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. ..

i was not the chairman when i came up and it is not permanent work. when i became chairman of h.r. staffing were taken to make sure be redoing more collaborative vacation in psp like are you still advance it not? >> it is not within right now. it is in part in the spirit it is completely positive and we have been working with stakeholder community through an advisory panel on the issue of the single window and imports. we are running a pilot that will come out in a few and we are trying to get it right. we are having this exact collaborations. >> okay, my time is out. i've got one other question, but i will submit the question to you in writing. i thank you can yield back. >> a chair now recognizes the

gentleman said from texas for five minutes. >> i think the chair. a special welcome to a former house colleague. good to see you again. i want to talk about nanotechnology. as in 1985 graduate of rice university in houston, texas we are proud that two of our professors robert crowe and richard smalley won the nobel prize in nanotechnology. in fact dr. smalley tapis chemistry 102. chairman king a regular letter february 25th about this issue. the fact year budget request for 5 million more for technology research center 85% of the post-budget increase my eye. i appreciate the response in i ask unanimous consent to buy a letter in response to the

record. >> without objection, so ordered. >> thank you. a 200 a few questions to clarify the record. he said the recent trend to name million is for research centers. it has identified gaps regarding disclosure of current consumer products. he elaborated on what these are. >> absolutely. not all that we've identified the data gaps it is the larger nanotechnology initiative, the nni the collaboration from the federal government for all agencies to work together commonly nni working groups and identify the data gap and it goes to understanding the exposure from consumer products that nano materials in them.

and every time the child hits the ball come in the nanoparticles fire off in the near expresses. >> the robust message to characterize materials. what defines a robust testing method? >> that is what i leave to our toxicology spirit this is what we've been working on in conjunction with the national science foundation as well as manufacturers and agencies to help get the style. i can't decide what reaches that

threshold but i think we've got the technical expertise that our staff level to make the determination. >> in your letter you expect to establish the research center with 12 senior scientist on the 15 technicians 10 postdoctoral students and 12 graduate students. these come from the current staff or outside? >> they would come from outside is part of the funding. >> how much expertise is the current staff have on these issues? they've been working since 2011. >> we have a thin bench. we had a phenomenal toxicologists who is a representative with the other agencies on the nni, but admittedly it is not a deep bench and that is why we are not trying to govern the more costly way and try to hire internally and procure a bunch of expensive test materials. we are trying to be the more

cost efficient way and pursue it through the nsf. >> what kind of interactions you have the stakeholders? >> through the nni working groups is a good amount of interaction. >> mna means other agencies with yourselves so that's pretty much a primary agencies? what other agencies? >> department of defense, homeland security's. i >> back to my questions. i yield my statements and take a rocket spirit they make the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes mr. guthrie from kentucky. five minutes for questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i was preparing for the hearing today and i talked about commissioner buerkle and i showed up and it do. glad to have you back. i always really enjoyed serving with you as mr. pompeo and i spent four years of our life in the city of new york to talk about what was going on back

there. when we were serving together at tableside manufactures in my district and i understand the cpsc has begun a special study of national electronic injury surveillance to obtain information about the type of sauce involved in incidents with other information about incidents. the study began july 2014 and it concerns me because it seems to me and i'm not sure but it seems to me no outrage just to members of the industry by the cpsc for this study and for years the industry has worked cooperatively and the industry could have been of value. mr. buerkle, were there any manufactures regarding the special study? >> thank you. good to be back on capitol hill. in fact, the specific request was made we would reach out to industry and allow them to

participate and be a part of the survey and it did not happen. you know i think that goes to the point i made earlier about collaboration and outrage. it is incumbent on the agencies to make sure we have these combinations of industry beforehand. we engage with them so they go forward and get the right information. i will say that if a data collection system that we use and to develop less of a lot of very helpful information. so to that end, that is an important project. haven't stakeholder project is critical. >> a lot of them are concerned about mandating certain technologies, particularly patent questions mandating a specific technology in the federal standard. the patterns have been concerned over the years and is the commission aware that there are

140 patents related to the proposed technology to mandate this technology on all table saws? >> are referring to question to me? >> yes, ma'am. >> let me say this. my colleague commissioner adler, this is his project. i don't mean to pass about because this is not a priority of mine nor do i think it should be a priority agency. the pakistan concerns i have tremendous concerns. it's not a project quite frankly there should be a priority of the agency right now. >> you recently stated for mr. mr. pompeo the fall basis for cap recommendation to the bad of the most widely used chemicals was a cumulative risk offense meant which bound the majority citizens recommendation and associated with the chemicals was from another chemical deh v. can you explain concerns for

using such regulatory determination. >> thank you. the whole proposed rule is that the great concern to me. it has been a concern since the chap issued its report because i believe the report should have been subject to public peer review at that point. from that point on the system and the whole process had been flawed. the cumulative risk assessment you are talking about is one of my concerns in that the process he used that is not well accepted in the scientific community cumulative risk assessment. that goes to the process the validity and integrity. more importantly and certainly another grave concern i have is when they did their they did their review they used old data that was before cpsi a pin so that study is a relevant because

it doesn't use timely data. the commission has taken on analyzing more recent data and i have constantly and consistently sad and consistently sad and advocated that we put the findings in the analysis of the staff on the more current data out for public comment. it should be put out for at the 60 on the staff should comment on how they use the analysis relative to the proposed rule because in order to get comments from the public, we have to include the information in opportunity. >> are you concerned about cumulative data and do you believe it should be out for public comment? >> i agree with commissioner buerkle at the analysis should go out for public comment and i directed staff at the process to undertake the analysis and my hope is we would reach an agreement in the coming days when the staff is ready to put that out.

as far as the cumulative risk assessment, you have to respect the work of the chap because that's a statutory regiment setup in section one awake at the consumer improvement act. which by the way with the national academy of sciences is the leading experts around the world on this issue. and that is that they looked at. i respect the decision on their part. >> righthanders expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kansas mr. pompeo for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to talk about the rulemaking. he testified before the preparation that was held with the longest entry into history when many witnesses and i appreciate your taking the time to do that. we'll get the data right with the science and engineering and

technology to introduce a piece of legislation. i didn't see your name is nicole and r. sayre. you say it is something that would make sad to make sure the industry can get a set of voluntary standards that makes that. >> i know you've been interested and i appreciate that in the work of the cpsc. it's important to have this dialogue. they are the issue is one of great significance to the commission. similar to the work on directing staff to doing an analysis i directed staff to redouble efforts to engage with the voluntary standards effort to reach a solution. that is the preferred solution many of us would like to see if they can adequately address the hazard and be complied with. as far as the bill is concerned unfortunately i can't tell you what you want to hear.

>> you can just say it here. >> sounds like i could say it but based on where we are in our discussions, it is a well intended but unfortunately would have a negative impact for three reasons. i do want to call it a delay but it looks like a delay if it's not intended to be. every year we look at getting close to 80 deaths per year, many children associated. every year the issue is not addressed, through a robust voluntary standard or mandatory standard and that is something we should all be concerned about. second of all, there are real costs. every time there's a death from an impact on the community and society the $8 billion as our staff estimates from an economic stand point. if it's a two-year study and you talk about 150 deaths, that is at the billion dollars in society that was resulted from the an area from a timing perspective and i just had a

conversation here on the second panel before we came here. the staff in the voluntary standards body are really at a position that i don't think they've been out for many years where they are finally engaging in a sensitive technical discussion to resolve these issues. if this bill were to pass, it puts out for questions for two years one of the key areas industry and the staff are trying to solve now. i don't think that'll help the timing of it. >> i appreciate that. no one is advocating for delay in order to achieve the result. no one on this committee would. it's a bipartisan piece of legislation. industry wouldn't want that either. it is required. you have to get the data. we don't have the engineering and technology. bob franken on your staff that we have to look at the data and exposure over time might be possible to do something like

that but we have not done it. i am thrilled to hear that you are having discussions and making progress. that is a preferred solution for the cpsc and from my perspective as well would be a great outcome. i would hope you would be prepared to expend the rulemaking for a period of time. keep it out there is something that might happen in the event the discussion still go forward in the way that you have some optimism as to why. i would love to see you consider suspending the rulemaking or put it on hold while the discussion also part in u.k. get-together then so be it. which you at least consider that? >> item of the power unilaterally to suspend the rulemaking. i would say from my did i do think whether industry likes it or not one of the reasons we reached a situation where everybody tries to reach a solution everyone has properly

