e prosecution in community be part of a dialogue to create policies and procedures at the state and local level to engage with authorities to identify the issues that make the unique to each jurisdiction and. one size does not fit all talk about judicial districts and law-enforcement agencies in sheriff's departments of various sizes what works with one locale my now working in others. the question that is critical for prosecutors what is being recorded? what is the extent and perhaps when should you not record? it is easier to say record anything anytime officers on the street the camera is on but is this really the process we want?

with those extraordinary cost not necessarily the cost itself but opprobrious storage to archive and catalog so that evidence could be used to the appropriate manner. prosecutors are also concerned with storage irretrievable. we have obligations to present this evidence to defense attorneys. we must know which portion of a recording pertains to a specific case to distribute that to the bar. that leads to the question what is the broader responsibility to the public? many have open records laws that mandate much of the information much -- the list be disclosed where is a fine line to collect the evidence and what we will be distributing to the public at large and as has been

testified it gives a different perspective. three are optimistic of the possibility of body warned carew's then used appropriately kim be said to will for law-enforcement and prosecutors. thank you mr. chairman. >> good afternoon chairman gramm, ranking member in members of the subcommittee i am president and ceo of the leadership conference on civil and human-rights local shops of organizations charged with protection of the rights of all persons in the united states for crop also the professor of law at the david clarke school of law it university of district of columbia. thank you for bringing us together today. over the last year we have seen a growing movement to address police practices

with the disproportionate impact on low income communities, communities of color and african-americans in particular. these practices like profiling or excessive use of force and explicit and implicit racial bias of law enforcement have framed the national debate around police reform to prompt a national conversation on the use of technology technology, specifically by the cameras as one possible means to renounce the -- to enhance accountability. across the nation people have been transfixed by a studio by concerned citizens between police and who they serve not since the of said deep -- bloody marchers on bloody sunday have we seen a video make such a profound

impact on public discourse. prior the voting rights act did not exist with those images inspired the nation to write it and pass it less than five months later. today's citizen the dealers have inspired the nation once again. to hear the plea that he cannot breathe or to see walter scott shot from behind it is hard not to be moved. chairman you spoke for millions when you described his killing as horrific and difficult to watch. there is the temptation to create a false operation from the body warned cameras and there's the committee not to give in to this temptation because they will not be operated by concerned

citizens and will not be recording officers but instead directed at members of the community. that is why last friday though leadership conference joined with a broad coalition of civil rights, privacy and media rights organizations to release principles for the use of body warned cameras by law enforcement i would like to introduce these into the record today to recognize that cameras are just a tool, not a substitute. they point out that without carefully crafted policies and safeguards there is a risk that these devices could become instruments of injustice rather than tools for accountability. it is important now when deployed it is with this set of clear and nearly defined purposes than those policies

are developed in concert with public stakeholders. these cameras should be tools of accountability not of face or body scanner for everyone who walks by on the street. facial recognition in biometric technologies must be carefully eliminated if they are used together with our cameras that will absolutely intensified disparities of surveillance their more heavily policed communities of color. earlier the pilot program suggest officers will not necessarily record when they should and for the reason it is important that departments have stringent discipline officers who fail to record encounters when they're supposed to be on camera. calling for of prohibition on footage until after the reports are filed footage

qian be misleading or incomplete that is what other sources of evidence including their own recollection must be preserved allowing officers to provide the footage means they could confirm reports what it appears to show over what they recollect in there is a risk that the video may confirm each other independently when they're not at all. the leadership conference urges federal, state, and local governments as well as police departments to consider the principles as they development policies and programs. without the appropriate safeguards, we are at risk of compounding the very problems that we're seeking to fix. thank you for your consideration of the forward to your questions. >> we will accept your

principals without objection to be part of the record. and with the ranking member our privacy and technology of subcommittee mr. interceptions raised facial recognition and that possibility we know that technology is here and there raises so many issues. one of the issues i talked about with senator scott is in then those studies is

there any indication of the benefits in terms of money? in other words, that there may be an actual financial benefit. >> the drop of lawsuits with the cost benefit analysis so a the lawsuits and investigations and anecdotally we hear absolutely the cost is very

steep. >> so there is of benefit versus other benefits so that obeyed god's behalf -- that may not equal the of cost. some of the issues raised are duendes the officer turned it on or off? with the 60 minutes stories it isn't very hard to reduce the what type of protocols are in place to make sure that doesn't happen? end i imagine how do we

avoid the "60 minutes" story for someone who has been in prison 20 years for something they did not do because of a misuse. >> senator first of all, let me thank you all for having this hearing to put the issue squarely and we're appreciate that. so let's develop these policies in public there should be involvement obviously the law enforcement professionals

are advocates in this area but the guidelines have to be developed with the subsequent use of this information in various cases second these cameras offer protection to good officers say and the public that they serve those underdoing what they should be doing and that is the vast majority we left them in salute with they're committed to reduce but unfortunately not every officer follows appropriate to protocol. for those that have an influence on officers inclined not to follow existing protocols. to ensure that the officers

received appropriate training of these cameras. all of these can contribute to the investment that should not be a undertaken lightly with the expense that is considerable. said it would work out but to talk about storage and archiving for retrieving and disclosure and it is what do

you shoot the and when? began to talk about a carefully crafted policy. that is the savings that we need to keep in mind as we go through this technology and this new world. >> thank you for your thoughtful testimony that is one of the most refreshing things i have heard is how not simple this is. it is a little more complicated than meets the eye because some of the suggestion is put the cameras on and you are a good to go in that does not appear to be the case. i have a question about victims called the federal

victims crime act one is to be reasonably protected from the accused one is with fairness and respect for victim's dignity and privacy. i would like to get your comment on how we protect the victims of crime probe. >> we recommend to obtain consent so that gives the dignity this there is the issue of private disclosure and way recommend agencies consider you don't want to see people at their most vulnerable so careful review

to make sure vitter is evidentiary with careful reductions. >> we are currently working through state legislation forebody warned camera is so not even subject to the freedom of information act not considered a public document the incident is not shared to be achieved from the discovery process in court.

