sad that case, that if both caucuses, both sides can come up with a finite list of germain and relevant and then to the topic of cybersecurity that he will bring it up. senator reid feels that this is so important on national security matter that is not going to close the door on it until the door closes on the

session. so i want to stress that we've had a lot of readings. excuse me. some of had some good will around the table. there's been some movement, but honestly, senator hollings, feinstein, rockefeller and i feel we have compromised more than anyone else because of the urgency of the problem. we have heard some talk of compromise on the other side, but we haven't yet seen it in real language. so we said to her colleagues to oppose a bill as it is now, come up with some language. show us in an amendment to the language, how do you want to change this? that will allow us in a more recent way to consider it and see if we can reach an agreement on a limited number of amendments. senator reid said he take it up in september if we reach that agreement. the other part of days, and this has not worked out. there still remain amendments

that senators refused to withdraw that were far away from the subject of cybersecurity and would not have only distracted the senate, the probably derail the cybersecurity bill. so when the interest of national security, we have two ask our fellow senators to show self-control. then save those irrelevant amendments who are relevant to this bill for a better occasion, a better day. [inaudible] >> yeah, i don't -- there have been these conversations and coming together, coming closer. so what started out as a chasm that separated us is now a separation. the senator carper, i agree with what he said. it feels like most of the

compromising has been on our side and we've got to see in real language than compromising on the other side. the other point is that with the chamber of commerce the other day and they remain opposed to some of the basic parts of this bill, even after rebate the bill voluntary. the only mandate in this bill now is that if your operator of critical cyberinfrastructure and you are attacked commies got to report that the government so they can defend you if it's the beginning of the national hostile attack. so that is why i said, this has not been casual. we really have been working at this. senator collins at night, senator carper changed her way to reconcile with others and change it again to bring the car white house group closer to

last. so it's hard to be optimistic, but i'm open to further discussions because the threat is so real. none of us will walk away from the table, but the other side. the special interests outside have to be reasonable and put the national security interests first. we've got to get something started to protect us better than we are protected now. again, the question is, do we have to wait until there's a major catastrophic cyberattack and how we can legislate to protect the american people from cyberattacks here in congress? i hope not. but today i hope -- worry that's the case. [inaudible] >> well, you'd have to i senator read about that because obviously the house bill in our opinion is really inadequate. all it deals with is information

sharing. there is broad opposition in the community of organizations right to left to care about privacy about the house bill. and it doesn't do anything about critical infrastructure, which is the second critical part of the bill. at the same establish a process by which they would be best practices, that the private owners of critical infrastructure can opt-in to meet, which would better protect our country. if the bill came over and it was a vehicle -- this is senator reed's business really. if it was a vehicle for us to have an open debate with a limited number of jermaine and open amendments, don't be one way to get her to the floor. the critical of agreement now is to get the nongermane amendments to grant a limited number of amendments and then let the senate work its will. we don't know how that would end

up, but we know it will be really ashamed and a terrible embarrassment if we don't debate this on the floor and let the body work its will in the interest of the country. >> i'll be honest view, a lot of members do not understand these issues. these are not easy issues to comprehend. what happened in the weeks leading up to this legislation come a lot of us better understand what we face in the different approaches to addressing these threats. that's progress. i was reminded in another way when we walked out before i came out here. there were about three democrats and three republicans who frankly in the last week spent a lot of time, including chris kunz and sheldon whitehouse, jon kyl and others, people who spend

a lot of time trying to find a middle and it got to know each other and have really become well steeped in the issues. they are in there while we are out here talking among themselves about how we fix this? how do we actually get to yes? i'm encouraged by that as well. >> thank you, senator. [inaudible conversations] >> kay bailey hutchison tact about their opposition to the cybersecurity bill after the legislation failed to clear a procedural vote on the senate floor. >> okay, with regard to a very important legislation, everyone knows not passing a bill is certainly not an option. we all believe the bill onto the

past. there are significant differences of opinion about what kind of bill should be passed. my friend, the majority leader in response sent a letter to tom donohue, the chairman of the chamber of commerce on february the ninth in which he made the following commitment. i want to read it to you. this is the majority leader of the senate in a letter to the head of the chamber of commerce on february the ninth of this year. given the complexity and significance of the legislation, it is essential that we have a thorough and open debate on the senate floor, on the senate floor, including consideration of a man ends to affect the

legislation, insert provisions for the majority of the senate supports them and remove her visions of such support does not exist. for that reason, i have committed to my colleagues that we will have an amendment process that will be fair and reasonable. this legislation will have been subject to a fair, thorough and open a process as it is conceivable. and that is a letter from the majority leader that the chairman of the chamber of commerce representing american business and their evaluation of this proposal appeared which leads to the way this bill has been handled. this letter was in february. this was backed right up against the recess. never went through committee. no amendments were allowed and

we decided appropriately given the complexity and the number of members who have interest and expertise in this issue -- on this issue, to not finish it today. this bill will be back because it must be back. so the vote today is that the end the discussion but rather the beginning of the discussion. there are different sensitive differences of opinion about what we have to do. and the way we have resolved those matters is that, particularly on one of these complexities usually goes through committee were those who know the most about it and had opinions about a. we have an open amendment process on the floor, which my counterpart, the majority leader committed to in a very, very precise way earlier this year. this is a matter that should have been dealt with earlier in the year.

he says it's an emergency. we all agree this needs to be addressed. that is no excuse for not having a fair and open process to the american people and its colleagues. now let me turn to senator hutchison. >> i think senator mcconnell because many of us have been working with the senator lieberman and senator collins to try to fashion a bill that could have an overwhelming support in the senate. the bill that was put forward on the floor is not one that will achieve the purpose that all of us want, which is to have a private set your way to share information and receive information in an efficient way that will determine if there are cyberthreats for cyberattacks and help protect other infrastructure. the bill turned into a more

regulatory bill that so many of the chamber of commerce and the companies that have the systems determined would actually be counterproductive. let me say for instance that everything would've had to go through a prism of the department of homeland security, whereas some of our defense corporations, for instance have had a direct relationship with the national security agency and want to continue the relationship with a hat for the efficiencies as well as the understanding of the need. that goes for electric gates, water grants, all of the different infrastructure issue including of course finance and banking. they have regulatory regimes and they have agencies within the deal that and other issues.

we needed the time to head the amendment put forward so we could fashion a bill that would have the overwhelming support of the industry, which has affected as well as the majority in the senate that would be able to send the bill overwhelmingly to the house and deal with this and sent it to the president. the problem with the underlying bill was in the critical infrastructure designations to have the capability to determine the standards and then the regulatory nature of the reporting system and the ability to react to cyberthreat. we believe those of you who've worked on the bill that we have introduced with eight of the main committees of jurisdiction ranking members as cosponsors, that we could fashion a bill in

september, which we told the majority leader we would be able to do. there's no reason to have this vote today because we knew they were working. we knew they were very close to agreement in some areas, but we still have areas to work out. because the bill on the floor did not have the markup process, nor did it include all the committees of jurisdiction, it wasn't a complete bill. we believe what time we will all come together and in hope this will be a priority for the majority leader. we also believe it will be clear to the majority leader that this bill would not get closer in the condition it is same. hopefully we can put all this behind us and go forward in a positive way, which everyone on our side wants to do.

everyone on their side wants to do. it is just a matter of dealing with all of the people who have opinions on a very complicated issue. we hope that there can be a new draft bill that will be an amalgamation of the secure i.t. bill that is the mccain hutchison chambliss at all bill that was fully vetted and supported by many outside organizations. the lieberman collinsville certainly is that a lot of work. and then a kyowa white house version of some of the parts of the two bills that are also very significant and that we can put that together and have a new bill and then have an open amendment process, which is an important bill at this high-end portion and high technical nature.

>> okay, thank you. >> max, house house hearing on the 2008 over product safety commission improvement act.

>> in the broader sweep of the conflict, robert e. lee's emergence of the successful field commander mark d. decisive moment in the eastern theater that in turn profoundly shaped the larger direction of the conflict. >> i would remind you that extremism and the demands of liberty is no vice.

>> now, consumer product safety commission, inez tenenbaum testified before the committee that the other three commission members. at the hearing examines the commission's implementation of changes congress enacted one year ago to the consumer product safety improvement act of 2008. the panel also reviewed a sampling of other emerging consumer product issues. this is about an hour and 40 minutes. >> good morning. the subcommittee will now come to order. it's been a year now since congress at the urging of our subcommittee approved key reforms to the consumer product safety improvement act of 2008. today we're going to check under the vote and talk to members of the consumer product safety commission and see how it's working. paterno recognizes herself for an opening statement and i

appreciate the general council changed the clock from 86 minutes to five minutes. i will keep it to five minutes. established in 1972 the consumer product safety commission is an independent agency created by congress to protect consumers against unreasonable risk of injuries associated with consumer products. by and large the cpsc does a natural job of protecting americans every major supported this work. on occasion the agency makes puzzling head scratching decisions which create economic pressures for u.s. businesses without appreciably improving safety of certain products. by law the cpsc has the authority to reagan at the sale and manufacture of more than 15,000 different consumer products are bridging for baby cribs to tories and all-terrain vehicles descending pools. without question, the cpsc has very broad authority which makes congressional oversight critically and for. the agency has the power to ban dangerous consumer products come

