screeria -- nigeria. -ld and senator

joan manchin and ways to discuss youth violence. the consumer product safety commission is an independent federal agency that regulates the sale and manufacture of thousands of consumer-related products. the chairs and commissioners were at a house hearing today to discuss the agency's regulatory activities. congressman michael burgess chairs the subcommittee on commerce manufacturing and trade. chairman will turn on his

microphone while the guests take their seats. we will now come to order. the chair will recognize himself five minutes for the purpose of an opening statement. the consumer product safety commission was established in 1972 by congress to protect consumers against unreasonable risks of injuries associated with consumer products. the statutory mission is a serious responsibility for the commission and is critically important that congress conduct oversight to ensure that public confidence in the commission's adherence to its responsibilities and stewardsship of the taxpayers dollar. i'd like to thank chairman kai and adler and buerkle for their statements today. the rov in-depth examination act and open rov rule making that has garnished substantial

bipartisan for both sides of the capital. difficult budget decisions are being made across the government and it's critical that agencies are held accountable. particular concern about the role of sound, scientific principles at the commission, the interaction between the commission and regulated industries, the rule-making agenda and the execution of congressional mandates for third-party burden reduction and the continued request for new authority to impose user fees. there is a fundamental constitutional issue with moving the power of the purse from congress to a regulatory agency with no experience in dispersing fees. a wide range of open agenda items at the commission require significant scientific evaluation and testing to nano technology to window curves to

recreational off-road vehicles. the commission has a capacity to base its decision on supportable scientific findings and for an agency to move away from science and scientific principles as may have happened with the chronic hazard advisory panel report where even the office management guidelines for peer review were ignored. the commission's authorizing statute is based upon the presumption that the preferred regulation for product safety. safety is a strong incentive for both parties. there are a number of open rule makings that fundamentally change the relationship between the commission and the regular la regulated industry that the threats to consumer safety are created by 10% of the participants, it seems counterintuitive to put barriers

between the commission and regulated industry when the common ground is consumer safety. this is especially so where resources are always going to dictate the commission will need help from industry in identifying problems. one open rule making fundamentally changes the fast track voluntary recall process an award-winning program established 20 years ago to address long recall processes which has produced tremendous results. under this program last year, 100% of recalls were initiated within 20 days, the positive impact for consumers is real when potentially dangerous products can be taken off the shelves in days instead of weeks or months. finally, there has been bipartisan support to reduce third-party testing burdens for small businesses around the united states. in 2011, congress passed hr 2615 with explicit instructions to the commission to evaluate in

good faith but the commission has struggled to carry out this statutory requirement even with additional funding. 3 1/2 years later, small businesses are reporting they still have not seen any real burden reductions and are facing seemingly endless comment rounds but no real solutions. we are here to make certain that we are doing what we can to prevent tragic and unfortunate injuries however the funds for the commission are difficult to justify when there are so many questions about the scientific methodology used by the commission to support the regulatory agenda and how the administrative procedure act solicited comments are incorporated through the rule-making process and how the commission operates without bipartisan support for many initiatives. the consumer product safety commission mission must remain a touchstone for important work and not driven by headlines rather than science and

economics. sectional approach compromises the trust in an agency that has successfully removed thousands of unsafe consumer products from the economy from product -- from consumer shelves as well as the voluntary safety standards that builds safety into the products on the front to end. the chair will recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee miss schakowsky for the purpose of an opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman for holding this important hearing about consumer product safety commission. the commission and its mission protecting consumers from unsafe products is very near and dear to my heart. i began work as a consumer advocate many moons ago as a young mother working to get freshness dates on food. so when you look at the date on food, mua. and i know how important it is that consumers have access to health and safety information

about the products that they purchase and use and that they are protected against harmful products. in 2008, the landmark consumer product safety improvement act was signed into law by president bush. the bill was brought by bipartisan and the responsibilities into decades. i also want to thank some of the advocates here in this room. i appreciate their work. the bill passed the committee 51-0 and a house vote of 424-1. it was slightly amebded again on a bipartisan basis in 2011 and legislation gave the cpsd additional authority so it could become the consumer watchdog that americans should come to expect. there are provisions to the bill requiring mandatory standards and testing for infant and toddler products, such as cribs a he high-chairs.