and victims of the right to be protected in the policies that have to be crafted to be in detail for the of with those to be evergreen the policies of its said the agency is critical at that point and then it is remarkable in its absence with the most importance individual to explain that

to be very important that there has to be operational policy we certainly believe the rights of individual victims should be protected that the rights of the casual release there should be access to that information as quickly as possible in those policies with the access to information should be strictly enforced so

officers failed to report incidents there should be of consequence for the rest to be trading ahead reinforcement and a sense these officers are helped as much by the existence of the cameras as the public that they serve and put into conjunction with one another can produce positive results >> if i could just follow up to be responsible to turn it off and on and on at the right time my kids see how that itself is controversial because what did they choose to record or not to? so as we said earlier it is not quite as simple. >> but again, if the department gives clear operational guidelines for

access then the officer is not left having to decide for him or herself what requires reporting and what don't. there is that line the revolt encourages them to do the right thing. that is why it is so important that these guidelines be developed with public review and disclosed openly for the transparency and debate to serve the interests of the officer as well as the public thank you. >> this is a very interesting hearing. i will echo what my friend has said that the un is simple and this of this is the most significant thing we have heard. and as we know better to see people at their worst day

see people in times of emotional agony with terrific physical injuries in the video record of the great deal of that would be hugely intrusive to those individuals and in demand by the 24/7 news media if it pleases of these cultures of to expect intense conflict over the availability that you could go into people's homes does that person have a right to to not have what is in their homes seen? of kr a offical. it is important with the police use of force but not

to open all whole new array of problems. there are 46 different sheriffs? >> we have 39 cities and towns most of their own department. >> comedy have a sophisticated it department? ltd. is dependable but there is some donate a handful. >> we have police departments hit by crypto locker and shut down if they are targeted by hackers so the question of the hack ability how easy would it be to get it some of that very

personal footage if there is the clear bright lime. to they'd know when they would use force? or to you ternate don jessie case then erase it afterwards? this is really complicated. are there a couple with public records law? could day implemented a sensible way.

>> and it was terrific by the way. but i could not even point to one policy as the model. we gather the policies with a law-enforcement officials with unions when it comes to turning the camera is on and off so when you have the

call on the radio then it goes to the end of the incident. if they said don't want you to come in with your camera on i don't know what you will do with that footage. >> then they recommend they continue reporting of messages say victim who'd just says they don't want their face on camera as long as they have of legal right to be in the home but to not have that footage of that incident with the privacy peace. >> bettis the supreme court

decision how they look at what the police always have done but now when hyper enabled with technology it is a new question this is an interesting hearing. >> decide among yourselves. foucault's next. no? [laughter] simic thank-you chairman for calling this hearing the american public is searching for answers how to effectively shield those divisions be trail law-enforcement and the communities they serve there last week was national police week we honored those killed in the line of duty as a stark reminder that policing is a dangerous profession and it is our duty to support the of

resources they need to come home at the end of each day. we have also seen disturbing footage from missouri and ohio and in each of these taken by law enforcement has highlighted those deep divisions retrieve law enforcement and the communities that they protect so to help bridge those divides i welcome today's hearing what is the best way forward for finding common ground? i believe body cameras have tremendous potential if implemented correctly and thoughtfully to settle conflicting witness accounts or contribute to transparency or safety with the deep divide but there

are concerns you have raised today in beating those concerns is essential to be sure they are properly deployed tools rather than of a means of furthering division. i have a couple of simple questions. when designing and implementing the rules who should be at the table? then how can communities be sure the rules or access is properly filed? >> thanks for the question. we recommend pretty much any stakeholder that could be affected community organizations line officers , unions prosecutors , as the courts they all could be included with policy development and the

second part with the accountability portion we recommend agencies share policies on line with the public the retention schedules for data and collect statistical information to make that public as well so they can see how they are used and what is released. >> ted again we are looking at implementing statewide legislation to have body warned cameras that task has been sent over from across the state i know they are ready have plans to include as well as the criminal defense attorneys to make

sure every freddie has input of the implementation of those policies i second those comments that is the best way to do that. >> thank you for the question and. it is critical to keep in mind not just looking at the front end with their transparency is very important. the back end is what will we do with it? it is evidence is collected now that is stored or manage your disclosed and to the public or under some circumstances to respect privacy interest they're all important considerations. these should be addressed at the local level that the

community itself needs to be a engaged in. when we talk about developing trust between law-enforcement a and the community it should happen well before we rollout body carries. the relationships have to be formed to. we cannot lose sight that at the end of the day the collection of the data is for evidentiary purposes and how we preserve that. >> thank you for the question. i agree with their remarks of my colleagues all stakeholders should be invited to the table with the public debate of these issues including elected officials of law enforcement and legal advisor is or former prosecutors m the defense bar should be

encouraged. a civic organization as well was ngo that has a role to play in the implementation like human rights groups to be included in the debate. having said that it is only one tool. but you policy to address some of the and on racial profiling that continues to be a factor in law enforcement to defeat the purpose of the body warned camera to reiterate law-enforcement and community together. >> i appreciate your answers as co-chair in the previous

county with those represent to help develop of model guidelines to have the resources in the cameras are misperceived as an easy solution to do deep-seated problems to do the hard work first to make sure those parameters are understood. >> first could i ask unanimous consent the statement of the ranking member be added? >> thank you mr. chairman and all of you for being here. this is near and dear to my heart i was a prosecutor this was the first state in

videotaped interrogation as anything in custody and when it came about because to prevent any type of questions of activities also to protect civil rights but i made the argument it also protected them it made for a better process for people to see a video tape when they were questioned so they're jurors could judge for themselves. we had cases where people would say things that are incriminating on the videotape that the jurors could see to make sure rand rights were read and the process was fair so i start with that. now with more jurisdictions is accepted and it was accepted pretty quickly once it started.

and there are other issues with body cameras that we have pointed out there and just interrogating one person but to start with the concept of the interrogation , i realize not every jurisdiction has of mandatory reporting how would you compare body cameras to other types whether the issues you don't have with the body camera? >> thank you for the question. there are other recording devices that our more widespread such as the dashboard camera. those have been proven to be very effective tools for many of the reasons that you articulated to show the officer acting in conformity with best practices you would expect from troopers

and officers it is also great evidence of what happens on the scene. >> is also great training to watch each other what is good or bad thing it is a good way for people to learn and watch each other. continues. >> high degree for go all self-worth -- also we try to improve our process. oracle is to achieve justice. we don't hide from the fact and if a video recording helps to establish that fact it is a tool to be used. with respect to videotaping of interactions and

conversations with witnesses and defendants that is a good practice and we do and as often as we can. however is not mandated in i am reluctant to advocate to mandate that once the pursuit of truth there may be legitimate evidence the results from conversations between individuals them law-enforcement that could be lost that subverts our pursuit so with the right circumstances it should be encouraged by certain they would not be in favor to mandate. >> i think ours was the supreme court decision but police have grown to like it for the most part and we have not had issues to not get convictions because of a practice they may have to

explain why day did it a certain way but overall they found it to be beneficial. of spot mecca i would echo the comments with the us prof -- best practice to get the interrogations' on film but it is not mandated in south carolina. touche transition to a different point that was the great fear of powers to support the legislation we do have dash cam we have seen the problem where somebody's foot can go off the scene than the case is dismissed then you cannot see everything we don't want that to take place with the body camera we don't want to get to the point where the footage is the end all or be all of the evidence. >> we would call that the scsi effect of where no

possibility of dna then they say no dna. the point is well taken we have to explain why something is not necessary but that is a good point. i thought the senator was asking questions of a pilot and we have a private in toulouse and burns fell maybe to look rap what they're doing but i do think it is a good way to figure out what is working fast to allow states to work on privacy policies that are in place to make this work. >>. thank you. pilot studies could be useful for information considered with though wider

audience but having said that i hope states and localities will not use that as the delay to not go for word now that the department of justice makes available funds to support some states moving in this area i think it should be encouraged spirit that is why i lead with the interrogation issue preference first officers were concerned but then they grew to think of was the good policy over time. i will admit this has more complications with privacy and tapes as opposed to your just interrogating someone in a squad car so it is more complicated and we have to consider that the thank you for being here today.