issue recalls of products on the market and research potential hazards associated with a wide-ranging consumer products. today the cpsc was not as a products in ways. the agency maintains a hotline and website through which consumers may report concerns about unsafe products or injuries associated with products. it also operates the national electronic injury surveillance system, which collects data on product related injuries treated in hospital emergency brands. the broad reach of the cpsc was on full display in 2007, which has been referred to as the year of the recall in the u.s. field by the cheney story scared, the cpsc limit posting record 473 because in 2007. many recalls involving batman toys and other children's products. these much-publicized safety issues prompted congress to take action and resulted in passage of the consumer product safety improvement act of 2008, also

known as cpsia. cpsia trees funding and staffing for the cpsc and places stricter limits on levels in children's products, restricted certain tories and articles and required the cpsc to create a public database of their products. the public database paper products -- excuse me, safer products that goes -- okay, staff thinks they would notice a safer products.gov. [laughter] thank you, staff. so this remains a source of controversy. many factors continue to express her in the bust of the complaints are not vetted by the cpsc before they make public, opening door to all kinds of mischief whether to feel lawsuits are a train when competitor's brand. within months of an act meant, it became clear that implementing a number of provisions to be extremely problematic, prompting the

agency to issue several enforcement, including the position of limits for atvs, off road motorcycles snowmobiles. by the agency even consider them it is one of those puzzling head scratching decisions. last year after several hearings and bicameral bipartisan negotiations, both the house and senate passed h.r. 2715 offered by myself and my good friend and colleague, mr. butterfield at august 12, 2007, they signed it into law. her purpose was to relieve unfair and costly burdens imposed on american businesses while still maintaining critically important consumer safeguards. today i'm very anxious to learn how well the new law is working. with akamai gentility from illinois is now back nights for five minutes for her opening statement. >> thank you. let me just say that mr. butterfield will be here. he is on the floor and unable to

come now, but i want to yield first with -- to mr. waxman who is the ranking on the full committee for his opening statement. >> thank you thank you very much, ms. czajkowski and allowing me to go ahead of you at this time because of scheduling problems i have. i want to thank you, not in share for holding this hearing to conduct oversight on the dvds of the u.s. consumer product safety commission and i'm pleased we have all four commissioners here today to provide testimony. this month will mark four years since enactment of the consumer product safety improvement act of 2008, are what is called a cpsia. it will mark one year since enactment of public club 11228, which gave the consumer product safety commission flexibility in implementing the law. this plot was a landmark piece of legislation. it fundamentally changed how we protect children from

potentially dangerous products. implementation of the law has been the dominant focus of the commission. the goal of the law was to transform the agency's mission. the commission used to be an underfunded, and effective reactivation fee. today the commission is still underfunded, unfortunately, but it's no wonder an effective than reactive. today the agency is on a path towards anticipating risk to children and acting to prevent them. no transformation is easy and this has been no different. there were some rough waters in the early days of implementation and a year ago we had to act to pass some target of fixes to the love. make no mistake, this law has been a success thanks to the safety that we have strong standards for products used by infants and children, including cribs, toddler beds, walkers and bath seats. we now have a product registration system that enables

manufacturers and retailers of durable infant and toddler products to contact parents was recall a rather information. we now have a consumer product safety have a consumer product safety commission database for the public can file and view reports about consumer products. we also have testing of products to ensure that they are safe before they ever make it into our children's hands. the result of the law are clear. tori related deaths have fallen. they have declined by 80% and because overall have continued to decline as products become saved her. voter enforcement is also well. these protections matter to pairings. they matter to children, so i look forward to hearing -- the hearing today from the commissioners about the continuing work while i may not be able to be here to write your testimony, i have a chance to review it after you have given

it, as i have, for your statement said it then and to the record i think all four of you for being here and the back thoughts of my time. >> i think the gentleman. at this point i recognize ms. schakowsky. we have no one on our side requesting time. >> i thank you for holding this hearing. it is important to hear from the safety commission about the site are the days particularly beyond going implementation of the landmark consumer product safety act. a few weeks ago i joined chairman tenenbaum, kaiser's mother, linda kinzel at a press conference to mark the adoption of the stronger standard in the world. the way our standard is different because it is a dangerous product that led to danny's death at his day care

center, when it really was used as a crib collapsed and chokes him. the portion of the cpsia that i authored and entered the new standard name. i mention this standard because it's a specific example of how the cpsia standard for toys and safety products will save lives. that was our goal at the outset of drafting the legislation and it is the one that we not. last year we passed a bill with samarra fixes have been implementation of the law could continue smoothly. and i welcome today's opportunity to review progress. but wanted to say clearly that i believe it's absolutely critical that we continue to support and uphold the fundamental of this historic legislation. i want to highlight that cpsia

was a bipartisan effort that passed the house. 424 to one of the beginning to the end and is a model for what this congress can achieve on behalf of the american people. and chairman tenenbaum, i commend you for your leadership on implementing the safety standards for children's products and also for your ongoing work to improve the safety of table saws and window coverings. and i thank you for reading this commission in a way that continues to provide safety and security to the american consumer. i also deeply thank commissioners adler, nord and northup for their service and for being here today and i yield back the balance of my time. >> i think the gentlelady and turn our attention now to the panel we have before us today. each of our witnesses has repaired an opening statement that will be placed into the

record. they will each have five minutes to summarize the statements in their remarks. i'm sure you all very familiar with the way it works. the distinguished damocles the honorable inez tenenbaum, of the consumer product safety commission and we thank you very much for postponing or changing your travel plans for being with us today. thank you for that. we also have what does the honorable robert adler at the cpsc, anne northup and former colleague. the honorable anne northup. good morning, thank you all for being here today. i went back, chairman tenenbaum come to begin with your five minutes. >> thank you, members, chairman bono mack. i'm pleased to be here to discuss the safety commission's operations and activities to keep consumers save for dangerous and defective products. the agency is in the strongest position to meet its mission and

has been in more than a decade. and the limited time that they'd like to focus on a few recent achievements as well as look ahead to 2013. the first area that you discuss is the cpsc recent work to make sure the toddler. there were numerous instances of injuries and deaths have been in some small children and effect is invented durable nursery equipment. as a result, the cpsia contains section one of four which requires mandatory safety standards for most infant and toddler products thereby assume chairmanship of the commission in summer 2000 commend there were no mandatory safety standards for products. since then i move to implement this mandate as quickly as possible december 2010 the commission passed the toughest crib safety standard in the world. subsequently we pass mandatory safety standards for baby walkers, baby bath seats, other beds and players. in addition to infant and

toddler products the commission is implemented as cpsia's periodic assessment as they safety by third-party testing laboratory. we provided manufactures the great amount of flexibility with how to comply as long as they have a high degree of assurance that their children's products are compliant. we are currently reviewing status report on potential ways to reduce third-party testing caused, consistent with compliance as required by public law 1228. i'm also very proud of the work by commission staff to implement and maintain publicly searchable database. overall, safer products that god is a model of consumer empowerment and i appreciate the hard work and many of the subcommittee should further improve safer products that do during a public lot at 1228 debate. the best way to ensure dangerous consumer-products never get into hands of consumers is to ensure they never enters the united states. to share what i pay special emphasis on the past year and continued development of the

cpsc surveillance. this works hand-in-hand with u.s. customs and border protection officers in major u.s. ports of entry to detain commitments and u.s. product safety standards. in fiscal year 2011, cpsc staff is able to stop approximately 4.5 elion unit of violent and hazardous products from entering the united states. in 2013, i am optimistic that the cpsc will take additional step towards full implementation of a fully integrated targeting system, often referred to as risk assessment methodology or ram. this will allow staff to analyze a greater number of shipments, identify those more likely to violate consumer safety laws and ensure that have limited resources are dedicated to the shipments. i would like to have a collaborative relationships with established. the first is an area to ensure

advents have advocas. every shot to retailers like kurds and players to ask them to join in educating parents at the feet of space for their baby to sleep is alone on their back. accidental ingestion of coin and button batteries is another area that we are keenly focused. we had very productive meetings at the major battery manufacturers and a range of possible solutions from design changes to safer packaging have been discussed. but their collaborative model is in stores in the area. i'm pleased for much hard work initiated by my office, a group led by the national football league is underway to provide economically disadvantaged youth football programs with new hominids into contact in education campaign to bring about a culture change in the sport. in the coming months and years, i see a cpsc addressing hazards. i've addressed hazards.