i added to the reform bill a requirement for postal paid recall registration cards to be attached to products so that customers can be quickly notified if products are dangerous. the cpsc has been incredibly successful in efforts to protect consumers in the last few years there. was 34% reduction in product recalls in 2013 to 2014. the 75 childrens product recalls in 2014 was the lowest number in more than a decade. thank you very much. we have seen enhanced proactive outreach to provide consumers with information about the dangers and best practices associated with everything from window blinds to electric generators to lawn mowers and we've seen rule making to reduce the likelihood of preventible tragedies. i applaud the commission on its important work. while i'm disappointed that we move forward with this hearing on a day that commission robinson was unable to appear, i

look forward to hearing the information from the other consumers about the cpsc's work and next step. this will provide analysis of the hr 999 the riot act which is statutory authority rule making affecting recreational off-road vehicles rovs, until a study is completed at the national academy of ascience, it's not clear why this is needed. taking into account the input of technical experts the private sector and the public. i'm also not sure why the national academy of sciences would analyze the feasibility, among other things, providing consumers with safety information at the point of sale while the nas is a highly skilled staff, marketing consumer analysis is not its strong suit and makes no sense that nas would be required to consider the rule making on rovs

used in the military. the cpsc is responsible for consumer products, not military vehicles. i believe this legislation is a delay tactic, pure and simple. it would delay the implementation of the cpsc's consumer focussed rule and enhanced safety and increased consumer information. it's not as if this rule making is moving too fast. the risk of rov death is not a new one and the public comment period for the rov rule making is currently open. there's nothing preventing the supporters of this legislation from making their concerns and their suggestions known. that's the way the process is supposed to work. what we cannot do is usher in a long delay for the sake of delay. the 335 rov-related deaths and 506 injuries from 2003 to 2013

i think it's time to act to enhance rov safeguards, not tie the hands of the cpsc. again, i look forward to hearing from our witnesses, thank them for coming today and i yield back. >> thank you, general lady yields back to chair recognizes miss blackburn five minutes for an opening statement, please. >> thank you mr. chairman. and i want to say thank you to our witnesses. we appreciate that you are here. you know 2008 was really the year of the recall and since that point in time, we have been very interested in the work that you're doing and have looked at your deliverables and your outcomes. now, one of the things that is of tremendous concern to us -- and i've got to tell you i heard a lot about this during small business week, which was just a couple of weeks ago and i was out about in my district visiting with small businesses,

visiting with some retailers and there are a lot of complaints that are coming about the way you all are going about your task. and some of the unnecessary burdens that are being put on retailers and on businesses and changes in reporting requirements. and i've got to tell you, i think there's a lot of unhappiness with the american public and how you were doing your job. i would say, too, there's probably some confusion as to what your mission statement is and how you are meeting that. now, i think it's fair to say that as we look at the cost of business and the cost to consumers and a cost ben mit analysis, what we want to do is drill down with you a little bit. we share the same goal being certain that the supply chain is safe that products are safe

when consumers get those products. there are different ways to go about this. and we want to make certain that there is an accountability issue, a transparency issue and a fairness issue or standards that are being met. so we will have questions and we'll move forward with those. i also want to take a moment and welcome our former colleague, commissioner buerkle. it's wonderful to see you back in these halls and in a hearing room and we appreciate the work that you are doing. and with that, mr. chairman i'm going to yield the balance of my time to mr. pompeo for a statement. >> thank you, madam vice chairman. thank you all for being here today, chairman kaye and your colleagues today. we have an obligation, just as you do to make sure that the cpsc is implemented in a way that is useful and the economics

and safety balanced just right. i think with respect to the rov rule that y'all put forward there's a lot of work that can be done. the industry is trying to get to a good outcome, that is a better place than the rule making that this proceeding will end up. i was out last week, too. i was actually on an rov vehicle out in kansas in the woods, wore my helmet did all of the things right and i'm here today to tell about it, which is good. i hope we can get this right. the legislation that i've proposed isn't aimed at delaying, it's aimed at getting a good outcome. it may cause a little more time and thoughtfulness and work to be done but i hope we can get that right that we can get the best science and the best engineering associated with getting these rules in the right place and get a voluntary put that industry can do the right thing and get these vehicles in a safe place to the right people and i hope and look forward to working with you to see if we can achieve that. with that i'll yield back my