>> thank you mr. chairman for holding this hearing for i have met with more than a dozen groups from above to turn the information over to the committee for the record. day you know, how many jurisdictions are currently running a pilot program or have adopted by a worn cameras? to make it is the great question but i don't know the answer purport don't think anybody knows the exact number i heard between 3500 and 4,000 agencies but it is just an estimate even not even the most recent or current purpose that is what people are working on. >> that number is not nearly as important as the level of activity so four or five

years ago is the foregone conclusion with those officers wearing cameras but it is important to see the of laboratory at work with the best policies to look around the country to find the best practices and policies around the country it is important to look at the local development at the local effort not a federal effort to figure how to federalize local police above to hear your thoughts on the mandate side i think we should not mandate what local law enforcement should do but we should interject and rekey and but create the framework. >> thank you. i victory and i expect most

of my colleagues in the prosecution community would agree. there is a place to delineate best practices and a place to articulate those kinds of issues to be addressed or even suggest a solution but fundamentally this is a local issue. it varies significantly from one locale to another based upon resources, training and the requirements needed to effectively prosecute. a the resources are a huge issue not just with respect to the money of the data storage but personal to accurately document what data you have on hand in from the prosecutor's perspective terry drawdown

confirmation to identify which portion of recording goes with which case and how is it used? all other you generate significant evidence but if you have nine different cameras:that exponentially increase is the review that you may have that could be extraordinarily relevant but some of it may not but that still translates into zero manpower cost so it is important to be done with a local basis with guidance from the federal or state level been discussing important from the stakeholders as the important component. >> we heard a lot of raw privacy issues one of the

questions i have is in public spaces with the number of cameras available whenever your phone of choice for the of the persian storer or walking down the streets the truth is there is a new conversation to be absorbed with privacy issues in public spaces have you thought this through yet? the was my best joke by the way. [laughter] >> i will be very brief to identify a complex challenge after all goering's thruway

a debate of the tennis day what kind of information can be gathered so there are heightened sensitivities and that should be the case and the new policies have to be developed how we access this information these are all very relevant questions that should be discussed before the investment is made rather than after to identify the issue we are not giving adequate attention. >> senator limassol --

limassol? >> i will be quick. >> as that conversation happened that the sec said conversation ultimately came down to do a matter of the freedom of information act to come down to a resource issue with very small police departments to create the department to maintain all this data. so of the decision was made not to make it up public document to give that to a small amount of people. that is the way the public does still have knowledge as the heads could release the public as well.

>> thank you for holding the hearing with the initiative taken by emma strong supporter of body carries by police with the full appropriation for those that find them and to their make a substantial contribution for law enforcement at the same time i think the care and thoughtfulness to go in to do this policy that they are simplistic a camera will record everything no problem and no question there are questions about privacy and custody and who has access

for the body warned carries and a chain of custody issues are multiplied and what are the standards for policy guidelines? and there is a role for the federal government to play not only that but of necessity for error criteria for admissibility and one of the toughest cases involved the use of video in a drug prosecution where the video failed for a short period of time and a the defense was

the critical and exculpatory for the defendant, when the video failed to create reasonable doubt because of the malfunction. we are not done with this topic for a camera is to be worn by police to ask all of you could you point us in the direction in the of programs that are working and working well to have models for what should be done of the other states if you know, of any?

>> working with several agencies doing things right the policies may differ they are thought fall about what they're doing oakland is one of the initial adopters they have had them since 2010 working with daytona beach florida and also rialto with one of the studies we have done. they're all agencies that have done a good job and are still engaged. >> thank you for the question. there is only of few may have 22 agencies and i can

think of a couple of the top of my head to come up on the year to have success with the police department to bring everybody to the table that has been approved by the aclu. as of model to follow in their own communities. >> perhaps 28 percent of the laws or senate agencies use body carries in one form or another. it comes from the very small departments. . .

>> the march of science is going to give us access to information in real-time with some degree of certainty that we never had before. thank you very much.

thanks, mr. chairman. >> i'll wrap up. y'all have been very informative. i've learned a lot, so number one, ms. miller, in the dash cam recording history, has that worked pretty well as far as dash cams speak with yes. there's been a lot of success. i think it's a good way for us to kind of look to body cams and see what they can do. i do think a lot of differences and so it's hard we advise agencies you can incorporate things in your policy that we wouldn't recommend relying on it but i do think they can be instructive. >> has any jurisdiction ever outlawed a dash cam after it came into being for any reason? >> no. i've talked to places that actually does what agency i can remember that ended up not coming getting rid of their dash cams because of the expectations of the court started having and it was kind of the csi effect

discussed earlier. they found credibility was being undermined. just one that i've ever talked to do. >> dash cams in south carolina, are the party? >> they are common. mostly required by law but were still having problems getting the funding. >> would you say 80% 70%? >> probably 70-80% of patrol vehicle. not all law enforcement vehicles but patrol vehicles that do the traffic enforcement. >> how do they store the data keep the data? >> they have methods they do that within the local agency. they can go back in download that through a cloud means or go in and physically connected to the computer. >> how much more expensive would it be for body cameras? >> based on a quiche sheer number of hours into a video that you're getting it's going to be exponentially greater. most of our agencies have been

looking at to get different costs examples, and a lot of combat with the number of $100 per month per officer to store data. >> one hundred dollars per month per officer. what's a testament as to how much would cost the nation every agency every law enforcement official had to body cams because to store the data? >> to buy the camera, store, both? >> i am terrible at math so i would hate to try. i've talked to agencies that spend millions per year on storage alone. >> can you try to find that answer for is the? >> we can look into that. >> you agreed $100 per officer or more and less resource because i forgot. i've heard $800 per officer per year. so depends on the size of the agency, how many videos they are shooting, that sort of thing. >> you talked about look at this

as an evidence of device come is that correct the? >> yes, sir. >> chain of custody, all would be very important? >> absolutely. >> if you had a problem using dash cam evidence of? >> we have not. in colorado the dash cameras are used by the state patrol and in it's left up to individual police departments as to whether not they want to dash cameras. >> but from a prosecutor's point of view this hasn't been a difficult tool to employ? >> not with respect to dash cameras, senator. the complexity is logarithmic when you start talking -- >> eye gouge. i just want to make sure what we use it is good to go. the only reason were probably having this hearing is because of his private videos that it shocked everybody. do you agree? >> idea. >> in those cases we are glad we