a cpsc we are carrying out a statutory require proactive regulatory agenda and consumers are safer because of this approach. within an creasing focus at the pores, with more meaningful standards coming online and with even greater public private affairs, i envision safer and safer products in the hands of consumers. they deserve no less. chairman bono mack, thank you for the opportunity to testify. i'm happy to answer any questions may have later. >> thankthank you very much. you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much. good morning. >> if you can pull that much closer. >> a little closer. it's a turn on? >> the one that says bush? [laughter] >> thank you. >> good morning, chairman bono mack members of the subcommittee and manufacturing trade commit

thank you or the opportunity to testify about with my fellow commissioners. i'm pleased to be here today to discuss an agency have been associated with in some fashion since its establishment in 1973 and have been a commissioner since august 2009. this october will mark the 20th anniversary the passage of the landmark consumer product safety act and looking back now i believe congress and the agency should take great pride in what the agency is accomplished, especially considering the immense scope of our mission, which is to protect the public from any and all risk associated with roughly 15 dozen categories of consumer products. what has the agency accomplish? as a starting point i say the estimated 30% reduction in the rate of deaths and injuries associated consumer-products of the agency's inception and i would particularly point to the dramatic drop in deaths and injuries to children such as reduction of over 90% childhood poisoning that a group related deaths. in short, cpsc has a knack for

return on investment. by our calculation and the strap has resulted in $16 billion to reduce societal costs. are many times the resources of cpsc has been given to do its job and is a small agency reproduce these benefits of very low cost. of course even efficiency has been limits. as five years ago this cpsc of less than $462 million to congress his credit, in 2008, almost unanimously, providing the agency with more tools and direct them to do more work and a faster. it simply, the cpsia revitalize an agency underfunded and undermanned and for that consumers across the country are grateful. undoubtedly the biggest change for private private community has been the main gate in the cpsia that all products we tested by third-party

independent laboratories before they enter the market and on a continuing basis thereafter. let me assure you we at the commission have worked hard to implement it properly measured way and i can report that we finally reached the point where the final rule will take effect in february. of course, such a strong safety buckyballs carries broad implications are regulated community and we know that in a fully aware for each work closely to implement the law. as we approach the anniversary of cpsia, it's worth reflecting on two common themes in the law. the agency needed her resources and tools to accomplish the safety mission and needed to change its approach to vulnerable populations, particularly children. we will keep this in mind as we move forward in the future. i want to know one particular provision in the cpsia because it's something the congress changed. i believe in section nine of the

cpsia and other sections of our allies, with the most written some cost-benefit requirements in the entire federal government. under these recordings by my count the commission has named safety rules and 31 years, roughly one every three and one third years. the congress recognized this in congress took major strides to lessen the burden. congress didn't abolish the need for cost-benefit peer congress retained in the regulatory flexibility act and to drive the point home, you describe extraordinary deadlines for the promulgation of rules for children's products. this oppression he clearly has succeeded by the most conservative possible we've issued 10 safe jewels in the past four years every year as opposed to one every three and one third years. in closing i want to share one concern about a growing increasingly vulnerable

population, older americans, which i am now one. in fact, despite being only 13% of the population, older americans suffer 60% of the deaths and injuries but the product. the fact they now fit within this demographic is definitely help me understand what a serious challenge we face in the coming years of america as ages three to look forward to working with colleagues and members of the subcommittee as we focus on a mission to protect our citizens from risk of unreasonable injury or death. thank you very much. >> thank you him a commissioner. welcome, commissioner nord. >> thank you rematch. i'm delighted to be here. you have in front of you for different statements representing the reviews, opinions, observations and in some areas criticisms of the four commissioners of the cpsc. and yes we all agree on

anything. of course they all agree children are most vulnerable consumers and more importantly, our most precious asset. of course we all agreed increased resources for engineers, compliance officers, scientists, inspectors and there i say, some lawyers has allowed us to really bump up our game in carrying out our mission. of course, a state-of-the-art testing lab, which i'm very proud to have initiated the efforts for has met with rave reviews and moving our information technology systems into the 21st century has met with strong approval. indeed we find common ground in dealing with serious issues like mandatory safety standards for infant and toddler products and using our new authorities to address hazards like drawstrings. and we are all very, very proud

of the great work that our staff is doing especially in the poor turnout in the field. so in many cases, it is not the way. it is the how. and i am very concerned that we are falling short on the how, whether it's on big items or things to smaller significance. as i mentioned in a written statement, it nature can learn about how we develop the testing and certification rule. how we have defined children's products, how we have justified dropping the lead content limits from 100 -- 13 parts per million to 100 parts per million as 99.99% leadfree. i have concerned about our limited resources are being used. did we really need to spend almost $2 million in consultants to tell us how to rewrite our strategic object is in our mission statement?

will we know how we are going to be spending our fund come the october 1st beginning of the fiscal year if we have yet to establish our priorities in an operating plan? but more importantly than resources, it is how rules are being proposed, considered promulgated. staff strongly suggest commissioners not move forward with finalizing the testing world, the brothers the public input directed by congress and the majority ignores that it was a rush on the rule. how can we say that thoughtful and measured decision-making. when commissioners decry the use of cost-benefit analyses to say the regulatory flexibility act is all we need because it focuses the impact on the end of

small businesses. yet consistently turns around and disregards the information that is in the regulatory flexibility act because it doesn't lead to the desired regulatory missile. when a claim is made, section six b. is vulture restrict to, releases information to the public in a timely way. yet the agency in the past year three times has released inaccurate, misleading information that almost jeopardized a major recall in one case and caused the agency to do a public retraction in another. we can all agree that each commissioner here today has a strong commitment to safety and that differences of opinion as to regulatory issues should not be viewed as a lack of consistency. believe me, i'm not looking for

trouble from my colleagues, but i'm very troubled about how we approach issues. interestingly, i know that one of my colleagues with whom i often disagree in the statement says quote, the necessary but delicate balance of new safety requirements with new burdens. i agree it's necessary. i agree it's delicate. i think that the agency's actions over the past two years in particular, while quite wide at the margin have created a great imbalance between safety and new burdens and as a result, american consumers are overpaying for safety. we cannot close our eyes to the harm that we are causing many businesses that produce perfectly safe products and pretend that that harm does not exist. i think we need to work harder to find a balance that is

missing. thank you. >> thank you, commissioner. again, welcome to our former colleague. it's great to have you here. commissioner northup can you recognize her five minutes. >> thank you are delighted to be here. at the end of october, this'll probably be my last opportunity to share but this committees, my observations and concerns as we go forward. i appreciate the remarks of my other three -- of the other three commissioners that preceded me. i agree with commissioner nord who talked about many accomplishments that we have done the durable good standards, the mandatory standards. our work at the borders and ports, all of those claims that all of us are very supportive of. i'm going to specifically talk about several examples of what

this committee has done and share but the committee so they can judge whether or not that is that they anticipated when they passed the cpsia and from this commission. dropping from 300 parts per million to 100 parts per million was done last year, august 1st took effect. that meant we reduced from 99.97% leadfree 299.99% leadfree. our staff found in taking this right out of their proposed package that it contributed minimally to the overall lead exposure of children. that is the benefit of it. conversely the commissions economist included low when the level of that without significant adverse impacts, including use of more expensive low lead materials, costly reengineering products for lower

the materials to increase testing costs, increase consumer prices can reduction the type and quality of children's products available to consumers, exiting the children's market and manufacturers going out of business. there's no question these effects have been filed. unfortunately, businesses that have gone out of business are no longer here to testify to you and to provide information to you because they have left the market. what did this to? this creates an enormous new hidden tax on consumers and parents. many, many manufacturers have shared with us the bells and whistles they took out of their products, the lack of choices, fewer models they offer, cost increases they've had to pass on to consumers for something that has no measurable benefit to a child. that is the kind of decision that is considered me throughout the process, the sword as out of

context will make you that we do. i know as members of congress said as he passed legislation, you consider what is good for consumers. at the same time you consider the unemployment rate, cost of living, all the other global impacts that you have, that you bear in your shoulders. but when you're at the commission, no one has to think about any of those other things in the name of safety, this commission has taken action that far overreach and a necessary protection to consumers. probably the biggest decision that we made that i found so discouraging and i think is important to share with you his art reversal and lockable dreams. the virginia graeme baker act required that we protect children -- protect the public from deaths in pools -- it's

called evisceration, where if lockable dream can trap a child or anatol so that they cannot become free and they are eviscerated. after you pass this law, you gave us a great deal of choice. we could have backup systems or any other technology that we thought was equal to that. in the meantime, an american inventors came up with several inventions of the ability to change if lockable dream to aid nonbook a bullet train in the commission found that met the requirement. after a year and at great cost to many pools that adapt to this new tech elegy, the commission reversed itself because one commissioner changed their vote. and in that that i'm lockable drain cover no longer satisfy the law. and so, now everyone has to have a backup system, a vacuum alert

which is the primary system they used is not dependable. it goes south when it should. it doesn't go off when it's supposed to as it did in tennessee just last month. it is not available to private pools. it is much more expensive. we were overwhelmed with the number of letters that came in to us and told us this is a less safe direction to take. and yet, we proceeded down that direction at great cost to the public. we estimate over 1100 pools have closed, not our agency, but the agency association that oversees pools. we know many states have said they simply can't bring pools into compliance. and here there was a much less costly, much more available technology that could have been available to pools, but was reversed by her commission. i can certainly answer more questions about this if there's more time. in the end though, this

commission has made many decisions, many roles, completely disregarding the cost, the lack of choice is going to give consumers, the inability of small companies to comply with these regulations, all in the name of children's safety despite the fact that our staff is sold as many of these will not increase safety for children. >> thank you, commissioner. i thank you offer testimony and hard work and dedication to these issues and now recognize myself for five minutes for questioning. but like to direct her first question to you commissioner tenenbaum. it might be out of the ordinary question you get, but something i've been looking at annual came screaming to mind as the problem with that solves. this has been overflowing with reports on the health

implications of designer drugs that are sold and labeled as bath salts. the cbc has reports on file that date back to 2010 showing numerous instances of people being hospitalized and even dying from these substances. despite the fact that dea's band some ingredients, online pharmacies and some mini mart stores continue to sell them. they are labeled absolves and they clearly say on them, not for human consumption. it is an attempt to avoid the dea ban. despite the fact, there's no legitimate purpose as a bath salt. does the cpsc have any jurisdiction to regulate cell products like legitimate bath salts? >> madam chairman, that may fall under the category of cosmetics under the food and drug administration, but i would like to check with our legal staff when i return to the commission and get you an answer for that.