time. >> i thank the gentleman and does any other member seek the balance of my time? none so doing, i yield back, mr. chairman. >> gentle lady yields back. the chair recognizes the democratic side for an opening statement. >> all right. mr. chairman if i could just submit for the record mr. pallone's opening statement. >> without objection so ordered. that completes the opening statements. the chair would like to remind members that opening statements will be made a part of the record. we'll now hear from our witnesses. i want to welcome all of our witnesses and thank you for taking time to testify before the subcommittee. today's hearing will consist of two panels. each panel of witnesses will have the opportunity to give an opening statement followed by a round of questions for members. once we conclude questions with the first panel we will take a

brief -- underscore brief recess for the second panel. we have the following witnesses testifying on behalf of the consumer product safety commission. chairman elliott f. kaye thank you for your attendance, commissioner robert adler and we welcome you, sir, and commissioner ann marie buerkle. commissioner joseph p. thank you for being here today. chairman kaye, you're recognized for five minutes for purposes of an opening statement please. >> good morning, chairman burgess and schakowsky and members of the subcommittee. thank you for the invitation to come speak about the work of the united states consumer product safety commission and our proposed budget for fiscal year

2016. i am pleased to be joined by my friends and colleagues from the commission. commissioners adler buerkle and the vital health and safety commission touches us all in some way every day. from the parents of the baby who gently moves his or her from crib to baby bouncer to stroller and back to the crib where the self-employed millennial relies on a room fan to stay cool and extension cord to power a computer, to help care for an ijing parent, the jurisdiction is we provide an slept return on investment for the american people. we run a lean operation and we cover thousands of different kinds of consumer products that the budget in the millions not the billions. we are very appreciative of the continued bipartisan support for

the commission and our work. we solve the support in the nearly unanimous vote to pass the improvement act in 2008 and passage to cpsia in 2011. your support has allowed our dedicated staff to drive standards development to make childrens products safer to better educate consumers about product-related hazards. our staff has also been hard at work trying to reduce costs associated with third-party testing while also assuring compliance with the law. congress' inclusion of the current fiscal year has enhanced those efforts. i would emphasize prioritizing those actions most likely to provide the greatest amount of relief, especially to small businesses. we are set to consider at least three different regulatory changes to provide relief this fiscal year with more in the works. while the burden reduction is sure compliance succeeds, our

efforts to carry out and enforce cpsia is reflected in our proposed budget. unfortunately, not all of those priorities and requirements are achievable at our current levels. for that reason, we are pleased to see the president include in his budget two important safety initiatives, both initiatives, if funded, will advance consumer safety and provide real value to those making or importing safety products. first, we are seeking a permanent funding mechanism to allow the agency to comply with the congressional charge in section 222 of the cpsia. section 222 called on the commission to work with customs and border protection and develop a risk assessment methodology to identify the consumer products likely to violate any of the acts we enforce out of all of the consumer products imported into the united states. to meet our mandate in 20011 we created a small-scale pilot

that has been a success. however, the pilot alone does not fulfill the direction of congress and without full implementation, we will not be able to integrate cpsc into the much larger u.s. government-wide effort to create a single window for import and export filing of all products. if cpsc can be fully integrated into the single window we can transform congress' vision of a national scope risk-based into reality, a reality that would meet faster entry for importers of compliant products and safer products in the hands of american consumers. our proposed budget also seeks to address critical emerging and safety questions -- emerging health and safety questions associated with the rapidly growing use of nano materials in consumer products. in light of the questions raised in the scientific community about the effects inhalation of certain nano particles might

have on human lungs to asbestos exposure, as it relates to human exposure, especially to children from consumer products. finally, i would like to discuss an additional priority of mine, one that is not reflected in dollars but to me at least makes a lot of sense. how we at the cpsc do what we do is often just as important as what we do. since day one in this position i have worked daily to try to establish a certain culture among the five of us at the commission level. the commission and more importantly, the american public are far better served by an agency where we operate at the commission level in a culture of civility collaboration and constructive dialogue. thank you again for the invitation to speak to you about the cpsc and life-saving work undertaken by our staff. i look forward to answering questions that you may have.