have video evidence. he got the north charleston case in litigation filed be careful what i say. in that case only god knows what the story would've been. >> you are absolutely right. it's these private videos that have motivated the public. as i said you deserve great credit for convening this conversation. >> if you could get the right protocols to protect privacy and make sure the officer is using the camera and appropriate manner to think it's best for the nation to go down this road? >> without question. i think it's essential. >> does everybody agree with that? if you don't, speak up. >> senator i think -- >> not a federal -- fomented much law enforcement and general. >> i think it can be an effective tool but we've got to be careful. primarily on the backend. >> eye gouge. all the problems are real that you identified what is this something worth pursuing? is the benefit greater than the

cost of? >> i think potentially yes. >> so that's common ground for everybody? the benefit is worth the cost if we can do it right? does anybody know if the capitol hill police where body cameras? >> i think they're looking into it but it don't think they wear them to spin it seems to me if we're not concerned about it as members of congress we were looking about. i intend to do that. very much appreciate your testimony. one last question. let's say there's a grant program. which agreed that having certain criteria that you got to do certain things before you get the grant would make sense? >> i think that is also absolutely essential. >> would that be okay with you? >> yes sir absolutely. i will take the opportunity to point out in the current grant

funding unless your data retention is covered and reported a debate that's the most expensive part. >> you would want to spend money on a program that was in sound. citing conditions on the ground makes sense of? >> yes. >> if the server does yes. >> yes. >> so a block grant is probably not the way to go. have some conditions attached to it? >> yes. >> thank you all very much. i've learned a lot and feeling will be adjourned. we believe the record open or one week for further questions and any information you want to provide the committee, beautifully done the country a great service. thank you all. [inaudible conversations] >> new congressional directory is a handy guide to the 114th congress with color photos of every senator and house member plus i'll and contact information and twitter handles. also district maps a foldout map of capitol hill and to look

at congressional committees the president's cabinet, federal agencies and state governors. order your copy today working dollars 95 plus shipping and handling through the c-span online store at c-span.org. -- $13.95.

>> for he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother. be he never so vital to this day shall gentle his condition. and gentlemen in england shall think themselves accursed they were not do. >> one drop of blood drawn from dying country's bosom should be done more than streams of foreign court. >> director of the folger shakespeare library talks about shakespeare and how politicians use quote from the famous playwright in their speeches spirit sometimes you have to go with the music of the words, the poetic images the sound of the rhymes and also the way in which as senator burr.com you're able to to pause and linger over a long phrase and then stop and keep going.

i think usually using the rhythms of the language which is something that shakespeare did so brilliantly so that he can take english and take and put it into high gear at one moment and then he can slow down. that's something shakespeare lets you do if you were a politician. >> sunday night on c-span's q&a. >> goodnight goodnight, parting is such such sweet sorrow. enderlin is. >> a house subcommittee held an oversight hearing for the consumer product safety commission. that share and three commissioners testified in the first panel on the agency mission and current priority. the second panel focused on recreational off highway vehicle, rov safety standards. this is two hours 15 minutes.

>> the meeting will come to order. the chair will turn on the microphone. the subcommittee on manufacturing trade will come to order a pitcher recognize himself five minutes for the purpose of an opening statement. the consumer product safety commission was established in 1972 by congress to protect consumers against unreachable risks of injuries associated with consumer products. the statutory mission is a serious responsibility for the commission and its critically important that congress conduct oversight to ensure that public confidence in the commission's adherence to its responsibilities and stewardship of the taxpayers dollar. i would like to thank chairman kaye and commissioner adler, burkle and moreover, it for the testimony. we'll also hear from a second panel of witnesses about representatives pompeo's

bipartisan legislation h.r. 999 the art of the in depth examination act and the open rov rulemaking this is kind of substantial bipartisan concern from members on both sides of the dice and both sides of the capital. consumer safety is a top rated for thefor the subcommittee and have a ton more difficult budget decisions are being made across the government it is critical all agencies are held accountable for their prioritization decision to take a concert about the role of sound scientific principles at the commission the interaction between the commission and its regulated industry for making agenda in the execution of congressional mandate for third party test burden reduction and the commission's continued requests for new authority to impose user fees. that is a fundamental constitutional issue with the put the power of the purse from congress to a regulatory agency with no experience in dispersing peace. a wide range of open agenda

items at the commission require significant scientific evaluation and testing. consumer confidence is rooted in the belief that the commission has the capacity to base its decision on supportable scientific findings. it is dangerous and shortsighted for safety agency to move away from science and scientific principles as made happened with the chronic hazard advisory panel report were even the office of management budget guidelines for peer review were ignored. the commission authorizing statute is based on the presumption that voluntary industry standards and cooperative relationships with the regulated industry are the preferred method of regulation for product safety. safety is a strong incentive for both parties. the are a number of open will make is that the relationship between the commission and the

regulated industry in an area where it said 90% of the threats to consumer safety are created by 10% of the participants it seems counterintuitive to put additional barriers between the commission and the regulated industry when the common ground is consumer safety. this is especially so where resources are always going to dictate to the commission will need help from industry at identifying problems for one open rulemaking fundamentally changes the fast-track voluntary recall process an award-winning program established 20 years ago to address long recall processes which has produced tremendous results. under this program allows you 100% of the fast-track recalls were initiate within 20 days. the positive impact for consumers is real and potentially dangerous products can be taken off the shelves in days instead of weeks or months. finally, there's been a

bipartisan there has been bipartisan support to reduce third party testing burdens for small businesses around the united states. in 2011 congress passed h.r. 2715 with explicit instructions to the commission to evaluate the testing burdens relief in good faith but the commission has struggled to carry out the statutory requirement even with additional funding. three and half years later small businesses are reporting they still have not seen any real burden reduction is and are facing seemingly endless comment rounds but no real solutions. we are here to make certain that we are doing what we can to prevent tragic and unfortunate injuries from consumer product. however additional funds for the commissioner difficult to justify when there are some questions about the scientific methodology used by the commission to support its regulatory agenda and have the administrative procedure act solicited comments are incorporated into the rulemaking process, not the commission

operates without bipartisan support for many initiatives. the consumer product safety commission's mission must remain attached importance of the work and not a launching pad for an activist state driven by headlines rather than science and economics to such an approach compromises that trust in an agency that has successfully removed thousands of unsafe consumer products from the economy from consumers of shelves as well as of the voluntary safety standards that build safety into the products on the front end. the chair will recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, ms. schakowsky. >> thank you mr. chairman for holding this important hearing about consumer product safety commission from the commission and its mission of protecting consumers from unsafe products. area near and dear to my heart at i began work as a consumer advocate many moons ago as a young mother working to get

freshness dates on food when you could look at the date on food and i know how important it is a consumers have access to health and safety information about the products that they purchase and use and that they are protected against harmful products. in 2008 the land where consumer product safety improvement act was signed into law by president bush. the bill was a product of broad bipartisan negotiation and mark the most significant reform of the cpsia and his responsibility in that case. also want to thank some of advocates in the room. appreciate their work to the bill passed the committee 51 do nothing in the house by 424-one that. it was slightly admitted again on a bipartisan basis in 2011. in the legislation gave the cpsc additional authority and resources so to become a consumer watchdog that americans