it might be a cosmetic and as such would not be under our jurisdiction. >> has this ever risen to the level of your interest? have you seen it out there in her the story? >> i've heard the story. i don't believe our staff has investigated it. they might not fall under her jurisdiction. >> could you possibly take a look? these are seriously dangerous substances out there and i would hope that commissioner adler is well to take a strong look at that and see how these bath salts -- >> we also could mute the fda to talk about how jointly we could address the hazards that we will follow up on that with you. >> also sound named by this and your letter, commissioner tenenbaum about the thoughts of launching a face that page. can you commit the status of the commission's plans are? is your happiness and a letter back to me? >> no apparent first of all, all

commissioners have voiced support for the concept of having a social media and using social media to educate the public on risk such a soft bedding, carbon monoxide, drowning furniture takeovers. there is an issue however on whether or not facebook would violate section six b. at d.c. psa, which requires -- cpsia, which requires if we cannot get the information out publicly about containing the consent of the manufactures. the issue is if we had facebook and a person posted something about a manufactures a comment, would that mean we obtained the information and fashion we had to scrub all that information and ascertain its accuracy before it is posted? that would be too much -- that would require too much resources from the commission. we have not made a decision. our general counsel's office is continuing to work on all the issues and we will provide you

with that memorandum when or if we decide to go forward with facebook. >> so to clarify you have not pined on that matter yet? >> we have worked hard on that. it is not completed. other commissioners had raised other legal issues that required more legal research, so they've not finish that memorandum. >> thank you. >> madam chair, i think it would misrepresent the position of these myself and maybe commissioner nord that we are in support of opening a face but page. while we acknowledge we can understand the benefit, i elisa and i think commissioner nord believe it would violate the overarching rules in her commission and its is not exactly is the chairman described. assorted misrepresents the requirements. i would point out that the database -- in the database that she was suspended to require for

the database and when we wrote that rule, it is now under attack of the court, someone who has filed suit against us that we have violated the laws. if we lose that case, it would almost certainly say that any putting up a facebook would the protections of 6b and i might say if we lose that case, we could possibly on new millions of dollars of work we've done on this and have to rewrite the rules, something that i claimed all the way through the process. >> thank you very much. at this point i'll recognize mr. butterfield for five minutes. >> i thank the chairman and also the general lady from illinois for sitting in the chair for me this morning. it's been a busy morning and i thank you very much. in march 2011 i wrote a letter to chairman of jane and the chairman of the subcommittee, asking the subcommittee hold a hearing concerning questions about the level of protection,

new and used football helmets provide athletes of all ages. reticular concerns had been raised around this time about what kind of injuries can be prevented with the football helmets and about whether judas thomas continued to provide a sufficient level of protection against injuries they are designed to guard against. so far the subcommittee has enacted to look further into these issues. i understand the cpsc has been engaged since that first drew scrutiny and you plan to become more engaged to renew initiative with the nfl and cdc among others. i'm going to ask the chairman, can you please discuss all aspects, the status of the work and where you plan and might like to see these efforts go. >> thank you. i'd be happy to talk about our work with the nfl. like you, i am very concerned with brain injuries in football and sports, especially those that affect young people, high

school and college athletes. because of these injuries have such devastating, glenn says the issue has been a priority for me. our efforts have a short, medium and long-term focus. in the short term, we would like to have a partnership with the nfl, cdc and major onto your standards to see what kind of reconditioning steps we can take. all manufacturers with the exception of one have agreed to put a label on the new honda, which said today that the hobbit was manufactured and give a date that he should be reconditioned. optimally within 10 years. we also have worked with the nfl and will be making announcements this weekend in order to drive a culture change and have education in terms of how to avoid had injuries and playing football. also the nfl has funded a

program for four communities, where they will give helmets to schools for economically disadvantaged youths play. so these new hamas will help tremendously as well. ..

one of the biggest victories for consumers and consumer advocates and those of us who believe in government transparency with the creation through cpsia of the publicly available consumer product safety information database. this database launched in march of last year had www.safer products.gov and their consumers can file safety complaints about consumer products and few complaints by other consumers that have met the standards for inclusion in the database. before congress mandated creation of this database the american public had almost no access to information provided by consumers to the cpsc about injuries from the products they used. let me ask the chairman or -- and you discuss some of the statistics and trends you are seeing related to the database and how many complaints are being filed in and what in what

is a complaints etc.? >> we receive on average 600 per month. in total we have received a little over -- almost 9600 reports of harm posted on the safer products.gov as of july the 27th of this year. over 1000 of these reports have been assigned to follow up by her investigators and resulting in investigations today. there were some on the commission is that this would be a place where trial lawyers would consult the database. we have found that 97% of all reports of consumers who own the product who have the experience with the product. the three top categories up in kitchen appliances 33% come to sure equipment or supplies at 8% and toys at about 5%. when you amended the cpsia to public law november 12 -- i mean january 1278 --

88% are filling that portion and 88% is nonblank so we have used it to recall to products and we think that it has been generally well well accepted. >> i believe your time you're time has expired and i thank you for your service in representing our country. >> the chair recognizes mr. guthrie for five minutes. >> thank you adam chairwoman and thank you to my colleagues from kentucky here with us today and to some of you may or may not know. one of our great olympians in 1984 so talking about swimming pools and athletes today here, i'm proud she may kentucky and pratchett made america. somebody said when he was like six comings out hitting the ball every day and he said he lived the moment of a lifetime but he

spent a lifetime getting to that moment so you know how harder olympic athletes are working to get there so it was great to praise your sister and great billboards and always fun to see. and shelby county might district there is a tablesaw manufacture and i am not going to ask a question but i'm just going to bring up, they're concerned are you going down because the commission is looking a tablesaw at tablesaw technology and nobody is saying the technology they're looking at is not safer or makes things safer but the the current czernis is a patented in the expense of it so just making sure there, as we look at new standards and opportunities for other the types of technologies and things that create safety standards to bring that forward. but i want to talk to commission northrop on the presidents issued executive orders on legislation and talked in the state of the union how regulations are strangling the economy in many ways and putting forth opportunities to move forward and i think there were two executive orders and my question, i can say what they are but i think you guys are

aware of it but i just want to know cpsc is done to implement executive the executive order to the president while reviewing regulations? >> we are considering a package right now although it's been a couple of months. it's been sort of dangling out there without agreement. let me just say that the president and mr. cass sunstein have written extensively about it. they have said their primary purpose and that the quote right here, is to insist on pragmatic evidence-based on cost effective rules and they specifically talk about looking at major rules, rules that affect a significant portion of the economy. they also talk about doing cost-benefit analyses. you have seen both in the previous testimony of the chair in the senate and now commissioner adler today, being sort of resistant to cost-benefit analysis.

the benefit has to justify the cost, and this has been something we have publicly debated. i think that in the name of safety you can just about adopt the most extensive as we have seen, new standards that drive businesses out of business so i believe we ought to do some cost-benefit analysis on the rules that we look at. the second thing is we need to look at major rules and this year, for example we talked about to retrospective ones. one is the testing of twice cats. that old standard which has long been out of date. nobody uses it. it was absolutely and nothing regulation. nobody was using it and it's been overcome by the 963 play testing standards set to say we use retrospective bring the toy cat standard into modern times

is to ignore in my opinion the intention of the executive orders and the spirit of them. and so is the talk about what our plan is going forward, i think if we could agree that we are going to look at major rules, rules that have a significant economic impact as the president mr. sunstein have talked about in their articles and secondly agree that we will do some cost-benefit analysis and the conclusion of cost benefit is that the benefit will be in proportion to the cost. right now we have -- balance. you will hear some of the commissioners talk about this is not enough but we have gone through rule after rule where it's clear that the analysis of the economic impact is is not digested by the new safety. all you have to do is the analysis. you don't have to create a finding that it's justified.

>> i'm about out of time but i just want to say as we look at the review process in your commission and all the -- instead of the number of regs we were looking at, what is hurting the economy. there's a cement plant in my district actually and its threatened by regulations coming forward so we can look at numbers of regs to look at or what might make a big impact on the economy. >> course, agree with that. >> thank you and mist schakowsky you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. i am looking at your testimony commissioner nord. i guess it was northrup and you have the feverish regulatory pace. you know we pass the cpsia four years ago, and this idea that somehow we are in a feverish regulatory pace, and it was in

mr. adler's testimony that of the 31 years since the cpsc was saddled with unique requiremente talking about the emphasis on cost-benefit analysis. there were nine consumer product safety rules over roughly one every three and a half years. and so, in the last four years, i'm happy to say there are 10 safety rules that came out and i mean i have worked with kids in danger on the crib stuff for a very long time and the play yards for a very long time. i don't think most consumers would think this is about a feverish regulatory pace of finally getting this done. i want to ask you chairman tenenbaum how would the old way

have impacted your ability to improve the safety of durable infant and toder goods? would you have been able to promulgate the crib rule as quickly as you did, or the play yard rule? and what impact would that have had on the safety of our children would ought to be it seems to me the chief focus of the hearing today. >> thank you. congresswoman schakowsky, we would not have been able to promulgate the amp and durable misery equipment rule on the schedule that congress mandated that we promulgate them. we are required and it is cpsia to put forth to rules every six months on durable menashri equipment. sent this epsa past we have britain's 41 rules all of which were required by the law. we have not gone off in a field and created rules. we develop the rules that were required of us under the cpsia.