>> chair, gentleman yields back. the chair yields miss buerkle for her statement, please. >> thank you mr. chairman, and good morning ranking member schakowsky and distinguished members of this committee. thank you for holding today's hearing with regards to the consumer product safety commission. i've had the honor of serving alongside many of the subcommittee members in the 112 congress and i'm delighted to be back here on capitol hill in my capacity as a commissioner at the cpsc. i do hope that today's hearing strengthen's our partnership. i've been a commissioner at agency since july of 2013. throughout this time what has continued to impress me is the dedication of the cpsc staff. the commission of safety is taken very seriously. the regulated committee has also impressed me. not only was their eagerness to comply with our regulations but also with the drive to innovate

and advance safety. i'm thankful too, for the tone set by our chairman and enjoyed by my colleagues. we offer differ on significant policy issues but those differences are discussed in a mute actually respective manner. i stress three general priorities. collaboration, education and balance. number one it is crucial that cpsc builds strong relationships with all stakeholders. we can tap the knowledge and expertise of many outside experts. this is especially important in the regulated community. if we inspire cooperation rather than hostility we'll see quicker designs and removal of defective products for the consumer. that's why i'm troubled by the higher civil penalties changes to retailer reporting and the proposals known as voluntary

recall in 6b. without question, i believe these undermine engagement and collaborative efforts. number two education. it's crucial to our commission. we need to make the regulated committee aware of best practices and be honest about what we are intending to achieve. more importantly we need to engage the consumer. helping them to take advantage of safer products available to them. a prime candidate for a comprehensive educational campaign is the education of window coverings. this will prevent unfortunate injuries and death. number three while consumer safety is our top priority, i believe that that safety can be achieved in a balanced reasonable way that does not unnecessarily burden the regulated committee, deprive consumers of product they prefer or assert government into the market where it does not belong. our statutes express standards rather than mandatory standards.

where mandatory standards are unavoidable, the cpsa adequately addresses the risk. mandatory stresses have unintended consequences. they tend to stagnate. it makes sense therefore, to revisit our rules periodically and make sure they are effective without stifling innovation. i am pleased that the commission voted unanimously last week for retrospective review of our rules and hope it will become a more regular activity of the commission. regulation is a necessary function of the government and the consumer product safety action improved our authority. it is clear it forced regulation without regard to risk let alone cost. this subcommittee led the way in moderating the consequences for its work which passed into public law while i was a member of the house. some objectives of that law

remain unfulfilled. last year the house included $1 million in our 2015 and to kickstart test burden reduction. there is still much more we can do to remove unnecessary regulatory burdens in this arena and i do look forward to working with this committee on those unresolved cpsia issues. the common goal among all of us congress cpsc industry and consumers is safety. we are all people who have families for whom we want safe products. i have six children and six grandchildren. i do not want dangerous products hurting them or anyone. however, the united states government cannot and should not try to create a zero risk society. the solutions we seek should be balanced and address actual problems. consumers should be protected from unreasonable risks while the regulated committee is protected from an arbitrary government. thank you for this time today and i look forward to taking

care of any questions that you might have. >> the gentle lady chair recognizes commissionered a adler. >> thank you for the opportunity to appear along with my fellow commissioners today. i'm pleased to be able to testify about an agency that i've been associated with in some fashion since this establishment 40 years ago. at the outset i point out that we are far and away the safety agencies with the current funding level of 123 million in a staff of roughly 560 ftds. i want to put that in perspective. for fy 2016, we've asked for an appropriation of $129 million, an increase of roughly $6 million. by way of comparison our sister agency fda has asked for roughly $4.9 billion in an fy 2016 which is an increase of roughly $148

million. or to put it more succinctly, fda has asked for an increase larger than the entire budget. notwithstanding our modest budget, our scope is extremely widen compassing roughly 16 categories kwoour products found in homes and schools and recreational settings. given this broad jurisdiction the agency has adopted a database approach using the highly skilled technical staff to figure out which products present the greatest risk. and we address them using our regulatory and educational tools in a way designed to minimize market disruption while always making consumer safety our top priority. we don't operate alone. we've always sought to include our various stakeholder partners in a quest to eliminate unreasonable risks. included in this group is our friends in the business and consumer communities as well as the standard development bodies that work closely with the

agency. and i want to note, looking from the perspective of 40 years just how much good work has been done. that's been an estimated 30% decline in the rate of deaths and injuries associated with consumer products over this 40 years. and let me just cite a few statics particularly pertaining to children. over this period of time we've seen an 83% drop in childhood poisoning, a 73% drop in crib deaths, an 86% reduction in baby walker injuries and almost complete elimination of childhood sufficient foe indication in refrigerators. i'd also like to mention the tremendous strides that the agency has taken to implement the consumer product safety improvement act, which has been noted, was approved by the house by a vote of 424-1, signed by president bush on august 4th 2008. among the things we've done to implement the law, stringent rules on children's products,