vented. from my perspective the fact the cpsc has taken it seriously and is prepared to move towards a mandatory standard has provided the conditions that have created the environment. i think it is incumbent upon us to keep moving forward. they do certainly weigh on me and that is something that would be a positive. >> i may or may not be the structure achieved by way of a deadline now for comments to come in. the comments will be critical for many in the industry that doesn't put. i want to keep it in a constructive way and i hope the deadline will create animosity where there's a chance to really get it right in stabilizing at the road right. but that mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the gentlelady from indiana for questions. >> thank you mr. chairman. indiana has a large presence of

manufactures the state can make everything from strollers and car seats and i first heard about the challenges they face with regard to redundant testing requirements. they do nothing to advance safety that could have been spent on r&d in these companies and your manufacturer told me recently that product safety improvement act was passed and they spent $12.5 million in testing costs alone. that is because they not only have to test every platform that the products are on but every sku as well. not only an average of $8900 to test every new stroller or cradle design, but they have to spend an extra $1000 to test every new paint color as well. we all agree the safety of our

children is of utmost importance and should be compromise. however, we have to draw the right balance and ensure companies have the resources to do further r&d and ensure the products are safer. with this in mind what action undertaken to provide relief to companies with respect to these third-party testing requirements? >> this has been discovered and i don't want to get commissioner moder wrote a upset, but they are testing for services required. working with small businesses than in any of the numbers of small businesses and issues to reach out to neil colin of the cpsc because he can work with

companies and to find out whether or not they really need certain testing. what he says is here are some general guidance is an questions you should be asking, does a phenomenal job of empowering companies and that is done a huge way to addressing issues. >> thank you commissioner. >> thank you congresswoman. what you will get us a lot of the dodging tactics in the agency to explain why we haven't achieved much in terms of measurable outcomes and reducing the cost and burden of third-party testing. we have all of the resources we need. we have the legal authority. we just like the will to enact very many of the policies and suggestions before the agency. we can blame the testing labs retailers. we can dodge and weave as long as we want but as i said

earlier, it is frustrating for me particularly because it? alignment. it is so inconsistent with the policy. if we apply the same appreciation for risk tolerance than we did in the testing prior rule, we would have all the emphasis and staff would recommend countless means to reduce without any adverse health or safety impact. >> thank you. chairman kaye a million dollars of your 2015 budget was to be advocated to reducing the need to send duplicate of burden. can you explain what actions we've taken in leading the commission to fulfill that role? how have you reached out what do companies expect to see from the release if we have mandated that in your budget. >> sure. one of the limitations and i agree with commissioner mohorovic but we have a lot of what we need. it's a one-time appropriation which means we cannot count.

it's not prudent to hire a bunch of people without knowing how you'll pay for them in following fiscal years. most of the money has gone through contracting. the contract with organizations and technical work to figure out if there is possibility for relief. our staff has to take the work. there has to be resources internally to turn the work around and it something actionable. the three areas i mentioned response to congresswoman blackburn's questions is the exact relief. looking at natural word on whether or not if you use natural wood alone you have to test for certain heavy metals required by law. we keep trying to check off the list of materials and products that you don't actually have to test it to avoid these costs. that is the theme in terms of engagement and deliberation we pursue to make it worth the while. >> thank you.

mckenna said. >> the chair recognizes the ranking member of the full committee mr. pallone for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my question is there have been concerning reports of young athletes that have non-hodgkin's lymphoma and other blood cancers and also than playing sports on athletic fields that are filled with crumb rubber coming from tires which often contains cancer chemicals. this past october i wrote to the agency for toxic substances and disease registry next-line and i believe research is needed into whether synthetic turf athletic fields increased the risk of lymphoma, leukemia and other blood cancers. the agency replied the arabs supporting efforts in this area. yet in 2008 the commission released a statement saying fields filled with crumb rubber are okay to install and i was pleased to hear more recently a spokesperson next lane to pass in a statement does not reflect

your current views. i just want to ask him is to correct your views are not reflected in the 2008 report and do you agree additional research is necessary to determine whether crumb rubber used in synthetic turf present then the health dangers and also the commission committed to working with other federal agencies to obtain the information and ensure young athletes on these fields are protect day. >> thank you congressman for your leadership on this area. i will try to address all three. you are absolutely correct to 2008 release does not affect my views and i think it is important to note 2008 didn't even reflect as far as i understand the technical staff view at the time there was a political effort and the time of the commission to say something that may not actually reflect the state of play that those products are safe. there's a big difference in looking at the exposure of blood

that might exist in determining based on a small sample size the staff was not able to say there were disconcerting levels of lead in those fields and that particular aspect. that is very different from saying these things are safe to play on. safety play i mean something to parents that we don't intend to convey or should have conveyed. the answer to the second question is absolutely we work with federal partners to figure out a better and faster way working together to see if an issue such as crumb rubber can be resolved more quickly. we are working with epa nih through their research in north carolina, national institute of environmental health sciences cdc and also the fta. we try to figure out a way for the government to come together coming as existing resources and authority to address issues.

parents don't care which acronym named agency is supposed to do why. they just want answers and they want uncertainty resolved. the third question, i can't remember what the third one was 51 minus convey again. >> i think you're basically trying to find out what your view is and what the commission is doing and whether you are working with other federal agents on the issue. thank you very much. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from illinois, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. nice to have you in front of the committee. mr. chairman it seems that banning a cab and all that has been deemed safe by other government agencies opens the door to the use of substitutes far less betting and went far further data available, is the agency prepared to deal with the

market and potential safety repercussions of transitioning from well tested phthalates to the uncertainty associated with potential substitutes? >> escape into some of the answers from congressman cologne. as the larger issue of a public policy matter unfortunately the concept to get to his regrettable substitution where one chemical is banned and we don't have a full sense from a scientific safety perspective at the substituting chemical will be. i think the better approach in this can be done working with industry and would be something i would like to see happen for the government to come together to not only focus on which chemicals should be used by today to a faster way to figure out which chemicals should be used. as a public policy matter, that is my preference. unfortunately neither the resources or authorities that agencies have been going in for a long time are moving in that direction. as part of the collaborative efforts i undertaken we tried to undertake with these other agencies, that is one of the key

goals we are looking at. >> until we get to the point where we have the perfect system, we have to be careful when we advocate banning substances. we don't have a situation in place or we can do all the studying of alternatives. we have to be very careful. following the phthalate rulemaking commissioner buerkle noted in her position as we studied when little is known about the substitutes. you said you agree with that. commissioner buerkle, what is the idea of banning something with unknown substances. >> thank you for your question. as you know that was one of my concerns for the npr cannot that we are now proposing substitutes and we know less about the chemicals already banned. my more general concern with regard to the shop and commentary today and previous

statements was the whole process for how they cap report was done and not the proposed rule. i think we really need to take a step back, whether regarding chemicals or any of the things we do we are a data driven agency. to make sure we have the data correct and make sure the processes we follow are correct in the entire scientific community can accept as credible is very key to our agency and the credibility of our agency. the american people rely on information coming from us and what is important we get it right. if it takes a little more time and requires a request to congress that we can promulgate a rule in 180 days after the report was issued, so be it. make the request because it is incumbent upon our agency to get it right and take the time. >> i want to add to that especially to reiterate what you said and i understand in many

cases pending for 180 days. it's not the nanny of like to do but at the risk of getting something wrong versus getting something right if we have to go past the deadline republicans democrats, american come independence would all agree that the preferable way to go. some of the concerns we had there. chairman kaye, in the preamble for the proposed rule on voluntary recalls the trend has deliberately and unnecessary implied the provisions of their correction action plans. how many firms have deliberately and unnecessarily delayed the implementation of provisions of the corrective action plans? >> i will follow up and give you an answer to that. the voluntary recall was my colleagues know well at this point from our continued reiterations is not something

that's been a high priority for me. it has higher priorities saving lives. i'm not saying it is about mary. but it has not been something i spend a lot of time on. >> give me like an example. >> i can give you anecdotal examples. the agreements are voluntary so we reached a voluntary corrective action plan but the company and notice when they file quarterly reports that they are not doing what they said they were going to do. they are either not engaging on social media are not attempting to reach out and put forward the resources and effort they said they would. i would name the company even if i could. commissioner adler last week when this topic came up at a phenomenal suggestion where he asked our staff to spend a few months collecting the data and reporting back to the commission to see whether or not this is a real issue into mischer buerkle's point, we are data-driven and we will all be curious to see that.