had we not enable to work with the standards committee and industry to write the standard for the cribs, and then adopted in our rule it would have taken years to make a cost-benefit analysis. i'm not against cost-benefit analyses. i think sometimes it's justified that when you are looking at trying to have rules that affect the safety of children and infants, as this congress, as congress passed, having the administrative procedures act helped us expedite the process. and we work hand in glove with industry. industry helped write these rules. >> thank you. >> may i respond? c. actually have a question for mr. adler on a totally different subject and i just want to get it in because i am cochair of the senior task force of the democratic caucus. you briefly mentioned about

older americans and a particular vulnerability and i'm just wondering if you could explain that a little further. >> yes. one of the things that congress has been particularly sensitive to his vulnerable population and as it turns out, we have been dedicating our attention and resources. as part of this growing almost exploding demographic i've been very concerned about the impact of dangerous products on the senior population. if you look at the entry patterns for seniors they almost always succeed the population at large. it's not as though -- and falls are huge part in fires are another huge part of it. their number products we can probably take measures to help the elderly with and i will give you just one quick example. the commission just wrote section 104 rule for aunt and bed rails. as it turns out the elderly

suffer at a much greater rate from bed rails than infants do. it may well be that the fix for adult bed rails is not different from aunt and bed rails. in other words there a many many projects we ought to be looking at too. the cdc just came up with a national plan for dealing with childhood injuries and i have called for a national plan with the cdc for adult injuries as well. it was very very important issue and i hope to convince my colleagues to pay more attention to it. i thank you can. >> thank you. i am out of time and i yield back. >> thank you ms. schakowsky. the chair recognizes the vice chair the subcommittee, ms. blackburn for five minutes. >> thank you met in chairman and thank you all for being with us. nice and timely i will have to say. you have created quite a little stir in the last week over an

issue of buckyballs and i would just like to ask madam chairman hell it is that you have taken such a hard-line stand against buckyballs and i will tell you why. reading all of this and looking at it after the information came out, and having two grandchildren, one that just turned four and one the just turned three, you can compare toys like hungry hungry hippo, which comes with all these marbles. it's been on the market for about 30 years. there is a fishing well that also comes with marbles. it's been on the market for a long time. these are toys that we play with. so what i'm having a hard time doing is understanding how you could come down against buckyballs and buckycubes when it is clearly noted that is for children ages 14 and above and

hungry hungry hippo and fishing well are for children that are three and above. so you know it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me as to what you are doing. so i was wondering, why? >> i appreciate that question. it certainly is timely. i want to explain to you why we cannot comment on the merits. we did not ban rare earth magnets which is what buckyballs, the categories that we are. we referred the matter turned it to get the straight of law judge. c. i'm going to stop you right there if i may. you made the decision, you made the decision to to go ahead with the recall, didn't you? >> no, we did not. we referred the matter to an administrative law judge. that judge will make the determination, whether or not to proceed with the product.

>> we as members of congress have the right to ask you that question. >> we will be the appellate body if the administrative law judge -- >> alright then let's talk about. >> i can't really get into the merits because we will be the appellate judges. >> so let me say we have a well thought and it is being alarmed by this hidden hazards to children. the difference between rare earth magnets and marbles is that marbles did not cling together in the intestines. children have had, large number of children have had -- to remove these once they are in because they cause a huge blockage. >> the are clearly labeled not for children so let me ask you this. what about sparklers? we just had july 4, so why don't you outlaw sparklers? >> we did limit sparklers in terms of the heat they can generate. so we do you know --

>> you don't issue recalls. you. you don't turn it over to -- what about -- we just built the playhouse for the grandson. my husband engineered this great thing. yet also to power tools out there and they have their little black & decker place that. what about power tools? >> there a number of hazards in the marketplace and that is one in the product safety commission. >> what about alcoholic beverages? >> they certainly are. >> you have always got these alcohol poisoning cases and things of that nature, so let me go back to this administrative law judge. cpsc does not have an administrative law judge, correct? >> we urged a hearing and that church will determine whether not the product -- >> where is that judge going to come from? >> that judge will be right. here in washington d.c.

probably. >> alright so when the cases filed the lawyers who try the case have to be separated from those who advise the commission, correct? >> that's correct. >> okay now that the lawyers all work together in the office of the general counsel, how will you ensure appropriate separation between these two groups of lawyers? >> our office of legal counsel has set up a law and we are all abiding by that. >> a physical law? >> a lot allowed within the legal context. so we have got communication. >> alright and the director of compliance recently left that position and is now working with the office of general counsel also. >> i cannot comment on -- that is correct but i can't comment on his -- [inaudible] >> okay and who is now the acting director of compliance? >> mark shown mark shown that he has been -- he has recused himself and has

not been involved. >> is he a lawyer? >> no commies acting director. >> it is supposed to be a lawyer. this epsa requires that the lawyer be the director of compliance. >> we do and it's in transition so we have i believe 90 days. >> okay so you have 90 days to make that right? >> well we have 90 days with the nonlawyer. >> okay now -- >> it could be more. 's pay a alright now the filing of a complaint against buckyballs last month, right? >> was a bipartisan decision. >> and was signed by the executive director? >> yes. >> is he a low point he? >> yes, he is. >> alright, we have got other questions and i'm out of town. you have been generous. thank you madam chair. >> the chair recognizes mr. kinzinger for five minutes.

>> thank you met them chair and ms. nord if i have time at the end i will it respond to my colleague from illinois. i want to thank my -- the commission for being here. i want to talk on the topic that has the potential of affecting several -- it violates important products ranging from wire coverings flooring and automobiles. the chronic hazard advisory panels review could set a precedent for these the product outside of children's toys and i want to ensure that science that is used is transparent, properly peer-reviewed and public the available. chairman tenenbaum it's described as one of the important features to ensure the quality published information meets the standards for scientific and technical community. to ensure the scientific integrity of the document, the draft report should be released for public comment before it goes to peer review. stakeholder participation should be encourage them down the them to peer reviewer should be provided with all the data and

the studies provided to the ca jp. can you assure us that the peer review of the cacp's draft report will be conducted in accordance with current omb guidelines for peer review of highly influential scientific assessments with particular attention to the need for transparency and public participation and i think this should be a fairly quick answer. >> the chronic hazard advisory panel is continuing its work. we keep at arm's length relationship with that panel because they operate independently. i would like to talk with her office of general counsel to see how they are proceeding in terms of the peer review and write you a letter and get back to. >> that would be great. i would love to your baby -- that because obviously to have had as a process of for something so big a central and we will stay on top of that an i appreciate it response to that. deeply the ca jp should review all relevant date including the most peer-reviewed scientific studies in your personal

opinion? >> i certainly do. >> what procedures have you put in place to ensure the ca jp and the commissioner when all relevant data and the best available science? >> again that chronic hazard advisory panel was mandated and we created it to look at the three that were temporarily banned and other phthalates and other should be in an report. we are awaiting that report. the commissioners do not interact as an independent body but we have, our staff has been there to make sure they follow appropriate procedures. but if you have questions, if you will submit them to us we will write you and give you the full detail on how it operates. >> you all specifically -- with the peer review process? >> the peer review process was vetted through the office of the general counsel and they weren't advising the chap and how to proceed with that. >> can you assure me and final

rules under 608 you will publish a proposal for comment first? >> i will have to get back with you in that. that is a procedure that we will follow. we received a report, but we will answer your questions fully on the procedure. >> prior to that what would be your concerns with publishing a proposed rule for, and? >> well, i want to first make sure that chap operates independently and it has no undue influence by any of the commissioners and that it makes its best scientific finds and we will also in the spirit of transparency, which we operate as a commission, we will follow what the advice is of counsel on how to proceed. >> if we look forward to seeing that. >> and to answer question in written form too so you will have it. >> thank you. and responding to the question about a revelatory pace compared to what we were doing before, i would just like to draw the

committee's attention to the information commissioner adler's statement about all the accomplishments of the agency from 1972, 230 years following and how they can impact this agency. so i don't think that we were at thing at a snails pace. with respect to the crib standards first of first of all i supported the crib standards. all of the state. in fact i initiated -- what got things rolling. what i'm concerned about is the manner in which we implement it, the standard. and i think it flows directly from the fact that we can do the hard work up front. to give you a flavor of this, the staff came up with an effective date. the staff and a red flag analysis said they didn't anticipate the small retailers would be impacted. the retailers had worked out a deal with manufacturers.

we did not even approved the use of that record fred -- retrofit and tell about a month the rule goes into effect. another group comes in and says oh we can't make the effective date, can we have a longer time? >> given two years. another group comes in two weeks before the effective date and says, we can't make the state. we give them another year. it was just a very sloppy rollout of a rule. >> thank you and -- >> mr. sarbanes you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. thank you madam chair, thank you chairman tenenbaum and commissioners for being here with us this morning. there is a staggering number of products obviously that we import and certain categories of percentages is equally staggering when you think of it. apparently as i understand it, 99% of the toys, 96% of apparel,

70% of electrical products sold in the u.s. are manufactured someplace else. so the task, the charge and the responsibility of the commission to keep their eyes open on these imports coming in and making sure that the standards we like to see our being applied, obviously that is an important part of what the commission does and you have taken steps i know to improve that oversight and monitoring. in fact as a result of the cpsia, and increased authorization level for the consumer protection safety commission, i think you have now increase the number of employees that are posted at u.s. ports of entry to do this kind of oversight and monitoring. it is gone from zero which of course was completely ineffectual, to now 20. the u.s. has more than 300 ports

of entry, so the question is you have got only 15 houses from what i have heard. you have make graves -- great strides on the oversight that i'm interested chairman tenenbaum in your interest on effort and having the kind of coverage you now have, producing a deterrent effect with respect to the other ports of entry so that you know the things coming in meet the standards. what other things can we do in that regard? >> well thank you, congressman. you are right, we have 20 members of our ports surveillance team and we have over 300 -- and that is why it's very important we have the methodology to target succinct way products that we think are coming into the ports and also that we have a very strong relationship with the customs and border patrol.