prom mol gated the strongest safety standards for cribs in the word. we've made mandatory a comprehensive toy standard we've written and continued to write a series of durable infant products like play yards and strollers and developed new approaches to catching dangerous imported products which we helped to expand. since i last appeared before this committee the commission has experienced a significant turnover in members. in fact, i'm the last one standing. although i missed my former colleague, i'm pleased to welcome as new colleagues chairman elliott kaye and kmirgs commissioner buerkle. they are a joy to work with. they have sharpened my thinking on aest ho host of issues and have brought a new era to civility. we disagree vigorously sometimes on issues but we listen to and trust one another in ways that i

have not seen in this agency in many, many years. final point, mr. chairman i'd like to reiterate my concern about a set of issues around a critical demographic that i don't think has received enough information and that is senior citizens, a group of which i am a proud member. cpsc data showed the second most vulnerable population after kids is adults over 65. and i note this is a rapidly growing group due to the aging of baby boomers and the greater longevity of our citizens. in the interesting statistic there are more of us in the over 65 age group in this country than people in canada. but what's particularly troubling to me is that seniors while comprising only 13% of the population, account for 65% of our consumer product related deaths. and by 2020, they, we, will be 20% of the u.s. population. so given my concerns while acting chair i work with staff

to create a senior safety initiative which is ongoing in which i hope to have the congress included and hope to work with you. thank you for your time and look forward to your questions. >> gentleman yields back. thank you, gentleman. chair recognizes you five minutes. >> thank you, chairman burgess and ranking members of the committee. i appreciate the opportunity to be here. i will keep my opening remarks very brief and focus only on one element of evolving cpsc policy and that is our import surveillance. this is one area that i think we can dramatically improve our efficiency and effectiveness. while we're better targeting illegitimate inbound consumer products, i believe we can do more to facilitate legitimate trade through public/private partnerships. with those importers voluntarily willing to have greater scrutiny, not unlike similar programs like tsa and fda.

i can envision a modernized import surveillance program where harmful and noncompliant consumer goods and legitimate cargo carries down the stream of commercial without disruption. this concept and model moves beyond incremental increases in targeting to a more evolved account-base demonstrate tif commitment to making safe products. but to earn cpsc's trust, traders would undergo thorough reviews of the supply chain competencies, clearly demonstrate a culture of compliance reflecting the highest standards. membership would have its privileges. to attract applicants trader status would offer fewer inspections and vast or more predictable time to market. should the trust be violated, the government's response would

be swift and sure. no discussion of cpsc is complete without addressing the $36 million annual funding level we outlined in our most recent budget request and user fees we hope will pay for it. i'm not entirely convinced of the legality of the fee mechanism. moreover, while i'm generally supportive of what to spend that money on i look forward to further discussions to develop a more nuanced understanding of that expenditure. however, my potential support for that spending whether from user fees or from appropriations is predicated on implementation of a properly resourced trusted trader program capable of attracting robust participation. if we're going to ask for more money, particularly if it comes from the various i ammporters if

we can develop the confidence necessary to take those good actor's shipments out of our haystack, finding the needles will be that much easier. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thanks to gentleman. the chair would note it appears that the good feelings is now settled upon the consumer products safety commission. you all referenced how well you work together. the chair takes that as a good sign as we move forward. and, again, i want to thank you all for being in our hearing. we'll now move into the question portion of the hearing. each member will have five minutes for questions and chairman kaye, let me begin. and again thank you for your willingness to be here and i apologize for having to reschedule during a snow day unexpected snowfall in march that caught a lot of us by surprise. but thank you for your flexibility and rescheduling. the budget for fiscal year '16

requests the -- the commission requests new commission authority to impose undefined user fees on i ammporters. i think i've already shared with you i have misgivings about that and would really welcome further discussion from the commission as to how these user fees not just how they are collected but how they are dispersed or paid into the treasury and then subject to appropriations by the appropriations committee or are they fees that are retained within the agency for use within the agency? so i would like some clarification about that and i've just reminded members, we are the appropriation season. the appropriations for the consumer products safety commission comes through the appropriation bill. we want to be vigilant about that and make certain that we do