deserve and expect. i'm proud to have authored several provisions to go including the provision requiring mandatory standards and testing for infant and toddler products such as cribs and i cherished that i also successfully added to the reform bill a requirement for postage paid recall registration cards to be attached to products so that customers can be quickly notified their products are dangerous to the cpsc has been incredibly successful in its efforts to improve consumer protection over the last few years. there was a 34% reduction in children's product recalls. is from 2013-2014. and 75 children's product recalls and 2014 was the lowest number in more than a decade. thank you very much. we have seen enhance proactive outreach to provide consumers with information about the dangers and best practices associate with everything from window blinds to electric generators to lawnmowers. we have seen rulemaking reduce

the likelihood of preventable tragedies. i applaud the commission on its important work. while i'm disappointed we didn't move forward with his hearing undertake commissioner robinson was unable to appear i look for during the perspectives of the other commissioners about their work and next step in in the second that will provide analysis of h.r. 999, a ride act. am strongly opposed to this bill which would suspend cpsc statutory authority to complete the rulemaking affecting recreational off highway vehicles or rovs come until after the study is complete at the national academy of sciences. not clear to me why this study is needed. after all, the cpsc has gone through its regular rulemaking process on this issue taking into account the input of technical experts, private sector and the public. i'm not sure why the national academy of sciences would analyze the feasibility of among other things providing consumers with safety information at the

point-of-sale. market and consumer analysis is not its strong suit it also makes no sense at nas would be required to consider the impact of the rulemaking on rovs used in the military. cpsc is responsible for consumer products, not military vehicles. the proposed rule is irrelevant to military rovs. i believe this legislation is a delay tactic pure and simple that it would delay the implementation of the cpsc's commonsense consumer focused role to reduce rovs rollovers enhance safety and increase consumer information. it's not as if this will make it is moving too fast. the risk of our of the death is not a new one and the public comment period for the rv rulemaking is currently open. there's nothing preventing the supporters are making their concerns and their suggestions known. that's the way the process is supposed to work. will begin to work.

what we can do is usher in a long delay for the sake of delay. at 335, the 335 rv related deaths and 506 injuries from 2003-2013, i think it's time to act to enhance our the safeguard, not divans at that the cpsc. i cannot look forward to hearing from our witnesses. thank them for coming today and i yield back. >> the chair thanks the gentleman the. the chair recognizes the vice chair of the full committee ms. blackburn for an opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and want to say thank you to our witnesses. we appreciate that you are here. 2008 was really the year of the recall, and since that point in time we have been very interested in the work you are doing and have looked at your deliverables and to outcomes. one of the things that is of

tremendous concern to us, and i've got to tell you, i heard a lot about this during small business week which was just a couple of weeks ago. when i was out and about in my district visiting with small businesses, visiting with some retailers and there are a lot of complaints that are coming about the way you all are going about your task and some of the unnecessary burdens that are being put on retailers and on businesses and changes and reporting requirements. and i've got to tell you. i think there's a lot of unhappiness with the american public and how you doing her job i would say there's probably some confusion as to what your mission statement is and how you reading that. now, i think it's fair to say that i look at the cost of business and the cost to consumers and a cost benefit

analysis, what we want to do is to drill down with you a little bit. we share the same goals being certain that the supply chain is safe, that products are safe when consumers get those products. there are different ways to go about this and we want to make certain that there is an accountability issue a transparency issue, and a fairness issue or standards that are being met. so we will have questions and we will move forward. i also want to take a moment and welcome our former colleague, commissioner buerkle. it is wonderful to see you back in these halls and it is wonderful to see you back in a hearing room and we appreciate the work that you are doing. and with that, mr. chairman, i'm going to yield the balance of my time to mr. pompeo for a statement. >> thank you, madam vice chair

the. look, thank you all for being here today chairman kaye and your colleagues for coming today. we have this obligation just as you do to make sure that cpsc statutory limited in a way both legal appropriate and the economics and safety balance just right. i think with respect to the rov rules that you all are put forward there's lot of work we can be. industry is prepared to try to get to a good outcome that is a better place in the rulemaking that is proceeding. i was out last week too. i was on an rov vehicle on kansas into which. wore my helmet, did all the things i'd done the near to tell about it which is good i hope we can get this right. of legislation i proposed isn't aimed at the link to it is line. it is indicating to come. it may cause more time thoughtfulness, work to be done but i hope we can get that right, that we can get the best science and best engineering associate with you getting these

rules in the right place and get a voluntary standard put that industry can do the right thing and get these vehicles in a safe place to the right people. i hope and look for to working with you to see if we can't achieve. without i will yield back my time spent i thank the gentleman and does any other member seek the balance of my time? none so doing i yield back. >> the gentlelady yield's back. the chair recognizes the democratic side for an opening statement. >> country if i could just submit for the record mr. pallone's opening statement. >> here and also -- >> without objection, so ordered. that concludes open status. picture reminds members opening statements will be made a part of the record. we would not hear from our witnesses. i want to welcome all of our witnesses and thank you for

taking time to testify before the subcommittee. today's it will consist of two panels can each panel will have the opportunity to give an opening statement followed by a round of questions from members. once we conclude questions with the first panel we will take a brief, underscore brief recess to set up for the second panel. our first panel today we have the following witnesses testifying on behalf of the consumer product safety commission, chairman elliot kaye, chairman of the consumer product safety commission. thank you for your attendance. commissioner robert adler, and we welcome you to the subcommittee. commission and maria buerkle thank you, it's good to see it again, give me confidence there's an afterlife, and commission joseph mohorovic thank you so much for your attendance today. we are honored to all of you today. chairman kaye, we will begin you will begin angel recognized for five minutes. >> good morning chairman and dr. burgess ranking member

schakowsky out and members of the subcommittee. thank you for the invitation to come speak about the work of the united states consumer product safety commission and our proposed budget for fiscal year 2016. i am pleased to be joined by my friends and colleagues from the commission, commissioner adler, commissioner buerkle and commissioner mohorovic. our vital health and safety mission touches us all in some way every day. from the parents of the baby a gently moves his or her child throughout the day from crib to baby bouncer to stroller and back again to the crib or the self-employed millennial who want a warm spring day relies on. ruthann to stay cool and an extension cord to power a computer, to the baby boomer who purchase adult benadryl to help care for an aging parent, a product in our jurisdiction are inseparable from our lives. we believe we provide an excellent return on investment

for the american people. we run a lean operation and to cover thousands of different kinds of consumer products with a budget in the millions, not billions. we are very appreciative of the continued bipartisan support for the commission and our work. we saw the support any overwhelming nearly unanimous vote to pass the consumer product safety improvement act of 2008 and the new unanimous passage of an update to cpsia in 2011. your support has allowed our dedicated staff to drive standards development to make children's product safety to increase our enforcement effectiveness and to better educate consumers about products related hazards. our staff has also been hard at work to try to reduce cost associate with third party testing while also assuring compliance with the law. congress inclusion of the $1 million as part of her funding to the current fiscal year as enhances those efforts. i empathize prioritizing those actions most likely to provide the greatest amount of relief especially to small businesses.