the cbp allowed us to be the first agency to have an memorandum of agreement. we now have a livestreaming data through their sea-tac office or at at the center so that we now when shipments are coming into the port and water in those containers before they reach the port. with a pilot project that we have implemented, risk analysis methodology, we are able to then look at repeat offenders and also products that are highly suspect or are those that we monitor closely like electronics and fireworks and we were able to with great accuracy target those shipments before they were even into port and interdict them and not let them be unloaded. >> then would your experience if you caught something at one of the 15 ports that you are monitoring, but guess what i'm

hearing is fewer than in a position to be alerted to those kinds of imports coming into many other ports of entry? >> we are, and we know repeat offenders and we also know a company that doesn't have a record with us. we are hoping to establish and we have already created this self-assessment product safety program with cbp where we know those that are consistently in compliance, and we don't hold those shipments up and they can let them go through and unload quickly. but those where you have suspect cargo or cargo that is repeatedly noncompliant or repeat offenders we are able to target them. the most -- products are children's products and the largest categories are led, flammability and small parts that pose a choking hazard. so we are able to with cbp be

highly effective. >> and overtime, is there a plan? again i don't understand your methodology because i haven't studied it, but with the ports of entry that you are covering with your personnel, would you rotate that or the ones that have been chosen, once that you want to continue to monitor always because of the nature of them? how does that work? >> well, we also rely on our fields investigators, so we have 90 field investigators in 38 states but we we know as shipmas coming in and we can move those investigators to that port to the person are to stationed there so we can move people around. and i think that is why it's so important we get this data before the ships enter the port, where there is livestreaming data and the c-tech provides us.

we know the contents of the container before it reaches us. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. the chair recognizes mr. pompeo for five minutes. >> thank you gradem chairman. i want to talk about the date of this -- database a little bit. ms. tenenbaum said in a written statement i think it is gained wide approval and acceptance. do you agree with the statement it's gained wide approval and acceptance? >> i have heard a number of concerns that indicate that there is not wide approval and acceptance out there with respect to plaintiffs using the database. when this thing rolled out, and i was given a briefing on it by a consultant, the consultant

went into the database, very randomly pulled up the record. the consumer was listed as a law firm. and so that has since intrigued me and just two weeks ago i asked our staff if they had any idea of how many of those so-called consumers were actually law firms and they said they had no way of knowing if and that they had visited quite a few. when the chairman said 90% of the dead they -- database are consumers you could understand that consumers defined so broadly, to me and he living person. you don't have to have a relationship with a product or any interaction with the product in order to file a can paint as a consumer. >> i appreciate that. if there is a lawsuit filed by businesses has the court ruled

on with the agency has misinterpreted the law? i certainly think it did but has the court ruled? >> we don't have that information yet but as i said earlier, when we wrote the rule, i wrote extensively at that time that i thought that we were writing to rule in a way that it would be vulnerable to a lawsuit. the claims made in the lawsuit were litigated publicly in the claims that they made were the very ones that we made in our argument. i took a stance. i agree with them, and if we do lose that, it will mean that i'll rule will have to be rewritten. it means her software will have to be redesigned. it means we could be vulnerable to a class-action lawsuit by other people that feel that it's been arbitrary and capricious with the idea that what i wrote extensively about. and so this is why paying attention to the law and not rushing to regulate and glossing

over facts is important. another fact that is important not to gloss over is that when you say 80% of the items have something in the model or serial number, you should know that in many cases, it's not the model or serial number. and we know that and it's important that we give that information honestly to you. it might say the yellow highchair so of course if good information is good for consumers, bad information is really harmful. >> i appreciate you clarifying some of the responses ms. tenenbaum but yes or no the federal court ruled -- immediately take on the database? >> yes or no, the federal court ruled against epsa and defending database closet with agency pledged to immediately take down the database? thank you.

>> the lawsuit is under seal and we cannot talk about a. >> understand, so your answer is no. when we passed h.r. 2715 gave the cpsc authority to -- and particular the third-party testing, why is the agency not done nothing about that yet? >> we have done something. in fact under public law 1228 we were required within 60 days to go out for comment and we did. we went out for comment and we received comments in the staff is writing now the report which we will receive any day now so we have done that. in terms of rule review the executive order has asked us to look at any rule that has an impact of $100 million annually on the economy. that is one of the rules that we are going to look at in terms of rule review so we have followed what congress passed. regarding the model numbers for the database, 73% have a numeric value so 73% have a.

>> is it an accurate numeric value? >> yes, is in what is if it is in there. doesn't say yellow highchair. gives the model number. >> i appreciate that. i hope you will encourage the commission to do more under the authority of producing third-party test. are there things you could be doing? >> there are number of things they could be doing and i submitted a list of 40 items to the staff but i think it's a take away for you all, should be the third-party testing is really really expensive. so let's use that for the riskiest items. let's have the most aggressive testing for the riskier items and feeds off of things that have less risk or where we know there is high compliance. weekend that just that under statute as it exists now. >> i see to cut you off but my time has expired and we are trying to get in as many members of questions before we have a series of posts on the floor.

just to let members know i hope we can get everybody through, so if we tried to get under the gavel that would be great so the chair recognizes mr. mckinley for five minutes. >> thank you gradem chairwoman. i think it's always brought to look at consumer safety product. i'm not sure what all that incorporates. it's a consumer product safety. do those little compact lightbulbs, do they fit under your purview? >> it are you talking about button batteries or the little lightbulbs? >> the little compact fluorescent -- cs. >> they have mercury in them and we know that the typical household is the equivalent of a ton of cool.

it's being introduced inside of your house. the same amount of mercury in a ton of coal is an lightbulbs. i just wonder, are people actually following the rules properly and taking them in a little bag and taking them to a special disposal or how many of them are throwing them in the trashcan and they go to the landfill? >> i don't have the data but i share your concern. commissioner after to have anything to add? >> no other than to say those definitely are our jurisdiction. our jurisdiction is incredibly broad as the chairman knows. >> i don't know where you were going with it because i don't think anyone is adhering to the guidelines and the fact that we have such a fear right now with mercury is mercury poisoning from burning coal, but yet we put 30 lightbulbs in our house to bring in as much mercury -- i hope you will you'll taken more seriously about the direction it let me add a couple of things if i could.

the lead in chinese marbles, i understand that not too long ago, there were some -- lead was connected in some children's marbles and those marbles obviously were rejected appropriately. but the united states manufacturers who would never had marble detectors are now going through some very crony in -- draconian compliance but they were being punished because of what china's doing. >> well the laws passed by congress requires all children's products to undergo third-party testing to make sure that the lead content is below 100 parts per million and that was set by statute as well. so domestic and imported -- >> you determined the frequency of testing because surely you don't test every marble? >> no, you have to test a sample initially.

you pull a sample and test that. if you have a material change in the manufacturing -- >> when you come into a planned -- here is a manufacture that is never had a violation but maybe once a quarter they have someone come in and do some testing but now we are up to less than once a month they are coming in and it's costing 3000 some dollars for every one of the series of tests and they have done nothing wrong. there has been no rounds for this other than the fact that china was trying to once again like they did with drywall, now they have done it with marble. it has caused his company to spend thousands of dollars. is that reasonable? >> under the law that congress passed all children's products have to be third-party tested or originally. there is a -- [inaudible] >> with the go next, the indoor air quality. would indoor air quality be a

product safety, the fact that we have carpet, formaldehyde, cleaning agents and other things. we seem to be so concerned with it and rightfully so, the health of our children and adults and we put them in and indoor air quality that has 90% indoors and they are exposed to all these elements. and yet we say that they get asthma when they go outside. they get asthma when they go near a coal-fired power house and they get asthma and they spend 90% of their time in a home. >> that is the jurisdiction of the epa just as is the disposal of the mercury containing blights. >> so you just kind of wash her hands? >> no, don't. i respect the jurisdiction of other agencies. >> yeah but then you support that? you have some standard you set first that falls under your purview but yet the disposal of it is not?

you give that to the epa? >> the law gives it to the epa. >> would the change the law? >> well we work in partnership with many agencies. >> would you change the law so it stays under yours so you can have controlled? >> you have to change the law. i'm an executive branch. i follow the law. >> would you change the law? >> no that is not what i said or gone just trying to clarify the jurisdiction of the epa and our agency. >> thank you very much madam chair and chairman tenenbaum and distinguished members of the commission. thank you for your service to the nation. i am interested in how we can explore ways to increase efficiency and decrease costs and reduce red tape verdon's without compromising safety and commissioner nord thank you for the suggestion that you have

made regarding this and particularly for small volume manufactures. can you speak commissioner nord to the timeframe in which might implement the changes you have suggested considering the fact that commissioner northrup may be leaving the commission? >> yes, i am so sorry to see commissioner northrup leave our body because she has made such a contribution. >> i certainly agree with that. >> when we were considering, tempting the certification rule, the rule that was put out for comment had a low-volume exemption from testing in it. that was removed from why came up to the agency for a vote. i offered an amendment and that amendment failed 3-2 vote. at that point we had another commissioner. and so certainly a low-volume

exemption would certainly be a way to get at this. i have been talking with a number of people who have said, we have just stopped doing low volume manufacturing because we can't afford -- and i was at in southern california talking to a clothing manufacturer. there a number of other things we can do to help companies that are struggling with how to comply with this rule. it is a very broad, overly broad in my view rule, that imposes costs without real benefit so i hope the agency will reconsider it. >> thank you and it would hurt the agency to do so and i would be happy to work with all members of the commission on this issue because i think it's important moving forward. on recreational vehicles, highly

vehicles, would you please comment to commissioner nord or commissioner northrup on the fact that it's going to include a pass/fail test as the main criteria to evaluate the stability of the vehicles and this might cause some challenges. shouldn't a test that is meant to pass or fail a vehicle be repeated so one can be assured that the same result as a cheap? >> of course, any test that we would mandate regardless of the product has got to be repeatable. you can't put in place a testing method that nobody can pretend that -- addict the results from. >> commissioner northrup do you have an opinion on that as well? >> no, i have not participated as i have a conflict of interest. >> thank you. and madam chair i will -- a

minute and a half left i have to my colleague's. >> thank you very much and i recognize chairman harper. >> thank you for your time and your service. chairman tenenbaum i will ask you a few questions. i was certainly pleased to read your op-ed last week where he indicated that you are taking a more collaborative approach with the window covering industry regarding cord safety. i'm further pleased that he spent time visiting manufacturing facilities to better understand the difficulties in eliminating cords for all products. can you tell me without revealing any proprietary information about these visits and what you have learned? c. it was my pleasure to travel across the united states into the frame major manufactures as well as the major retailers window coverings.