>> i just want to point out if you throughout the entire system that is very data-driven. thank you all for being here. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma for questions, please. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you to the commissioners for taking the time to be here. i know you guys have a busy schedule. anytime you come to the hill you've got to be thrilled about that. we are all held accountable for statements made in sometimes when you are sad in a position, chairman, that you said your agency carries a pretty big stake in your statements can be devastating to people producing a product that depend on retail sales. would you agree with that? >> absolutely. i think about that all the time. a lot of thought goes into what i say. whether i say something like

that or not. >> i am holding in my hand a story that was published by an indianapolis news agency. it's as if a consumer west to see a gas can that contained a risk we would encourage them to select such a model essay provides a vital player for fire protection. that was made by your agency. are you familiar with that? >> i am. >> you agree with that? >> i'm sorry. i can't comment one way or another. >> your statements have an impact in the flavor masters we are talking about a wrongly sold in non-retail stores. are you familiar with that? >> i don't have any familiarity with gas cans other than talking to our staff -- >> someone on her staff made the statement. in our district, i had -- had

manufactures that produce retail gas cans. your agency came out and made a statement referring to retail gas cans and has nothing to do with retail gas cans. they are only regulated by osha and epa. once again, we are held accountable for what we said. your agency made a statement that could have possibly cost real people their jobs. does the trend to regulate commercial safety cans? >> the statement you are talking about i'm not sure it is consistent with the position our staff is taken in the voluntary standards capacity. >> okay, let's talk about that. you aware that commercial safety can with the flavor raster failed protocol? >> i'm not. >> but you made a statement.

your agency made the statement encouraging people to go out and buy a gas can from a retail store that doesn't even exist and the purpose is to keep children from being turned. these guys made a statement that failed that exact test. they met those standards. you don't see a problem with this? >> i see a problem with it what you are saying is 100% accurate. >> you guys did the press release. they said it failed. >> i understand that. i'm not familiar enough with the area you're talking about breaking the talking about why give you the answer you're looking for. why don't you get back if you are making a statement and since they affect real jobs in my district why do you get back with me and give me the

information so the next time your agency opens its mouth and gives a statement like that maybe they are informed about what they're saying. >> would you be willing to have a meeting with my staff and me? >> without question. statements like that hurt real people. >> my hope is to it try testing center where we have the technical expertise and walk through the gas cans. would you be willing to do that? >> absolutely away. but if i'm going to do that is what i'm saying is accurate, would like you to make another statement backing that appeared >> you got it. you have my commitment. if it turns out we said something -- >> it is not it. the statement says they appeared >> if we have something that is not accurate, you have my statement that i will say something accurate. i will say it. >> i yield back your thank you.

>> the jungle and brings up an excellent point. several years ago i took a field trip to the train to testing facilities than it was a very illuminating day. my understanding is you are a new headquarters now in the gentleman is quite right. a field trip of the subcommittee to the cpsc would be informative and instructive than half the commission as well as subcommittee members. we will see above the process. in addition to being chairman of the subcommittee and chairman of the house motorcycle caucus. going out to talk to the group after we passed the cpsia here in 2007 or 2008 there was a young man probably 12 or 13 years old who stood up and said mr. congressman if you promise

to give me my motorcycle back i promise i won't eat the battery anymore. use motorcycles until the technical corrections were enacted in made it difficult for the people who solved use motorcycles than the parts. we have to be careful about the unintended consequences. see no other members if you have a follow-up question? no further members wishing to ask questions. i want to thank you all for being here today. this will conclude our first panel and we will take a brief recess to set up for the second panel. thank you all for your time today. [inaudible conversations] >> welcome back.

the subcommittee will come back to order. i think you want for their patient and taking time to be here today. we are ready to move into her second panel for today's hearing and follow the same format during the first panel. each witness will be given five minutes for an opening statement followed by a round of questions for members. mr. ronald warfield. i have your buck. is that correct? ceo of safety consulting. ms. heidi carmichael from texas. thank you for being here today. ms. cheryl lobby -- how the cochair of the advertising and product risk management group and mr. eric prichard, executive vice president and general vice counsel for the recreational highway vehicle association.

we will begin their second panel. you're recognized for five minutes for the purpose of an opening statement, please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ranking members and members of the committee thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of h.r. 999. they are the end that examination it. my name is not warfield and i've experienced in dealing with safe and appropriate use of highway vehicles. first a bit of background. i was simply that the maryland state police as a police officer or trooper for over 23 years and retired in 1993. with regard to highway vehicle experience in 1885 i was trained and certified by the specialty vehicle institute of america instruct her. in 1989 and became an atv safety

institute or asi licensed instructor and i continue to be contracted by asi to train license and monitor other atv instruct jurors. with respect to recreation highway vehicle is known as are side-by-side i am assisted several agencies including military and government groups and developing primary rlv training programs off-highway appropriation approved training programs in december 2010. i currently serve as chief rlv driver, trainer and other training facility at my farm in maryland which has been designated as a driver coach training center and that is one of only three in the entire united states. on a personal note, i've logged over 900 hours as an operator of

my personal our own fee since 2006. i currently own two utilized primarily for training and two more utilized for daily facility maintenance at my training center. i participate in the development of the rov basic driver course curriculum which is designated for current perspective recreational vehicle drivers. the basic driver course is a training opportunity that provides current and experienced rov drivers the chance to learn and practice basic skills. it addresses operation and emphasizes safety awareness related to specific operation. the overall aim of the course is to provide for drivers development in the area of scale and risk management strategies.

this includes learning to foster driver gains in banking knowledge, skill, attitudes, values and habits. i am here to support h.r. 999. they would only pass consumer product safety commission's ongoing rov rulemaking until the national academy of sciences in cooperation with the department of defense of the national highway traffic safety administration performed a study of the handling and requirements proposed by cpsc. i do not claim to be an engineer or to fully understand the conflict engineering issues but i understand these are some basic disagreement on a select few issues and the engineers are major manufacturers. i appreciate the cpsc is well

intended. i also knew the manufacturers develop safe capable vehicles for me, my family, my friends i train two years. by decades of experience with vehicles who have had no prior experience with atvs or rov's commodities are safe when operated as intended. h.r. 999 is a narrowly terre haute -- tailored -- is narrowly tailored to examine the technical validity of their proposed lateral stability and requirements. the number of rollovers that would be prevented and whether the basis for the proposal to provide of the point-of-sale hand tag about a resistance when

a progressive scale and the effects on the utility if the rules were adopted. in conclusion the best way forward before the industry to work together to find a voluntary solution that works for all the parties and the safety of drivers and passengers. barring a cooperative solution, the best and safest way forward for independent third-party experts to make sure we get it right. thank you commissary. >> you're recognized for five minutes for an opening statement, please. >> thank you give many ms. heidi carmichacarmicha el and i would like to thank you for allowing me to speak today on behalf of my son jt crow. i am a homemaker and an

advocate but most importantly a mother to five children. jt crow is my second child and firstborn son. he was unhappy and extraordinary 9-year-old boy. i scored a straight a student with perfect attendance. he loves science and learn about birds and butterflies. jt also loved being outside playing sports like soccer and football. jt's life was cut short when he went for a ride in a 2007 yamaha rhino 450. while riding around the curve, the rov explicitly rolled over. they're jt was wearing a safety belt committee was thrown and crashed by the half ton vehicle as it rolled over. paramedics rushed to the emergency room that he sustained more industry and his body could handle. my son died that day when he was nine years old and my life was forever changed. on a daily basis and of the pain of the tragedy that struck my family and the fear of knowing it could happen in other

families. i've been given the opportunity to use my son's life to make a difference that can save lives. the industry is one that sets its own safety standards and make some rules. i'm not against rov. i just want to say the rov's. many died because they have four wheels and the bells roll bars and resume looks safer the rov are not safe. every year every day there's not a better solution implemented for safety is a day more people more children are put at risk. when we wrote the citizens report on utility terrain vehicle hazards in urgent need for safety and performance standards in february 2009 asking for performance standards with occupant stability and

seatbelt standards, we were hopeful recommendations for safe or rov would be standard did we ask for action. nothing happened. on many high casualty rate will continue when action is taken. in 2014 rov use resulted in 61 deaths in eight more in 2015. while less stringent than the recommended safety measures and citizens report, the cpsc has proposed standards to improve safety. if the industry wants to protect their consumers, why wouldn't they make the safest product possible for why when they do all they could do to protect the people who purchased vehicles. i've been given the opportunity to speak to families that we share a common bond. we've lost someone we love. the most painful part as an advocate for causes here in the heart wrenching stories for families. i know i'm not alone in asking the committee to move forward

with the rulemaking to issue safety standards and stop our loved ones. in my journey over the last eight years i've collected the names and stories of those two share a stage similar and it is for them to speak today. for l.a. stands age 10 kristin lake i'm not than dusty lockerbie, 14. ashland fire gas 12. danny bernhard 18. stephanie caton, 26. whitney bland, 13. sidney andersen, 10. and abby west age 13. our stories do not begin and end on the day our loved ones were killed or injured. the battle is ongoing for all of us. we will miss soccer games dancer santos, graduations, birth dates weddings and holiday celebrations.