we are set to consider at least three different regular changes to provide relief this fiscal year with more in the works. while the burden reduction proceeds our continued efforts to carry out and enforced cpsia enhancements to consumer product safety commission to in our proposed budget. unfortunately, not all of those priorities and requirements are achievable at our current levels. for that reason we are pleased to see the president included in his budget to important consumer product safety commission is both if funded will advance consumer safety and provide real value to those in industry making more important safe product. first we are seeking permanent funding mechanism to allow the agency to comply with the congressional charged in section 222 of the cpsia. section 222 calls on the commission to work with customs and border protection and develop a risk assessment

methodology to identify the consumer products likely to violate any of the acts we enforce out of all the consumer products imported into the united states. to meet our mandate in 2011 we created a small-scale pilot that has been a success. however, the pilot alone does not fulfill the direction of congress and without full implementation we will not be able to integrate cps the into the much larger u.s. governmentwide effort to create a single window for import and export file of all products. if cpsc can be sold integrated into the single window we can transform carcasses vision of a national scope risk-based data driven screening at the ports into reality. our reality that would mean faster entry for importers of compliant products and safer products enhance of american consumers. car proposed budget seeks to address critical, emerging and safety question associate with

the rapidly growing use of nanomaterials into consumer products. in light of the questions raised in the scientific community about the effects of certain nanoparticles might have on human lungs concerned that's an unidentified similars to assess its exposure from consumer products. finally, i would like to discuss an additional priority of mine one that is not reflected in dollars but to me at least makes a lot of sense. how we at the cpsc do we do this often just as important as what we do. since day one in this position i worked daily to try to establish a certain culture among the five of us at the commission level to the commission and more importantly american public are far better served by an agency we operate at the commission level in a culture of civility,

collaboration and constructive dialogue. thank you again for the invitation to speak you by the cpsc and the life-saving work undertaken by our staff. i look forward to answering questions you may have. >> a chair thanks the gentleman. the chair recognizes the gentlelady ms. buerkle, for her statement. >> thank you mr. chairman, and good morning, mr. chairman, and ranking member schakowsky and distinguished members of this committee. thank you for holding today's hearing with regard to the consumer product safety commission. i had the honor of serving alongside me a decent gaming members in the 112th congress and i'm delighted to be back here on capitol hill in my capacity as a commissioner at the cpsc. i do hope today's hearing strengthens our partnership to keep consumers say from unreasonable risk an injury. i've been a commission at the agency since july 2013. throughout this time we've continued -- would continue to

press because of the dedication of the staff. admission of safety is taken very seriously. the regulated community has also impressed me not only with her eagerness to understand and comply with all regulations also with their entrepreneurial drive to innovate and advanced safety. i am thankful for the toned set our chairman and joined by my colleagues. we often offer -- those differences are discussed in a mutually respected manager as the commission i will stress through general priorities collaboration, education and balance. number one it is crucial that cpsc build strong relationships with all stakeholders. if the lines of two medications are open we can tap the knowledge insight and expertise of many outside experts. this is especially important indicates of the regulated community. it would inspire cooperation rather than hostility we will seek quicker introduction of safety design as well as timely removal of defective products

come all to the benefit of the consumer. that is why i'm deeply troubled regarding the discussion of higher civil penalties, changes to important programs known as retailer reporting, and the proposals known as voluntary recall. without question i believe these undermine engagement collaborative efforts. number two, education. it's crucial to our mission. we need to make the regulated community aware of best practices and be honest regarding what we are intending to achieve more for the we need to engage the consumer. helping them to avoid hidden hazards and take advantage of safer products that are available to them. a prime candidate for a comprehensive education campaign is the issue of window coverings. increase awareness and education will prevent many unfortunate injuries and deaths. number three, while consumer safety is our top priority i believe that that safety can be achieved in a balanced reasonable way that does not unnecessarily burden the

regulated community, deprive consumers of products they prefer, or insert government into the market where it does not belong to our statute expressed a strong preference for voluntary standards rather than mandatory standards that were mandatory standards are unable we are to find the least burdensome solution that adequately addresses the risk of mandatory standards have unintended consequences. they tend to stagnate while the world of consumer products evolves rapidly. it makes sense to revisit i will periodically and make sure they are effective without stifling innovation. i am pleased that the commission voted unanimously last week for retrospective review of the rules and they do hope it will become a more regular activity of the commission. regulation is a nested function of the government and the consumer product safety improvement act strengthens the authority to it is clear that cpsia went too far in some respects forcing regulation with out regard to risk my phone calls. the subcommittee of the way and

moderate some of the consequences to its work on h.r. 2750 which passed the law while i was in the monastic some objectives of the low remain unfulfilled. last year the house include $1 million in our 2015 appropriations thanks to represent blackburn. there is still much more we can do to remove unnecessary regulatory burdens in this agreement and they do look forward to working with this committee on those unresolved cpsia issues. the common goal among all those, congress, cpsc come industry and consumers is safety. we are all people who have families from product. i have six children and 16 grandchildren i didn't want dangerous products hurting them or anyone. however, the united states government cannot and should not try to create a zero risk society. the solutions we seek should be

balanced and address actual problems. consumers should be protected from unreasonable risks while the regulated community is protected from arbitrary government. thank you for the stunted and to do look forward to taking any questions you might have. thank you, mr. chairman. >> a chair thanks the gentleman the recognizes commissioner adler, five minutes for an opening statement. >> good morning, chairman burgess, ranking member schakowsky and the distinguished members of the subcommittee. thank you for the opportunity to appear along with my fellow commissioners today. i'm pleased to be able to testify about an agency that i can associate with in some fashion since its establishment 40 years ago. at the outset i would point out that we are far and away the smallest of the federal health and safety agencies with the current funding level of 123 million a staff of roughly 560. i want to put that in perspective. for fy 2016 we've asked for an appropriation of $129 million which is an increase of roughly