i have expressed concern about strangulation hazards for children publicly, and the window covering manufacturing association and other stakeholders are in the process of rewriting a voluntary standard which we will have in september. but what i have learned is that there is concern from the industry about the strangulation hazard. their many there many new technologies which would reduce it, however the industry also, they are willing to work with us. however they don't want to see standard that completely does away with the court. they can make the cord where it is not accessible to children and there are all kinds of technologies that they share with us but they don't want to eliminate having a cord entirely. i am very optimistic meeting with retailers and the association that everyone wants to do a massive education campaign so that if you are buying a shade and you have children in, and you go

cordless. you could have shatters her draperies that you remove the hazard if there are children in the home. i am very encouraged by my conversation. >> how are you proposing that we move forward from here? >> in september we will receive a standard from the window coverings association in and they voted on it. we will continue to work with them to see how we can more more eliminate the hazard. we also want to work with major retailers so they can train employees at the point-of-sale said there kiosks and baby registries can bring it to the attention of people that if you have a child in the home you can go cordless. let's see if we can address some of the facelle -- fatalitiefatalitie s and reduce some of the fatalities by educational program's. >> i'm certainly a big supporter of corporation between government and industry predict early when it comes to some of these safety issues and how best to achieve the safest products

possible. you will also discuss in your op-ed to reference consumers but with this in mind can you tell me about your plans for the rest of this year and next with the window covering safety counsel in their efforts to educate new parents about potential hazards to children associated with window coverings? >> we are in the process of working with major retailers and also associations to draft that plan, so that is in process congressman. we are committed to it and i'm personally committed because i think we can reduce the number of fatalities would a robust education program and in collaboration with industry. >> does the commission plan on utilizing any of its funds towards its education efforts? >> well we have limited funds, unlike the pool safety campaign for congress gave us a direct appropriation. we don't have one for this but it would be a great help to us to have fun. but i think working with the

industry and with the retailers we can accomplish a lot without extra funding. >> promoting education and raising awareness some of the best tools you have in your arsenal? >> no question about it and that is how it fits in with working with people so we can all have a strong education program on any effort. >> thank you very much in the chair recognizes mr. olsen for five minutes. >> i thank the chair and understand boats up and call to my comments will be brief but i want to think of the witnesses. chairwoman tanenbaum nice to see you again and outside the port of houston -- good to see you again. as my nameplate says i'm from texas. as you all know texas loves the outdoors. they like to go to bing on the hill country rivers, like to go fishing on our lakes, the gulf

of mexico, like to go out there and do some hunting or just look at the bright stars of the texas night sky. the only way to access with all of these great things is with rov's some concern the federal government may be threatening to -- in my home state. my questions for you commissioner tenenbaum and questions from my colleague from new jersey about the pass/fail stability test. i understand that the cpsc staff reports adoption of the pass/fail stability test based on the methodology. they revealed it has conducted no repeatability testing or methodology or results. do you agree that the inappropriate to base a mandatory pass or fail standard on sample of a single test, one test? >> will let me premise this by saying i wanted to get back with you on the recreational highway

vehicle association and manufactures. one of the things that has been brought to our attention as the number of deaths and injuries in seven years between 2003 and 2010. we had 165 descent 329 serious injuries from rov's and 70% involve lateral stability turnover. so we are looking and working with the industry to develop a stronger stability test. we have studies of oversteering oversteering -- and i do hope the industry will work with us to develop a standard. my staff met with the representatives on july 19 and we are saying that we need to upgrade that standard to prevent turnovers and we could go to a mandatory standard but it is always better for can agree with industry and come up with a strong voluntary one.

>> i'm sorry to cut you off here but commissioner nord can you comment on that question? >> well, lateral stability has been a really perplexing problem, not only with rov's but also with so if we are going to be putting forward a standard that addresses lateral stability we have to make sure we get it right and we have to make sure we solve the problem and we have to make sure that we have a test that works and is repeatable and that is what we are working for. i fully agree with the chairman when she says we try to work craft cooperatively to work with industry to come up with something and a voluntary mode and i hope we can do that. [inaudible] do they have first-hand knowledge of what you're doing so they can respond right on the

scene? >> collaboratively means we share information. they have share their stability test with us and i don't know -- they came in and shared it with us and staff had some issues with it. the. we need to be very open and collaborative ensuring these tests and also realize that the industry should realize and say yes we have a lot of lateral turnovers and we want to address it voluntarily. >> it is a two-way street. i yield back the balance of my time. >> a i thank the gentleman very much and the go-to bing called and we are down to the wire so i asked to sum up by asking unanimous consent that it be included in the record of the hearing and it's been previously shared with staff. without objection so ordered and again i would like to thank of the commission is very much for your time today. i think you have showed a lot of light on very important in summary product issues. we look forward to an ongoing and productive dialogue so i

would like to thank my colleagues for semester butterfield for working together to pass h.r. 2715 last year. is a very good bill that saved a lot of american jobs will provide important protections to u.s. consumers. we call that a win-win around here so i will be asking questions for you to submit back to a specifically missed northrop i had one all keyed up for you. i will ask you in writing if you could submit in return simply to give us your conclusions in writing about your service and thank you for your service as you leap the commission. we were going to have a pic softball big softball question for you. how would you improve the world of consumer product safety so we will look over to that embracing but i remind members they have 10 business days to submit questions for the record. iso witness to respond badly to any questions you receive and i wish you all a very wonderful august and safe travel. the hearing is now adjourned.

[inaudible conversations] house members talk with the interior department inspector general about the deep water oil drilling. after that senators discuss the latest action concerning the cybersecurity bill. and then another chance to see a house hearing on the 2008 consumer product safety commission improvement act. >> we did not begin as a city in kentucky. there was only a vague native american region and later a county and another state.

but we began in 1778 as virginians.

now the house natural resources committee questions the acting interior department inspector general, mary kendall about her and bowman in the administration's temporary freeze on deepwater drilling after the bp spill. at 2010 interior department report claims that outside engineers but -- even though they have them. interior secretary salazar later apologized for the mistake. this is two hours and 45 minutes. >> he the committee will come to order and the chair notes the presence of a quorum which under rule 3e is to members and i appreciate your being here. ag committee on natural resources is meeting today to hear testimony on oversight

hearing on oversight of the actions can, independence and accountability of the acting inspector general at the department of the interior. under committee rule 4f opening statements are limited to chairman and the ranking member of the committee however i ask unanimous consent that any members who wish to have the statement in the record habit i've close of business today and without objection so ordered. i will now recognize myself for five minutes. two years ago members of this committee called on the department of the interior's acting inspector general to conduct an investigation into the departments may 2010 drilling moratorium report executive summary that was edited to appear as though the six-month drilling moratorium was supported by ancient experts when it was not. after initially declining i.t. ultimately agreed to conduct an investigation. in a page report was issued five

months later that come from the white house officials were responsible for editing reports executive report's executive summary but the ig was unable to independently verify whether the authors intended to mislead the public. since becoming chairman this committee has been conducting an investigation into the editing of this report and how the moratorium decision was made. along the way troubling questions have arisen about the thoroughness and independence of the acting ig investigation as well as the igs unwillingness to fully cooperate with the committee's investigation. the inspector general act of 1978 requires the ig to be independent, to cooperate with and provide information to congress and to protect whistleblowers. there are legitimate questions that this independence in this case is being compromised. this includes the refusal of the

acting ig to provide documents subpoenaed by the committee based on the grounds that these administrations may exert an executive privilege to withhold these documents. this was done without the acting igs offers ever being informed by the administration of its intentions to assert actual executive privilege or ever inquiring that the administration had any such intention. ..

it. >> as a case agent wouldn't be happy to state that opinion to anybody interested" end quote. the idea report is used as the obama administration to have this matter resolved in reality it has never had to disclose documents or answer questions on this report and how it was edited. it is important to learn and

the acting ig's role in the process that produced their drooling -- drilling of the moratorium report. she's david hasselhoff shoes not involved in the process but it is inconsistent with documents she attended meeting with department officials. seen drafts and advance and excepted the invitation to serve on the oversight board. i have to question the ability to be impartial that having direct knowledge including interaction with the political appointees with the matter being investigated. this is not the type of role they are to serve.