we live with consequences forever. today you have the opportunity and obligation to help me under the young lives. their families the life of my son jc crowe. you have an opportunity to be the part that offers hope for the future about bringing about change. i request is common sense and i'm imaginable that anyone would feel differently. can you live with yourself. though i is the problem and protect children at risk. it has been too many years into many tragedies already. we urge you not to contribute to any further delay. thank you for your time. >> to channel radios back. you're recognized for five minutes for a public statement. >> chairman burgess ranking member schakowsky, thank you for providing the opportunity to

discuss the statutory framework the consumer product safety commission reveres to address the risk we have just heard about. i served as general counsel of the consumer product safety commission from 2082 matt 2012 during implementation of the safety at as well as the consumer product safety improvement act. both of the statues made voluntary standards mandatory. i've been asked to discuss a way the cpsc statute interrelate to an on the committee's consideration of h.r. 999. by oral remarks will focus on three important aspects of the inner relationship between the voluntary standards process a mandatory law. first, safety standards developed by the cpsc require time and effort to develop in order to meet the statutory requirement. it is not easy. sections seven provides the cpsc

at the authority to promulgate rules to set for performance standards and require more than an instruction but only when they find such a standard reasonably necessary to reduce an unreasonable risk of injuries and the benefits of such regulation bear reasonable relationships to the cost of the regulation. the commission must consider and make appropriate findings on a variety of issues including the degree and nature of the risk of long way utility of the product in the cost and means to achieve the object is. to issue a final rule the commission must find the rule is necessary to reasonably eliminate or reduce the unreasonable risk of injury and issue new os in the public interest. must also find the rule imposes the least burdensome requirement that would adequately reduce the risk of injury.

congress recognize just how difficult it is to do that when it did the cpsia and made it easier to make law and a danny kaiser child safety notification act due in part to resolute efforts by ranking member schakowsky which streamline the process of voluntary standards standard law. second the cpsc statute favors standards when they eliminate the risk of injury and are complied with by manufacturers. if a voluntary standard addressing the same risk of injury is adopted and implemented the commission cannot proceed with a final rule unless they're fine a voluntary standard is not likely to eliminate the risk of injury and order that it is unlikely there would be substantial compliance of voluntary standards. these can be difficult finance for the commission to make as a

data-driven agency, the cpsc staff has to look for hard science to demonstrate the intended safety benefits of those standards and consensus driven voluntary standards but the cpsc must extrapolated from data the likely future effects of his proposed rulemaking. the legislative history sets a high bar directing the cpsc to consider whether the voluntary standard will reduce to a sufficient extent such that there will no longer exist an unreasonable risk of injury. predicting that there is an unreasonable risk in certain circumstances is easy. it can be extremely difficult when dealing with the highly technical issues the vehicle rollover and that is why it takes staff time to develop rulemaking packages and will hide is over 500 pages long.

determine whether there is substantial compliance is a challenge in so many products come into the country now from overseas. the legislative history of the cpsia directs the commission look at the number of complying products rather than the number of complying manufacturers. those products come in from all over the world. third and finally the challenge of making voluntary standards mandatory law is one of the most important lessons we learned in cpsia and the virginia graham bakker safety act. the scanners are iterative. they evolved over years and unless we know the test methods can be replicated and are reliable and make them a lot prematurely can be very dangerous. >> the chair thanks the gentleman 80. the chair recognizes mr. prichard or five minutes for an opening statement. >> at afternoon, thank you for

the opportunity to testify in support of h.r. 999 the rov in-depth examinations or riot act. i'm the executive vice president and general counsel of the recreational heavy vehicle association known as robust. rove is a not-for-profit association sponsored that architects commit drp honda, john deere, kawasaki, textron and yamaha. it was formed to promote the responsible use of recreational heavy vehicles of rvs or side-by-side in north america. between 2011 and 2014 alone seven and sales totaled hundred 50,000 u.s. the hybrid vehicles are used by families emergency personnel and u.s. military in a variety of environments ranging from mud to say into trance. this is a high-growth industry

and a bright spot in u.s. manufacturing economy. rova is accredited by the national standards institute to develop standards and has worked with numerous stakeholders to develop the standards commencing in 2008 and culminating voluntary standards approved in 2010 2011 and most recently september 2014. the cpsc evolved throughout the process. the newest rov standard includes a dynamic stability and handling test in and requirement as well as new alternative seatbelt reminders proposed by the staff and driver-side speed limiting found in over 60% of the 2015 model year rov. simultaneously with the approval of a voluntary standard for cpsc metadata pending notice of rulemaking regarding rov spewed the npr ignores the voluntary

standard. instead the cpsc staff analyzes the prior 2011 version of the voluntary standard and based on testing of vehicles from model year 2010. in a supplemental briefing submitted three weeks after the standard was approved assassin that rejected the standard because it did not match the rulemaking. the cpsc proposals are not supported by real-world application. one area of concern is the cpsc application of on road vehicle dynamics to vehicles used in rugged off-highway environments. meanwhile they actually continue to conduct testing and supported the npr already voted out. while i review of the data underlined the rulemaking not yet complete, i can share a couple initial observations with you. according to data we see that uses known approximately 90% of writers suffering fatalities did not wear seat belts provided in

rov. approximately 60% of the incidents in the data were reported by a plaintiff's law firm. this is a representative example relied on the cpsc appeared a 46-year-old man was injured by a injured by a tip over hers unpadded roll cage crush his foot on june 16 2006. while it's been a year since the accident, he finds it extremely difficult to walk in is in considerable pain. putting aside the bias of plaintiffs lawyers reporting, this is not a scientifically sound approach to gathering data. it tells us nothing how or why the alleged takeover occurred it is not possible to draw statistical conclusions based on limited information. these vehicles are significantly more complex than other products under the cpsc jurisdiction. the rov engineers have serious safety concerns about the effect of the proposals. the riot act will help resolve

these matters by having proposals examined by independent agencies such as the national academy of sciences. the common sense approach to resolving technical issues before considering implementation should be supported by everyone. some have attempted to characterize the act is further delayed a long process. the record does not support the criticism. the voluntary standard has been updated as technology has evolved. ..