$6 million. by way of comparison our sister agency fda disaster roughly $4.9 billion in fy 2016 which is an increase of roughly $148 million, or to the courses include them at dhs has asked for an increase that is larger than our entire budget. notwithstanding our modest budget, our jurisdictional scope is extreme and wide encompassing roughly 15,000 categories of consumer products found in homes, stores, schools and recreational settings. given its this broad jurisdiction the agency has adopted a thoughtful database approach using its highly skilled technical staff to figure which products present the greatest risk. we address them using our regulatory and educational tools in a way designed to minimize market disruption while always making consumer safety our top priority. we don't operate alone. we have always sought to include our first stakeholder partners

in a quest to reduce or eliminate unreasonable risk. included our friends in the business and consumer communities as well as vendors standards development bodies that work closely with the agency. and i want to know to looking from the perspective of 40 years just so much good work has been done. there's been estimated 30% decline in the rate of deaths and injuries associated with consumer products over this 40 years. and let me just cite a few statistics particularly pertaining to children. over this period of time we've seen and 83% drop in childhood poisoning, 73% drop in crib death, 86% reduction in baby walker injuries and an almost complete elimination of childhood suffocation in refrigerators. i would also like to mention the tremendoustremendoustremendous strides the agencies they can get them in product safety improvement act which has been noted was approved by the house by a vote of 424-1 signed

by president bush on august 4, 2008. among the things we've done to them both a lot we been forced stringent limits on that and phthalates in children's products. we promulgated the strongest safety standard or cribs in the world. we made mandatory a comprehensive voluntary toy standard. with britain and continue to write a series of standards for durable infant products like play arch and strollers and we develop new approaches to catching dangers of imported products which we hope to expand. since i last appeared before this committee the commission has experienced a significant turnover in numbers. in fact, i am the last one standing. although i miss my former colleagues, i'm pleased to welcome as new colleagues chairman elliot kaye and commissioner robinson, buerkle and content are simply put they are a joy to work with. they brought new perspective and insights that are fresh and and sharpen my thinking on a host of issues that have done so in a way that has brought a new era

of civility to the agency. we certainly disagree. vigorously sometimes on issues but we listen to and we trust one another in ways i have not seen at this agency in many many years. final point, mr. chairman. i'd like to reiterate my concern about a set of issues that surround a critical demographic data don't think has received enough attention over the past number of years and that is senior citizens, a group of which i am a proud member. cpsc data shows that the kosovo population after kids as adults over 65. i note this is a rapidly growing group doing comedy to the aging of baby boomers and the greater longevity of our citizens. an interesting statistic. the are more of us in the over 65 age group in this country than there are people in canada. but what particularly troubling to me is that seniors while comprising only 13% of the population account for 65% of

our consumer product related deaths. and by 2020 day we will be 20% of the u.s. population. so given my concern but i was acting chair i worked with with staff to create the senior safety initiative which is ongoing and which i hope to the congress include and hope to work with you. thank you for your time and i look forward to your questions. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes commissioner mohorovic for five minutes. >> thank you chairman burgess ranking member schakowsky, many of the committee. i appreciate the opportunity to be here today. i will keep my opening remarks very very brief and focused on only one element of evolving cpsc policy and that is our import surveillance. this is what i think we can dramatically improve both our efficiencies as well as our effectiveness. while we develop our strategy to better target legitimate inbound consumer products i believe cpsc can and should do more to

facilitate legitimate trade through public-private partnership. with those importers voluntarily willing to subject to compliance processes to greater scrutiny, not unlike similar programs at cbp, tsa and fda. i can envision a modernize import surveillance program were harmful and noncompliant consumer goods are intercepted and rejected while legitimate cargo is identified and carried to the stream of commerce without disruption. this concept a trusted the programming model moves beyond incremental increases in targeting to a moral default account base understand the importers demonstrated commitment to making safe products. but if you don't cpsc's trust traders would undergo intensive scrutiny including thorough reviews of their supply chain competencies, and have to empirically demonstrate a culture of compliance reflecting the highest standards. membership would have its

privileges. to attract applicants can trusted trader status would offer fewer inspections and faster more predictable time-to-market but should a traitor violate the trust we place in them the government's response would be swift and sure. no discussion of cpsc import surveillance is complete without addressing the $36 million annual funding level we outlined in the most recent budget request and the user these we hope will pay for it. i am not entirely convinced of the legality of the use of the mechanism. moreover, while i'm generally supportive of what we want to spend that money ought i look forward to further discussions with our staff to develop a more nuanced understanding of that expenditure. however my potential support for that spending whether from user fees or from appropriation is predicated on implementation of a properly resourced trusted trader program that is capable of tracking robust agency.

difficult as from a modicum particularly the comes from the very importers whose chip and we're rooting around in, we need to spend some of that money making life easier for the contractors. if we can develop the confidence necessary to take those good actors shipments out of our haystack, finding the needle will be that much easier. thank you mr. chairman. >> the chair thanks the gentleman. the chair would note it appears the era of good feelings is now settled upon the consumer product safety commission. you all referenced how well do work together, so that is come that chair takes that as a good sign as we move forward. and again i want to thank you all for being in our hearing. we will now move into the question portion of the hearing and each member five minutes for questions, and chairman kaye let me begin and again, thank you for your willingness to be your come and apologize about us having to reschedule during a

snow day kind of an unexpected snowfall in march that caught a lot of us by surprise. but thank you for flexibility and rescheduling. the budget for fiscal year '16 requests, the commission requests, new commission authority to impose undefined user fees on importers. i think i've already shared with you i have some misgivings about that and would with the welcome further discussion from the commission has to have these user fees, not just how they are collected but how they are dispersed or are they paid into the treasury and then subject to appropriations by the appropriations committee, or are they fees that are retained within the agency for use within the agency? so i would like some clarification about that. and i would just remind the members we are in an appropriations season to the

appropriations for the consumer product safety commission i believe it comes to the financial services appropriations bill, so we all will want to be vigilant about that and make certain that we do the attention to the agency during the appropriations. but there is the risk assessment methodology which is a pilot program to assess hazardous imports. in the commission's performance budget request to congress a targeted percentage of entries sampled is identified through the pilot system for fiscal year 2015 but is only labeled baseline, and fiscal year '16 the target is to be decided. so are we on the brink of nationalizing a pilot program where we don't know the metrics for inspection and evaluation? >> thank you, mr. chairman. .com we are tough but not on the brink of nationalizing the program, even though the government is on the brink of nationalizing the single window

requiring electronic filing which is a big reason why the cpsc is trying to is part. we want to make sure as close as possible by december 2016 when the system that customs and border protection runs to receive electronic filing is up and running effort is truly one single window that we are not creating an unnecessary disruption to the market by not being a part of that. but as we envision in our appropriations request, if a permanent funding mechanism one way or another would allow the agency to collect and retain the funds solely for the purpose of funding this program but it wouldn't be used for any other reason. is a long history of agencies with the board authority doing this. we took the time to study those other agencies to work with the office of management and budget to come up with what was the preferred method to not reinvent the wheel so that cpsc could do its part with the single window. >> some of the activities of the other agencies and departments

that event the genesis for my concern about this. and again we are coming into the appropriations tiger i want us to be careful about how we approach things. but on the single window issue, and commissioner mohorovic perhaps you can address this as well on the committee in the 110th committee, that's the commitment to that reauthorization of the cpsc and the toy safety bill. i became concerned that we did hit. chairman rush was sitting in this chair at the time, but that was the year that so many things were important to the country and found to be problematic. so there didn't seem to be away to stop things before they came in and in the concern became what happens to all this stuff in warehouses that's offloaded by longshoremen and long beach, california and then where is it going to end up. nobody seems to be talking of shipping back to the point of origin and sing you deal with it either country that should have sent this to us in the