pay attention to the agency during the aproppropriations. in the commission's performance budget request to congress, the targeted percentage of entries sampled is identified through the fiscal year 2016 but only labeled baseline and fiscal year '16, the target is to be decided. are we on the brink of nationalizing a pilot program where we don't know the metrics for inspection and evaluation? >> thank you, mr. chairman. no, we're not on the brink of recognizing a government program even though the government is on the brink of nationalizing the electronic fig which electronic filing. we want to make sure it's as close as possible by december 2016 when the system that

customs and border protection runs to receive electronic filing is up and running and there is truly one single window that we are not creating an unnecessary disruption to the market by not being a part of that. as we envision in our appropriations request a permanent mechanism one way or the other would allow the agency to collect and retain the funds solely for the purpose of funding this program. it wouldn't be used for any other reason. there's a long history of agencies with border authorities doing this. we took the time to study those other agencies and worked with the office of management and budget to come up with the preferred method to not reinvent the wheel so cpsc could do its part with the single window. >> that's some of the activities of the other agencies and departments that has been the genesis for my concern about this. again, we are coming into the appropriations and i want to be careful. but on this single window issue

commissioner, perhaps you can address this as well i was on the committee in 110th congress. that's the committee that did the reauthorization of the cpsc and the safety bill and i became very concerned we did hearings chairman rush was sitting in this chair at the time but the -- that was the year that so many things were imported into the country and then found to be problematic. there didn't seem to be a way to stop them and then the concern came to what happens with all of this stuff in warehouses that's offloaded by long shoremen in long beach, california? nobody is saying you deal with it, other country that shouldn't have sent this stuff to us in the first place because your attention was lax. so are we any better off today than we were in 2007 or 2008 as far as containing things that came into the country that may

be hazardous? >> thank you dr. burgess. in short, i think we are in a much better decision than we were before. one of the points i reminds folks of i'm the only nonlawyer on this commission. so i think in terms of metrics, from my formal education being the only mba, i think in terms of things being risk return on investment. in applying that to public service, i think about safety return on investment and i'm committed to the fact that the investment and evolution of our import targeting activities and sophistication of those strategies is the greatest safety return on investment that we can apply in terms of our resources and budget. it completely bypasses the difficulties that you mentioned mr. kmar man, with regard to recall effectiveness, et cetera and will ensure that we don't have to learn from bad experience. of course before us we have the

potential to scale up into a nationalized program a very significant program. do i believe that we have a proof of concept and do we have reason to move forward based on the success of our pilot project? the answer for me is absolutely. but, again, i think we do have to look at it more closely the significant i.t. spin so it will be able to yield the kind of targets and targeting effectiveness that we hope to achieve as well as the operationalization. i was in the conformity testing business for eight years. i've had to scale up massive supply chain testing operations and with that you expect to see significant economies of scale. that's something that i have yet to see in terms of the operational scope that we have identified but i'm sure further communication will identify that. >> and i'm certain that it will. it may even in this hearing. i'll yield back my time.

recognize miss schakowsky. >> like you, i identify as a senior citizen and wonder what you anticipate what will be or already is part of this commission senior safety initiative. >> well thank you very much for the question. the first thing i'd like to announce is that we are participating in a 2015 healthy aging summit sponsored by hhs held on july 27th and july 28th eight commission will be in there a listening mode. one of the things that i ask the staff to do was to look at mechanical hazards because that seems to be the area where seniors suffer the most and one of the issues that we addressed was what can you do with respect to senior citizens when other citizens who are not senior citizens use the same product. >> what do you mean by

mechanical hazards? >> falls, sawings cuts lacerations, things along those lines. >> uh-huh. >> and so what the staff has done, i think is a very smart thing. they've first looked to see products that present unique hazards and they are intended for senior citizens, such as bed rails and these panic buttons that seniors wear if they fall. the next thing they've looked at is products that present disproportionate risks to seniors but that also present unreasonable risks to the public at large and a product there, i would say, would be table saws. and then even with respect to products where the commission might find that there's disproportionate injury to seniors, the staff is looking into areas where we can at least alert seniors that they are attic risk of harm and caregivers as well. i think it's a fairly comprehensive program that we're doing and i'm delighted that the