is imperative we get this right or the families, emergency personnel and the military who use these vehicles and a bright of conditions. thank you for your time. >> the chair thanks the gentleman. that share is prepared to recognize ms. schakowsky five minutes for questions please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just have to begin by sharing as a consumer advocate pretty much all of my adult life i've been around these conversations for a very long time and frankly i think this panel is reflective of what happens to consumers three to one not doing these kinds of mandatory standards. one example i've been working

on this rear visibility and the number of children who were killed, often prepared our grandchildren drives their car over backwards onto the we have one in chicago recently and now we're going to have by 2018 mandatory in every card is going to be a camera. that bill was passed in 2008. and an average of two children die every week. well heck, that's not that many kids. 355 deaths from these vehicles since between 2003-2013. and thank you ms. crow-michael for reading some of those names and bringing it home to us. and thank you for your courageous testimony today. i would like to hear from the industry instead of why it all out to voluntary because you said 15 i guess that's under the voluntary standards, 15

people have died this year is that right already? didn't you say 2015? >> yes correct. >> so that's under voluntary standards, i take it. well maybe cost-benefit doesn't make that worthwhile to have mandatory standards. i disagree and they think nobody want to get it right absolutely i'm sick of hearing default is the trial lawyers. the fault is with the user who doesn't put on the seat belt. and if we can do something to save another life and i'm with you, then we need to have mandatory standards. so i'm wondering if you had been feeling that you had any reason not to trust the vehicle that your son was using when you looked at that? >> in the beginning i really feel like that vehicles give a perception of safety, but rovs

are not safe and effective switchover lost their lives has proven that time and time again. >> when your son was blocked into the vehicle did you trust that the seat belt would keep him from being thrown from the vehicle just like of which and make our? >> of course. we think the products that we bought our state. >> did the vehicle your son was writing look like the kind of vehicle that would lead to more than 300 deaths? or i guess you already said -- >> absolutely not. >> proponents of the cpsc rule and activist like yourself have said that the type of everyday use of the rovs ability to rollover deaths is not necessarily obvious to writers, particularly children, do you agree? >> i agree. >> based on your work advocating on behalf of the victims of our of the accident do you believe that children are particularly portable? >> i do. i do, and i believe waiting for

more data is waiting for more deaths. >> so what i would like to see is rather than saying we have to perhaps years more of study and years more of them that the industry work with advocates and with the cpsc and with their investigators to, if you don't think the rule but mandatory role is proper then figure out what a mandatory rule out to look like. didn't you say ms. falvey, that there's imports, et cetera come and that we need to look at all of those? >> the way the statute would work, the commission would need to know that their substantial compliance before they relied upon a voluntary standard, or they could just decide we don't have confidence in these foreign manufactures and that they would be complete and move forward with their final rule of. >> so why don't we have a

mandatory standard that would apply to all including imports? i just feel so strongly that when we have an opportunity to do something that's going to save a life and i know that there's complicated mathematics that figures out money spent, is it worth a life. i don't really buy by that and it seems to me that 335 is enough. i think your son is enough, that we ought to move ahead. i support moving as quickly as possible with the mandatory standards, and i yield back. >> a chair thanks the gentleman he. gentlelady yield spike. i recognize myself five minutes for questions. ms. falvey let me first off say thank you for your work for giving grandpa baker post editor i was on the subcommittee when that deal went through and

actually add the language for ornamental pools because as you may recall we lost a number of people at a fort worth water garden shortly before that came through which underscored a the necessity of including ornamental pools as well as backyard pools. but when you were doing the drain cover recall did you go from a voluntary standard to a mandatory standard during the process? >> yes we did. >> and what would the advantages or perhaps the disadvantages in moving from the voluntary to the mandatory standard? >> the advantage is always safety and stopping death. you are always tempted to move as quickly as possible in order to address an addressable risc. a disadvantage in that circumstance -- >> let me just interrupt you there for a second if i could

because which is the more expeditious path the voluntary or the mandatory? >> it depends but it can be more expeditious to rely on the voluntary standard. you get industry and cbs -- cpsc staff working together on a standard that anyone agrees on. the problem doing it too quickly and mandating it as law when it's not ready to be law in that case we did make things safer fast enough into the drain covers were tested by different labs in different ways. we didn't know that the test results, exactly how to do the tests at the lab level, and there were different labs passing different drain covers and we ended up with pools with a brand-new drain covers installed that were not complied. we had to recall those pull them out and put them in properly tested. that works well in the voluntary world where things can be iterative and change over time. when you make mandatory law it

changes the equation. while it's helpful from a safety perspective to this group is possible, that's always a cpsc's goal come if you don't do it right it can cost an enormous amount of money and doesn't save lives. that's what we want to try to avoid. >> mr. pritchard, i guess i should ask this question of you. the list ms. crow-michael red is impressive but is also impressive because of the young age of so many of the people who met their demise. do you plaque or to these machines with an age restriction or a recommendation for training under certain ages? >> we do. the industry's recommendation is that in order to drive and rov, you need to be at least 16 that have a valid driver's license. these are not toys. these are not meant to be driven by children. this is on the machines.

it's part of the free online training that's available to everyone. it's sort of part of the hands-on training that's available. children don't belong behind the wheel of these vehicles. we've covered a lot of ground here in sort of very short form. one thing if you want to clarify this when we talk about a voluntary standard and the requirements that's enforceable. that's enforceable by the cpsc. it's not voluntary innocence of an opt in and opt out. it's the standard, and that is how the approximately 14 15,000 other products that are under the jurisdiction of the cpsc are handled. you could imagine a cpsc trying to write 15,000 different standards for every product out there. so the voluntary standard isn't speedy let me interrupt you for a minute because i'm going going to run out of town and elected

respectful of the other members. ms. crow-michael, i think it's a facebook page and set up to the memory of their son, there's a list of ideas safety measures for want of a better term. one mentioned the age. another mentions how much. these are things that your organization recommends. >> first off i don't have an organization per se but if were talking about the fact that children shouldn't be on them, then we would have to i would have to say what about karen harwood, 46 or andrew josue 34? >> that's an excellent point. i was going to ask mr. warfield. you studied this for a long time. >> yes. >> the age plaque or maybe one thing i want to say this as nice as i can, but does body mass make a difference? that is the lighter the driver because most of the people older

than 16 that ms. crow-michael mentioned on the list, most of those were women so presumably of lighter body weight. does that make a difference? is that something you have studied? >> not the weight itself. what i see time and time again with these machines, its operator error. it is almost nothing to do with the design of the vehicle. please, let me carry one step further here. i've been operating these machines and 1985. i currently have 1380s i have four rovs, either brand-new one coming in today. i am on those rovs everyday computer maintenance or through training. i have never rolled one over. i've never rolled and a tv over. have operated these machines in every state in the united states, including alaska and hawaii, except for north dakota. i don't know what i missed out on north dakota.

but what i'm getting at is i put these machines through their paces, through training through an advocate of writing. i wear a helmet. i make sure that proper age for us is operating. i follow the guidelines. so what i'm saying is i have trusted in this industry. i've trusted this industry that they've shown me, they've given me and my family the vehicle that is safe to operate. i am really concerned that now cbs he is saying wait a minute, there's something wrong here. and to answer your question, why wait backs i've been operating the machine was perfectly capable of doing everything i wanted if we're going to make a change let's make sure that change is not a negative change. >> i will ask you to hold that thought. picture would recognize ms. clarke for five minutes for questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i thank the ranking member and i think our witnesses for their testimony today. it's more -- it's been more than half a decade since the consumer product safety commission issue to the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking in 2009. since then cpsc has conducted thorough research to determine the appropriate mandatory standards for rovs. cpsc staff reviewed more than 550 rov related incidents can't 335 of which resulted in the death of the driver or passenger, or both. each incident was reviewed by a multidisciplinary team including an economist, human factors engineer a health scientist and a statistician. the commission also worked with limited a cpsc contractor to great and rov rollover simulator from scratch. in addition to the agency's own data collection, this year the cpsc also held at seven our

public meeting at which the commissioners testimony and ask questions on what basis both for and against the proposal. by any traditional measure internal research, hypothetical simulation, incident review and public input the commission has conducted a thorough investigation and has more than enough information issue appropriate standards. ms. crow-michael, your son was not the only person affected by weak safety standards that allowed yamaha to continue selling defective versions of the rhino rov. in 2009 the consumer product safety commission estimated 59 people were killed writing the rhino. in fact, the rhino incident, accident epidemic was one of the primary drivers of the commissions original rulemaking, but h.r. 999 was forced the cpsc to contract with the national

academy of sciences to conduct further research before implementing these reasonable and thoroughly tested standards. so my question to you, ms. crow-michael, you think more data is needed to determine the rovs better drug on the market are unsafe to? >> cpsc i think they have worked hard to get the data that they have. they've spent money to gather and understand that data. more delay puts children and all people at serious risk of injury or death. but i don't think more data is needed i think it's been enough time. and like i said before waiting for more data is waiting for more deaths. >> and then let me just follow up with that question. you've suffered and unspeakable loss because of an unsafe rov. do you think that the cpsc is rushing to judgment and proposing standards for

recreational activity responsible for more than 330 deaths in the last decade? >> no. >> i thank you mr. chairman. i yield back the balance of my time spent the chair thanks the gentleman the. recognize the gentleman from kentucky took five minutes for questions. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you all for being here to testify today. i had the question for mr. pritchard. you mentioned the roh ava is accredited by the american national standards institute to the standards with equipment, configuration the performance of rovs. can you tell us more about this process and a voluntary safety standards have been developed over the last few years? does this process involved -- i know you touched on it but how the process of voluntary standards that are mandated and is the cpsc involved? >> absolutely. cut me off when you get tired of listening. it was formed in 2007.