this is a bigger question whether the ig key and truly be impartial well openly expressing desire to be the permanent ig which is dominated by the president. to be clear it is not investigation of those in the office but the leadership and administration of the office. the testimony seeks to provide a defense over certain actions but it raises more questions. it is hoped direct answers are forthcoming although we will take necessary steps to ensure we received all of the facts. now rank eight -- recognize the ranking member. >> thank you, mr. chairman

chairman. i give my remarks today while the be peace built camp. not because i like watching millions of barrels the went to the water but to help my republican colleagues remember the disaster they have completely forgotten. it is bad enough the house has not passed a single piece of legislation. last week republicans passed two bills to put our people at a greater risk of another oil spill.

one would have us rash new drilling off the beaches of california, maine, new hampshire, massachusetts, rh ode island, a connecticut, new york, new jersey, maryland, and other states without any new safety reforms. the new act would block all manner of health, safety and in far mental protection including new safeguards the developed by the department of the interior for offshore blowout preventer years for the will design. the investigation may look

trivial but is no less misguided. we should think the witnesses to highlight safety reforms to prevent another catastrophic spill from happening again. but they are not interested in looking at reforms instead we're here to investigate the investigation. 30 days after the bp spill with oil gushing gushing, administration officials worked late into the night to set to be released the next day the with recommendations how to respond. between 11:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m. the executive summary

created ambiguity with the extern role peer reviewers supported the six month moratorium on drilling and the gulf of mexico. the review had the temporary pause of deep water drilling but did not review the recommendations of the six month moratorium. when they expressed concern, a secretary salazar cent public apology letters clarifying the recommendation for a six month moratorium was his. and to ask the interior department to investigate if the added some were intentional and politically

motivated. it reviewed drafts between the department the interior but the conclusion is a there was no evidence of wrongdoing. also the majority has responded by turning the investigation to mary kendall. but the problem is not with her or the white house or interior department. their problem is with the facts. they don't show what the majority wants them to. all that is left but to

fight to the maturity of what is happening at the time? look at the monitors. this is what secretary salazar was trying to stop. this is what they want to prevent. this is what we should be working to amend. this is under the jurisdiction to be and of this committee to make sure it does not happen again. and what i have avoided doing for 10 years. instead you're wasting our time on this investigation of the investigation. >> i want to welcome the acting inspector general of

the u.s. department of interior mary kendall. you have been in front of the committee before. the full statement will appear in the record. your five minute clock starts then with the yellow light to, you have 30 seconds. you are recognized for five minutes. >> chairman and members of the committee, good morning. inspectors general are appointed your designated without to affiliation and on and integrity and ability through section three of the act purpose section two points in the independence day and objective the day. although there is expected

to conduct themselves with objectivity and independence in a non-partisan manner. over four months i have weathered the scrutiny that has used the unilateral approach to request select documents drying conclusions without all the facts and presenting the conditions to the public and will through press releases challenging my objectivity. i welcome the opportunity to justify and respond to questions and respond to fax. by hearing said i should prepared to answer questions following the hour deepwater horizon disaster. also perceived misrepresentation it had been peer review, requests for documents, by a

effectiveness in my previous testimony. investigation into the allegation in the effort to justify their decision impose the six month moratorium. it was reviewed and supported from engineering scientist and experts. misrepresentation was is contained in the 30 day report. the executive summary was the focus of the investigation. if there was intentional misrepresentation came down to exchange to be males in the late hours of may 26 in which it was being edited. it gave no evidence it was

intentional to but it is posted on the website e-mails from the case agent that suggest he could not conduct every step he wanted to take for crow benefit completes where known to me during the course of the investigation. had they been brought to my attention i would have address them but i was confident in our investigation was well done and fifth to the flight which is what i expressed. in my 26 years with the federal government if i never had an instance of executive privilege. we realize the difference between the executive privilege to sit of branch is selling the and complex. i reiterate my position the

dispute with this committee is with the department it is not ours to assert doorways i have exercised all independence and dodge activity necessary to meet the mission. and in a way that maintains a healthy tension with the department we oversee but to make sure they are not compromised with a respectful relationship fifth with the two entities we are charged to watch. we have the of a great deal of positive change reworking with the department for in a spirit to have respect. i assume the questions

relate to my testimony in 2010 that the committee said it has serious questions. i addressed those questions in my letter and in my 40 statement today. i hope we can adjourn addressing all questions about me. all they reflect on the away g it is clear they are really about me if nothing else from the title of a hearing today. i am attorney and a member of the bar 30 years and a public servant 26 years without a blemish to my record born and raised in the midwest. the past 17 weeks seven the most painful of my career. attacks on my personal

integrity also eclipse this the outstanding work the leu ag has done i ask my corrected formal statement be accepted and i am prepared to answer any questions the committee may have the. >> as i mentioned the full statement will -- will appear in the record i hope it is the outcome we can have but there are concerns. let me recognize myself. you know, i have sent it concerns how the idea investigation was handled and your erred conflicting participation on the board. the ig was to be the independent watchdog. your safety oversight board

changes that role in my view prepare you became a appointed policy maker. you repeated the interacted with the appointees who wrote the report and executive summary and with the first person witness. it is difficult that you cannot see the dual roles are in conflict. you are to be the independent investigator but when you participate in meetings or conference calls receiving draft documents on the same issues you may be asked to investigate, and then did come it is clear your primary function was compromised you did not see this as a conflict of interest.

that is what troubles me the most. why didn't you declined the administration's request to serve on the oversight board when it would replace the ipg office into question. >> i understood the appearance of a conflict of interest but the department was responding to a crisis. i did not feel it appropriate to say standby. >> we have a short time. but by your own bid mission and you were unfamiliar with the details and you wanted to be involved was to bring

yourself up to date? >> i participated in an informational meeting that you did not know anything about yet you were a excepting the policy position within the administration. >> i did not participate in policy decisions. >> it is a policy board. >> no. to bring the safety recommendations. >> that is policy. that is policy. given example of prior times when ig's have participated in policy groups? >> i do not have been example. ig became the most effective

tool because of my participation with the outer continental shelf with the board report. >> exactly. that is the point*. you were working side-by-side. you are working on policy. there were questions raised on the summary considering you work to along those that were investigated come out why didn't you recuse yourself after with your participation from the executive summary? >> i did not participate in the 30 day report. >> i know. but people were involved with that.

did the people comment your ig inspectors did they know that you had participated and had conversations and documents? >> i don't know that. >> i do know that. i have and the station the mill that said in your role as a member of the safety oversight board. >> have you provided that to the committee? >> i would think so. i don't know. >> my time is running out but there is inherent conflict when the liberal is appointed. congress demands the ig be the independent watchdog of the administration.

that is the intent. but this give and take raises more question but my time is clearly expired. >> mr. chairman. ms. kendall the committee voted yesterday to subpoena five interior department officials. bureaucracy office interviewed two of these officials as part of your investigation. steve and miele. is there any evidence they were not truthful when they told to our office there was no intention to mislead the editing? >> no we do not. >> the remaining three individuals, walter, a very catherine and caylee, is

there any reason to believe anybody has important information. >> i have no reason to believe in they were involved and of the 32 report or executive summary. >> the core function is to prove the effectiveness and efficiency of department program is and uncover fraud wasted abuse. and they look out for the taxpayer to make sure they get their money's worth. how much of your time and resources have been consumed responding to the investigation of this one issue? >> is significant. have not counted. >> have this document

request taking you away from your core work? >> i would say yes. >> your office provided a list of important jobs that are ongoing are have been completed over the last three point* five years. you have several ongoing investigations including the department of justice. you have completed five investigations including cases labeled halliburton and bp scammed, testing the blowout preventer and bp safety failures and policies. can you tell the committee about your investigations into deepwater horizon and what you found? >> a criminal investigation is ongoing. i cannot comment.

that is with the department of justice. we also have the investigation with the civil side. the three are not familiar to me. i am not sure they came from our office but maybe from other agencies. >> could you expand on the criminal investigation? >> i cannot. it is ongoing but i am hopeful it will come to fruition in the near future. >> usurped can you describe the board? >> overseeing the investigation of the deepwater horizon event. to provide the secretary

with safety recommendations with the oversight and operations by a department. >> describe your role of the office of the ig with your mission. >> i tasked my entire sentral region to have the comprehensive review better overseen by the department of interior. 60 people spent three months to conduct this review. they reported findings and recommendations to the safety but then they issued little more detailed report of december 2010.

>> reel involved in the drafting or editing of the 30 day report for the summary? >> i was not. >> your independence was compromised looking into the editing of the summary? >> i do not. >> thank you for your work and your comments about the criminal investigation and we saw the pictures of what they did the crime against our environment. that it should be the work of this committee the ceos of each of the company's. that has not happened in a year and a half waiting for this committee to do their job. >> recognize the gentleman from colorado. >> i want to go back to the

june 17 subcommittee oversight hearing that we had. inspector general investigating the moratorium report you said no and you were not involved with to develop the of report. i would like to show the video clip. show exhibit number six. >> i was not involved in the process of developing that report and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on that. >> it is good and you are not so you could be a diss interested observer because their needs to be an investigation. >> you would agree you need to avoid even the appearance

of a conflict of interest however there are questions if you crossed that line and your statement may have been misleading. calendar entries come to light you have access to drafts of the moratorium report the days before it was finalized. you attended meetings with those officials at receptive to of the investigation. only three weeks later you say you are not involved in the process. after the questions were first raised use said you did attend meetings to learn about offshore drilling and as part of the oversight board "than of the information gathering meetings was the substance di the 30 day report