first place because your attention was lax. so are we any better off today than we were in 2007-2008 as far as containing things that committedcomeinto the country that may be hazardous? >> and to dr. burgess. in short i do think we are in a much better position today than we were before. one of the points that i remind folks of the is the fact i the only nonlawyer on this commission so i think in terms of metrics from my formal education being the only nba. i think in terms of risk return on investment. so in applying that to the public service i think about safety return on investment. i'm committed to the fact that the investment and the evolution of our import targeting activity and the sophistication of those strategies is the greatest safety return on investment that we can apply in terms of our resources and our budget. it completely bypasses the

difficulties that you mentioned mr. chairman with regards to recall effectiveness, et cetera and it will ensure we don't have to learn from that experience. of course, before us we have the potential to scale up into a nationalized program a very significant program. do i believe that we have a proof of concept, and we have reason to move forward based on the success of our pilot project? and the question the answer for me is absolutely. but again i think we got to look at it more closely, the significant i.t. so it will be able to yield the kind target and target effectiveness we hope to achieve as well as the operationalization. prior to doing the agency i was in the assessment is a part of the testing community for eight years so i figured scale up massive supply chain testing operations, and with that you'd expect to see significant economies of scale. that's something i've yet to see

in terms of some of the operational scope that we've identified but i'm sure for the communication will identify that spent and i'm certain that it will and may even industry. i will yield back my time recognize the gentlelady from illinois. >> thank you, mr. chairman. commissioner adler, like you i identify as a senior citizen, and wonder what you anticipate will be or what already is a part of this commission's senior safety initiative speaks well, thank you very much for the question. the first thing i would like to announce is that we are participating in a 2015 healthy aging some which is sponsored by hhs which will be held on july 27 and july 28 and the commission will be there in a listening mode. so the agency is committed to senior safety initiatives. one of the things that i have -- asked the staff to do is look at mechanical hazard because that seems to be the area where seniors suffer the most, and one

of the issues that we addressed was what can you do with respect to senior citizens when there are other citizens were not senior citizens using the same products speak with what do you mean by mechanical hazard? >> falls, songs, cats, lacerations, things along those lines. and so what the staff has done is a very smart thing to do but to see unicast better intended for senior citizen such as bed rails and these panic buttons that seniors where if they fall. the next thing they love that is products that present disproportionate risk for seniors but also present unreasonable risks to the public at large. a product or i would say would be table sauce but even with respect to products with the commission might find there is disproportionate injury to seniors the staff is looking into areas where we can at least

alert seniors that this particular risk of harm and their caregivers as well. so i think it's fairly comprehensive program that we are doing come and i'm delighted the steps we've taken with this with such enthusiasm spent as the co-chair of the task force let's stay in touch on them. i'm really interested. i wanted to get to the issue of flammability standards. i know the consumer by safety commission has the authority under the flammable fabric act to issue standards, and i know the are some promulgated flammability standards and including some children's products that it's possible, and it looks likely come have contributed significant use of flame retardant chemicals that present health risk or the

"chicago tribune" which wasn't our reporter about this the average american it is one with the highest recorded levels of flame retardants among infants in the world. i do know recent studies have linked flame retardant chemicals to a wide variety of adverse health effects immune toxicity, reproductive toxicity, developmental effects neurological function and cancer et cetera. my question come if we have any studies or information demonstrating that flammability standards promulgated by cpsc reduce incidents of fire related injuries and they get any plans to revisit to find out if the issue of the flame retardant themselves is a danger? >> think you congresswoman to i don't know if i can do justice to the topic in minute 23 but i

will do my best. commission address pointing to beginning thanks in large part to the argument and the cpsc staff overtime and i believe this is attributable to some of the flammability standards a special with close attention to pajamas there's been a reduction of fire related incidents. issue you're getting at though is flame retardant's. to what extent does that any impact on i'm not aware that flame retardants have been proven to be effective and i'm certainly aware of the studies you are talking about are only some of the studies that go to the potential health concern and i can say to you that it bothers me even more than as a regulator, it bothers me as a parent of two young chart that there has to be this uncertainty about products we interact with any chemicals that might be considered a perfect example is a couch but most people don't view a couch as potential hazardous product but if it's true that the flame retardant have ended up getting in the

dust and chilled at sunoco undercarriages dust and chilled at sunoco undercarriages can put their heads in the mouth come if it's true but that's not a very negative impact on the health of children that's a significant concern of ours. >> and uncertain usefulness in reducing flames, flammability. >> corrector one of the things i've tried to do is talk to our sister agencies have overlapping jurisdictions in similar interest in this area to try to get working more cohesively to address this uncertainty i think consumers deserve to know answers to questions as quickly as possible. >> what are the other agencies speak with epa fda cdc and the national toxicology program as part of the national institutes of health and the national institute of environmental health sciences. >> thank you. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentlelady from tennessee for five minutes of questioning. >> thank you, mr. chairman. chairman kaye, let me come to you first.

commissioner buerkle mentioned in reference to million dollars in my amendment put into advancing the consumer product safety improvement act act and i just want to ask you what you all have done to reduce that third party testing requirement where you are in the process how are you putting that million dollars to work? >> thank you for the $1 million. it certainly made a big difference. s&s the $1 million was appropriated we moved at the the commission level an amendment to our operating plans to allocate $1 million to seven different projects we had identified by merely based on stakeholder feedback but also with discussions at the commission level to try to get to this issue. and so where we are now is there's three projects a staff is close to sending up to the commission for us to vote on to try to provide some of the really good as i mentioned in my opening statement my direction has been to prioritize those actions that will have the

widest potential benefit to small businesses. >> let me ask you this. in your letter to senator thune you identified three areas for the determinations of lead content, finding international toy standards, and then guidance allowing for third party testing exemptions. are those three areas you speak no. those are three separate areas we continue to work on and have discussions with transport and total you're talking about 10 different projects. >> okay, commissioner mohorovic, do you want to respond? >> i would love to thank you. it's perfectly logical to wonder why with a full commitment of the entire commission be in reducing third party desperate what we have achieved very little in terms of result and that's because we were replying to these proposals in unreasonable interpretation of our statute. this language consistent with assuring compliance, the problem is very quickly inconsistent with established policy.

if you look at the component part testing world which was noncontroversial -- >> end date bureaucratic quagmire. >> absolutely. >> they can't get to the outcomes because you still talking among yourselves speak with not into a change that standard. >> what's the timeline for getting it finished its we want to finish so when will you have it finished? >> we will have three and the next few months that and more to come after that spent give me -- what do you mean speak with i think within june will have the first and then two more by september. >> so that's going to be your deliverable. let me ask you something else. i mentioned being out a lot of dissatisfaction and the way you're going about the 1110 role all the public comment except one was against the that. but i think what i am hearing is you move forward with a little bit more of the heavy hand in which he would represent to us.

you say you want to be engaging the industry and want to be collaborative but the feedback i am getting it is those are your words but your actions are much more heavy-handed, that you determined what you want as the outcome. thereby come you going to let people think they are participating but in the end you are the rule maker edu-con to get your way. ..