the work on a voluntary standard again and 2008 so essentially almost immediately. in 2010 and foundry standard was developed and published, but another version 111 and another version in 2014 reflecting evolving technology. the way the process works is you get the process started to a procedure mandated by come it's ansi the acronym, for this process. it put out a draft standard to the campus and again is made up of the brightest a cold at the stakeholders include in every iteration, has included a cpsc come it's included consumer groups industry user groups. it's a broad swath. the way this works is people get the draft. they canvass these common sense and it their comments back into

the comments are sure to on the canvas. then rohva response to those comments. your suggestion for seatbelts come here's your response. in the canvas gets all those comments on the rohva back. everyone gets to see the full exchange of information at a consensus is built around the voluntary standard. it is then sent to ansi. is that we did it come and ansi checks the process and verifies. when ansi approved it and it becomes official. and ultimately it is published and that becomes the standard by which all other vehicles subject to the voluntary standard must conform. >> so then it becomes mandatory? >> is a volunteer its biggest what's the difference between mandatory and voluntary? >> is voluntary in the sense that it is develop by stakeholders but it's enforceable. mandatory means the cpsc imposes

what it thinks is the best approach. and we are now is at an impasse between a voluntary standard that the brand-new that just came out september 2014 and the mandatory standard released a proposal for mandatory standard based on the old standard by the mandatory standard proposed by the cpsc and the engineers in industry just think cpsc has got this wrong. >> was the voluntary standard better? was more likely to protect life than the mandatory? what are the critical differences and why is yours more better? >> so there are three what i call three fundamental differences between the two. one is on vehicle handling the cpsc wants to impose something called and underestimated. i can tell you about that. the next is testing lateral stability. cpsc tests were stability

suffers from problems with reproducibility which the cpsc is conducting testing to address right now. the final piece is a seat belt. cpsc has proposed a seatbelt interlock which would essentially prevent the vehicle for moving above 15 miles an hour at the seatbelts are not used in both the driver and the passenger seat. on the driver's seat there's a lot of agreement or the voluntary standard includes that as approach to the dispute is over the passenger seat. cpsc commission to study at the passenger seat and a lot. they just got the results i think in february. they published them in march so the counties after the voluntary standard the study can from industry and been telling that we've heard from our own consumers, which is no one wants his passenger-side seatbelt interlock because drivers don't want to lose control of their vehicle. to add on top of that the technical challenges, which would be if you put your dog embassy your toolbox in the

seat. this is impaired for which there's no answer. the final wrinkle and even on the drivers side seatbelt interlock, it doesn't work with a diesel or hybrid engine because has to be talking with a computer to computer has to talk from the seatbelt to the speed limit to tell the we have a connection. that is one small example of what is a frankly complex area and the cpsc's engineers, while i believe well-intentioned don't have this right. i'd like to add we didn't get we went through this foundry standard process last year which i didn't think the cpsc was very engaged in. a better way to put that doubt is about they seem to be much were engage with industry now and there's a meeting taking place right everything industry in cpsc staff to discuss the voluntary standards. that's a path forward. >> before i yield back if i get asked ms. crow-michael, thank

you for coming. your advocacy is very important that thoughts and prayers are with you, but thank you for taking this cause and hopefully we can come to the right standard and have the right thing as the result. thank you. >> gentleman yields better the chair recognizes mr. schakowsky for the purposes of consent request. >> i would like to put on the record the opening statement of john sand father of an rov victim, letters from the american academy of pediatrics, letter from various consumer groups testimony of rachel weintraub of the consumer federation of america before the cpsc. citizens report that ms. crow-michael referred to in her testimony, add that to the record spent without objection so ordered. chairman will just note i offered mr. schakowsky a follow-up question, she declined i did have one follow-up question i wanted to ask. ms. crow-michael your son was

injured on the yamaha rhino 450. just ask a question to anyone on the panel. is that particular model still unavailable, something that is still sold on the market? >> i can address it. that vehicle is not so. in fact, you're talking about a vehicle from 2007 if i recall your testimony correctly. we are now free voluntary standards passed that. so the technology has evolved beyond. i can add there are tens of thousands of those rhinos still in use that people enjoyed at this point have probably put hundreds of thousands if not more hours of use. but we are a technology for these vehicles as if all that we are now in a new standard. >> but you can still buy one on craigslist? >> i would guess. >> so it's going to be an

informational challenge to get information to people who maybe new purchasers of old machines. >> but those vehicles, and respectfully, are not defective. i think, i think these incidents are more complicated than what we've heard today. i don't think that's the focus of today. i think the focus of debate is is can we get this right between industry and the cpsc and if the cpsc just will not listen, they will not listen to the folks who make these vehicles can maybe they will listen to the national academy of sciences. >> very well. the chair wishes to thank all members of the panel. ms. crow-michael, just a quick was sick and i'm sure every member extend our condolences condolences for your loss. scenes are know for the members wishing to ask questions before we conclude i would like to submit the following documents for inclusion in the record by

unanimous consent. statement for the record from commissioner marietta robinson from the cpsc a letter we already did mr. olson's letter and response letter from chairman elliot kaye to chairman olson. chairman olson. person to commit with an remind members that 10 business days to can submit additional questions for the record i asked the witnesses to submit a response within 10 business days upon receipt of the questions. without objection the again my thanks to the panel and thank you for staying with us through a long morning. without objection the subcommittee is adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> the future of u.s.-cuba relations is the focus of a senate foreign relations committee hearing today. roberta jackson assistant secretary of state for western hemisphere affairs who is negotiating with cuba to reestablish diplomatic relations will appear before the committee. that's live starting at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span3. >> u.s. capitol police achieve testifies before the house administration committee today about operations in his agency. you can see his testimony live starting at 2 p.m. eastern on c-span3.

>> this sunday night at eight eastern on "first an image will look into the personal lives of 31st ladies, anna harrison, leticia tyler and julia tyler. and harrison never set foot in the white house because her husband dies after one month in office. lakisha tyler becomes first lady when her husband vice president john tyler assumes the presidency but she passes which is the year and half later. the president when he marries tyler was the first photographed first lady. this sunday night at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span's original series first ladies influence in damage, examined the public and private lives of the women who fill the position of first lady and her influence on the presidency from martha washington to michelle obama "sundays at eight" p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span3. as a compliment c-span's new book first ladies.

it's available as a hardcover or an e-book for your favorite bookstore or online seller. >> the new congressional directory is a handy guide to the 114th congress with color photos of every senator and house member plus bio and contact information and twitter handles. also district maps a foldout map of capitol hill and a look at congressional committees, the president's cabinet, federal agencies and state governors. order your copy today. it's $13.95 plus shipping and handling for the c-span online store at c-span.org. >> the u.s. senate meets today to continue working on trade promotion authority also called fast-track trade authority. the bill would allow congress to review and vote on trade deals that are negotiated by the white house. however, congress cannot make

any changes. a compromise between congressional leaders and the white house. that'ssnas work on possible amendments to this bill. most of those negotiations are taking place behind the scenes. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell filed a motion to stop debate and limit amendments but that may not take place until tomorrow. and now to live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. o lord our rock, hear our praise today, for your faithfulness

endures to all generations. you hear our prayers and surround us with your mercy. you are our strength and our shield. listen to the melody of our gratitude, for you are the center of our joy. lord thank you for illuminating our paths with your precepts dispelling the darkness of doubt and fear. today, guide our lawmakers. be their shepherd in these dangerous times. give them eyes to see that you have not left yourself without a

witness in every living thing. help them, lord, to walk with reverence and sensitivity through all the days of their lives. we pray in your holy name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c.,

may 20, 2015. to the senate under the provisions of rule 1 paragraph 3, of the stadged rules of the senate i appoint the honorable prand paul from the common wealth of kentucky to perform the duties of the chair signed orrin hatch, president pro tempore. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: the house passage of the justice for victims of trafficking act represents a vital ray of hope for the countless victims of modern slavery who need our help. v.i.p.'s' groups and -- victims groups and advocates tells us this human rights legislation would provide support to domestic victims of trafficking. they urge congress to pass it. we can now say that we have passed it. we can now say that hope is on the way for the victims who suffer in the shadows. unfortunately, the victims of modern-day slavery had to wait entirely too long for help. last congress the house of

representatives did its job by passing several pieces of legislation, but the senate failed to bring any trafficking legislation to the floor. as a new majority, senate republicans were determined to make this matter a priority. senator grassley promptly reported legislation out of the judiciary committee and we quickly put it on the senate floor. as we all know by now, there was an unforeseen -- to put it mildly -- impediment to getting this bill done, but we were determined to see this legislation through to successful completion. success was possible because the new majority kept its focus on facts, substance and good policy for the people who l remain our focus throughout the debate, and that is the victims of modern slavery. i couldn't be more grateful to senator cornyn for his outstanding work on this issue. i thank the house for passing such an important human rights bill yesterday and now i urge the president to sign this legislation from the new

congress as quickly as possible. the victims of such terrible abuse have had to wait entirely too long for washington's help. let's not make them wait a moment longer. on another matter, mr. president, yesterday senator warner a democrat and senator ernst, a republican, joined me in hosting a press conference with small business owners on the benefits of trade for entrepreneurs. i want to thank them both for coming. i thank senator warner in particular for helping to lead his party on this issue. we were joined by small business owners with some pretty incredible stories. these americans highlighted opportunities that knocking down unfair overseas barriers for american products can provide to us here at home. my favorite obviously was chase robins a constituent of mine from shelbyville. after chase was medically discharged from the army, he was able to scrape together $1,600 with a buddy and start the kind

of business he already dreamed of as early as 2010. it is a business that specializes in just the kinds of things you'd expect a young guy like chase to be into: high-performance auto parts. and thanks to trade, it is now both a business that exports a percentage of its l products and one that also employees fellow kentuckians. his is a small business with just three employees for now -- just three for now -- but it's a small business that is allowing him to live his dream and help others live theirs too. it is a story countless other americans know all too well and one we should do everything to encourage. yet, while chase has achieved success, thanks to trade he knows there is still a lot more we should be doing if the aim is to help businesses grow, help his employees earn more and help other kentuckians live their dreams too. here's what chase said

yesterday. he said "as our business has grown internationally we've been confronted with barriers that compromise global markets. it was not long after sending our first shipment overseas that we realized trade rules were outdated for our business. most of the agreements and rules were written before small businesses like ours were able to fully utilize the internet to exploit the global market. trade agreements offer the best chance to lower barriers and increase market access for small companies like mine. we see a bright future for companies like ours in the export market, but we need new trade deals to get there." and this, mr. president, is a business with three employees that is exporting products. so here was chase's solution: trade promotion authority is the first step toward mo derngzing trade agreements, he said, and i encourage congress to pass t.p.a. as soon as possible. entrepreneurs like chase know that the united states doesn't have many trade barriers, but

other countries do. they know that many of these barriers are extremely unfair to american workers and american products. and they know that passing trade promotion authority is the way to address such an unfair situation. our friends on the far left may try to cynically spin their war against the future as something other than what it truly is but we all know better. it's no wonder president obama has called them wrong and suggested they may step up. because what happens if the far left actually succeeds in its apparent quest to retain foreign tariffs that unfairly impact american workers and their paychecks? how is that good for us? it would mean lost opportunities forp -- for american risk takers like chase and the employees entrepreneurs like him care about. it would mean lost opportunities for american manufacturers lost opportunities for kentucky farmers and lost opportunities for more jobs, better wages and a growing economy that can lift

everyone up. jobs and a better economy these are the kinds of things i'm going to continue to fight for. i think the legislation before us represents a great opportunity to do so, and president obama agrees as well. so i'm going to keep working to get votes on amendments, both republican and democrat amendments. there have been objections from the other side of the aisle and i would remind our colleagues that even with my strong support, the senate can't have a robust amendment process if every single amendment offered by democrats or republicans is objected to by our friends on the other side. our bill manager senator hatch and senator wyden are working hard and we hope to get past these objections so that more amendments can be considered. but we'll need cooperation. the senate can't vote on amendments that are being prevented. we hope to see more of that cooperation so we can pass good, fair enforceable trade legislation that will benefit

our country and so many of the people we represent. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: at the end of this month, republicans will have been in charge of the senate for almost a half a year. after all this time, what have they done to address issues facing the middle class? zero. let's take a quick look at what the republican leadership has achieved this year. keystone pipeline legislation took a month a bill that faiferls billionaires and -- that favors billionaires and special interests. it will allow foreign oil imported in the united states to be shipped to foreign countries. and spent almost another month on the shutdown of homeland security the shutdown of the homeland security during the time that isis is raging and all

the other problems around the world, they -- the republicans -- want to shut down the federal government as it relates to homeland security. we spent three weeks on a senseless delay over p funding for victims of human trafficking, over an abortion issue that had nothing to do with human trafficking. i would respond to my friend, the majority leader, we would have passed this last congress except they objected to it. a short memory, i think. now here we are spending the last week considering trade legislation that has nothing -- nothing -- not a simple thing -- to help the working milk -- working middle-class americans. in fact, it causes huge job losses. as einstein said, you keep doing the same thing over and over again and you expect a different result that's the definition of insanity. we can look at these trade bills over the years. every one of them without

exception causes to american workers job losses. millions of job losses. but yet they're going to try the same thing again and hope for a different result. that's insanity. if the united states senate is not actively advocating for the well-being of middle-class americans, we're wasting our time. when the republicans took over the senate, the majority leader promised to meet -- make the needs of americans a priority. here's what he said last november -- our focus would be on passing legislation that improves the economy that makes it easier for americans to find jobs and helps restore americans' confidence in their country and their government. why then have we not moved toward legislation that makes it easier for americans to find jobs or reforms that help us restore americans' confidence in their government? now a few months after november -- actually at the beginning of this year -- the majority leader reiterated a call for commonsense legislation

that puts the middle class first. he said -- quote -- "let's pass legislation that focuses on jobs and real concerns for the middle class." but again what have the senate republicans done? stopped any effort made to help the middle class whether it's minimum wage equal pay for men and women student debt, and on and on with things that would help the middle class and they have been ignored. we should be focusing on making it easier for americans to find jobs pressing the needs of the middle class and restoring americans' faith in our government. it's not enough for the majority leader to mouth these words that he supports jobs. his agenda must reflect it as well. but it doesn't. it doesn't do anything to help job creation. if we want to create jobs, why don't we do something with infrastructure the surface

transportation bill? to his credit, the presiding officer has an idea regarding how that should be paid for. i'd work with him and whether his idea and my idea are perfect, at least it is an effort to do something to figure out a way about jobs. jobs, we have to do something about surface transportation. 50% of america's roads are in disrepair. 64,000 bridges are structurally deficient. our railroad systems are outdated and we know that recently from the headlines we've seen with that devastating accident in pennsylvania. instead of working with democrats to provide adequate long-term investment to our country's infrastructure, republicans are advocating short-term fix after short-term fix. repair our nations roads and bridges through long-term investments could provide shows and thousands of jobs for americans.

if the republican leader truly has interest in the middle class at heart, he should be leading the charge for these investments, but he's leading the charge against them. today the senate will resume consideration of trade legislation. because of senate democrats that trade legislation includes vital programs to help america's workers retrain and find new employment if they lose their jobs because of foreign trade. and they're going to lose jobs. even even though the majority of united states senators don't support this trade legislation we've tried hard to improve it. and this trade legislation -- this trade adjustment assistance is one way to try to improve it. but what was the republicans' first amendment to the trade bill? it was an amendment to strike a program known as trade -- adjustment assistance that i've just talked about from the bill. this program is to help those who lose their jobs because of trade, and they will lose their jobs. as we talk about opening foreign markets to american products, surely we should make american

companies that have the -- have the tools compete internationally. mr. president, the export-import bank is weeks away from expiring. if it expires financing for billions of dollars of u.s. exports would disappear and thousands of american jobs would be in jeopardy. and how much does that cost? nothing, zero. it's an ideological mind ideological mind-set that the republicans have that they don't like government programs. we are losing -- we are losing internationally. we're losing trade. i don't think anyone can call the boeing company a left-wing liberal group as the republican leader refers to people that are complaining about what's going on here. boeing things something should be done with the export-import bank. why? because they can compete with

aerobus and all these other companies that build airplanes. if we don't have the bank, we can't -- they can't compete. so mr. president, you can pick any state -- any state of the 50 50. i was given here the state of virginia because the state of virginia was mentioned in some of the remarks the republican leader gave. i have page after paimg millions and millions of -- i have page after page, millions and millions of dollars that benefit businesses in virginia. i.t. the same all over the country, in nevada, in kentucky, every place. you talk about trade that won't work. let's talk about the export-import bank that does work. i so admire and appreciate the persistence and the advocacy of the senator from washington, senator cantwell.

but for her this issue would be lost. it would be gone with all the other sthawf goes stuff that goes into the trash can because of the republicans. the republican leader said over and over again that he's opposed to the bank. well that's too bad. the american people certainly support it. the american businesses support it. the this vital program sustained last year 165,000 jobs, 165,000 jobs at no cost to the taxpayer. if we don't reauthorize this program, american businesses will be at a competitive disadvantage. while the majority leader talks of restoring faith in government, he is standing in the way of reforming the national security agency's illegal spying program. the illegal spying program is not words i made up. the second circuit court said

so. it's an illegal program. these are not -- these are just a few areas where we need to focus to create jobs and create positive outcomes for middle-class americans. the republican leader should revisit his vision -- his vision -- that is to this point only been words. there's no action. because the direction of of congress has taken so far has focused on the desires of a few at the expense of many. would the chair be kind enough to tell us what the business is today in the senate. the presiding officer: under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order the senate will be resume consideration of h.r. 1314 which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 58, h.r. 1314, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 and so forth. mr. reid: mr. president, i

would -- [inaudible] -- from the state of virginia be placed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: mr. president, i want to take some time today to include proposals to include a currency manipulation trade negotiation in the trade negotiations and impact this issue is having over the debate over renewing trade promotion authority or t.p.a. currency manipulation has for many become the primary issue in the t.p.a. debate. it has certainly gotten the focus of the media and other outside observers. indeed i suspect that everyone who has an interest in the outcome of the t.p.a. debate, both for and against is watching closely to see how the senate will address this particular matter. let me begin by saying that i recognize the frustrations that many have regarding exchange-rate policies of some of our trading partners, and i've committed to working with my colleagues to arrive at ways to improve currency surveillance

and mechanisms for responding to problems. however, i want to be as plain as i can on this issue. while currency manipulation is an important issue, it is inappropriate and counterproductive to try to solve this problem solely through free trade agreements. nonetheless, i do not believe we should ignore currency manipulation, which is why for the very first time our t.p.a. bill would elevate currency practices to a principle negotiation objective. now, let's get that. for the first time in any trade bill we elevate currency practices to a principal negotiation objective. we thought that would solve the problem. it means that the administration fails -- if the administration fails to make progress in achieving this or any other objectives laid out in the bill, then the relevant trade agreement is subject to a procedural disapproval

resolution and other mechanisms that would remove procedural protections. of course, i understand that a number of my colleagues want to see more partnershippive language -- prescriptive language that would require that trade sanctions be used to keep monetary policies in line. most notably we have the portman-stabenow amendment which would create a negotiating objective requiring enforceable currency standards among parties to a trade agreement. the amendment goes an to say that these standards must be subject to the same dispute settlement procedures and remedies as all other elements of the trade agreement. now, while this approach may sound reasonable on the surface there are a number of very serious and complex policy issues to consider. i'll address those specific concerns in some detail here in just a few moment -- minutes. thebut first i think we need to

step back and take a look at the big picture. i think i can poil boil this issue down to a single point. the portman-stabenow amendment will kill t.p.a. i'm not just saying that, mr. president. it is at this point a verifiable fact. yesterday i received a letter from from secretary secretary lew. at the end of the letter, secretary lew stated plainly that he would recommend that the president veto a t.p.a. bill that included this amendment. that's pretty clear mr. president. it doesn't leave much room for interpretation or speculation. no t.p.a. bill that contains the language of the portman-stabenow amendment stands a chance of becoming law. now, i want to be clear.

i have great respect for the authors of this amendment. they are my friends and i believe that they are well-intentioned. they've spent a lot of time making their case on their amendment, and i respect their points of view. but at this point it is difficult, very difficult, in fact for anyone in this chamber to claim that they support t.p.a. and still vote in favor of the portman-stabenow amendment. the two as of yesterday have officially become mutually exclusive. for me, mr. president this issue is pretty cut-and-dry. however, i do recognize that perhaps not everyone will view these developments the same way i do. but regardless of what you think of secretary lew's letter, the portman-stabenow amendment raises enough policy concerns to warrant opposition on its own. offhand, i can think of four separate consequences that we'd run into if the senate were to

adopt this amendment. and all of them would have a negative imct on u.s. economic -- impact on u.s. economic interests. first, the portman-stabenow negotiating objective would put the trans-pacific partnership or t.p.p.p. agreement at grave risk mean that our farmers ranchers and manufacturers not to mention the workers they employ would not get access to these important foreign markets resulting in fewer good high-paying jobs for american workers. and i should say higher-paying jobs at that. we know this is the case, mr. president. virtually all of our major negotiating partners -- not notably japan -- have already made clear that they will not agree to an enforceable provision like the one required by the portman-stabenow amendment. no country that i am aware of, including the united states, has ever shown the willingness to have their monetary policies subject to potential trade

sanctions. adopting this amendment will have at best, an immediate chilling effect on the t.p.p. negotiations and at worst it will stop them in their tracks. if you don't believe me, then take a look we received from 26 leading food and agricultural organizations from the farm bureau to the national pork producers council to the western growers association urging congress to reject the portman-stabenow amendment because it will, in their words -- quote -- "most likely kill the t.p.p. negotiations." unquote. put simply, not only will this amendment kill t.p.a., it will very likely kill t.p.p., or trans-pacific partnership, as well. the portman-stabenow amendment would put at risk the federal res. ability to establish and execute monetary policies

designed to stabilize the u.s. economy. while some have made decrees that our domestic -- monetary policies do not constitute currency manipulation, we know that not all of our trading partners see it that way. requiring the inclusion of enforceable rules on currency manipulation and subsequent trade sanctions in our free trade agreements would provide other countries with a template for targeting u.s. monetary policies subjecting our own agencies and policies to trade disputes and adjudication in international trade tribunals. we've already heard accusations in commentaries by foreign finance ministers that our own fed -- federal reserve, that is -- has manipulated the value of the dollar to gain trade advantage. if the portman-stabenow language is adopted into t.p.a. and these rules become part of our trade agreements, how long do you

think it will take for our trading partners to enter disputes and seek remedies against the federal reserve quantitative easing poms policies? not long, i would imagine. if the portman-stabenow objective becomes part of our trade agreements, wrel undoubtedly see action to impose sanctions on u.s. trade under the guise that the federal reserve has manipulated our currency for trade advantage. we'll also be hearing from other countries that fed policy is causing instability in their financial markets and economies. and unless the fed takes a different path, those countries would argue for relief for justify their own exchange rate policies to gain some advantage for themselves. while we may not agree with those ales allegations, the point is that under the portman-stabenow formulation judgments and verdict on our policies will be taken out of our hands and rather, can be

rendered by international trade tribunals. i don't know anybody who really wants that. i'm well-aware that in an attempt to address this concern the latest version of the portman-stabenow amendment states that their enforceable rules do not apply to -- quote -- "the exercise of domestic monetary policy" -- unquote. but for those of us living here in the united states, that clarification does not provide much comfort. after all the u.s. dollar is a global currency. that is, it's currently the global currency. we fail to pass this bill, you already see china starting to move towards having the yuan become the global currency. let me just say again after all, the u.s. dollar is a global

currency. in fact, it is the primary reserve currency in the world and it's value has an impact on markets everywhere. so for the united states the question as to what is a domestic monetary policy and what is not is up to a lot of debate and i don't think any of us want those debates being resolved in some international trade tribunal which is what is going to happen. moreover contrary to what many of my colleagues seem to be arguing, no one in international trade -- not the treasury, not the i.m.f., not the g-7 not the g-20 -- not anyone in the world has accurate tools in place to measure what is and what is not currency manipulation or what is purely domestic policy and what is intended to be international. even if we demanded enforceable currency standards in our trade