staff has taken to this with such enthusiasm. >> well, as the co-chair let's stay in touch on that. i'm really interested. i wanted to get to the issue of flammability standards. i note the consumer product safety commission has the authority under the flammable fabric act to issue standards. and i know there are some promulgated children's products and it's possible to contribute to flame resistant chemicals that pose health risks. an early reporter about this the average american baby is born with the highest recorded levels of flame retardants among infants in the world. and i know recent studies have

linked flame retardant chemicals to a wide variety of adverse healthy effects endocrine disruption developmental disruptions and cancer, et cetera. so my question, really, is if we, one, have any studies or information demonstrating the flammability standards promulgated reduced fire-related injuries and if you have any plans to revisit to find out if the issue of the flame retardants themselves is a danger. >> thank you chairwoman. i don't know if i can do justice to this topic in a minute 23 but certainly the commissioner pointed out in the beginning, thanks to large part the fire community and cpsc staff over time and i believe this is attributable to some of the

flammability standards, especially with clothing in children's pajamas, there's been a reduction of fire-related incidents but the issue that you're speaking to is flame retardants. i'm not aware that they have been proven to be effective and i'm aware of some of the studies that go to the potential health concern and i can say to you that it bothers me even more as a regulator, it bothers me as a parent of two young children that there has to be uncertainty about the products that we interact with and the chemicals in them. a perfect example of that is a couch. most don't view a couch as a potential flammable product but if the foam is doused in an attempt to cigarette fires end up getting in the dust and children as we know go under couches and put their hands in their mouth, if it's true that it's had a very negative impact on the health of children, it's a significant concern of ours. >> and on certain usefulness and

reducing flammability. >> correct. one of the things that i've tried to do at my level is talk to our officer agencies who have overlapping jurisdictions and similar interests in this area to try to get the government working more cohesively to address this uncertainty. i think consumers deserve to know answers to these questions as quickly as possible. >> what are the other agencies? >> the epa fda, cbc and the national toxicology program as part of the national institutes of health and the national institute of environmental health sciences. >> thank you. i yield back. >> chair, thanks to gentle lady. the chair recognizes gentle lady from tennessee for five minutes, please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. chairman kaye let me come to you first. commissioner buerkle mentioned in reference the million dollars that my amendment put into advancing the consumer product safety improvement act. and i just want to ask you what

you all have done to reduce that third party testing requirement where you are in that process, how you're putting that million dollars to work. >> thank you for the $1 million it's made a big difference. as soon as it was appropriated we moved the amendment to our operating blend to allocate that $1 million to seven different projects that we identified, primarily based on stakeholder feedback to try to get to this issue. there are three projects that staff is close to sending up to the commission for us to vote on to try to provide some of that relief. as i mentioned in my opening statement, my direction to staff has been to prioritize those actions that will have the widest potential benefit to small businesses. >> okay. let me ask you this. in your letter to senator thune, you identified three areas for the determinations of lead

content, finding international toy standards and then guidance allowing for third-party testing exemptions. >> those are three separate areas that my staff and i continue to work on and have discussions on. in total, you're talking about ten different projects. >> okay. commissioner, do you want to respond? >> i'd love to. thank you. it's perfectly logical to wonder commitment of the commission behind reducing third party test burden and why we achieved little in terms of results, that's because we are replying to proposals and unreasonable interpretation of our statute. this language with assuring compliance. the problem is quickly it is ichb consistent with established cpsc policy. if you look at the component part testing rule which was noncontroversial. >> you're in a bureaucratic quagmire. >> absolutely. >> so you can't get to the outcome, the deliverable, because you're still talking

among yourselves. >> not until we change that standard. >> what's the time line for getting it finished? we want this finished. so when are you going to have it finished by. >> we have three in the next few months to vote on then we have -- >> give me two months three months, what do you mean. >> within june the first up and two more by september. >> i mentioned a lot of dissatisfaction, the way you're going at the 1110 rule, all of the public comment september one was against that. but i think what i am hearing is you move forward with a little more of a heavy hand than what you would represent to us. and you say you want to be engaging the industry and you want to be collaborative but the feedback i'm getting those are your words but your actions

are much more heavy handed that you've determined what you want is the outcome, thereby you're going to let people think they're participating but in the end you're the rule maker and you're going to get your way. so do you feel like that is a collaborative atmosphere in trying to work with the industry and how would you describe to those type of comments made about the way you all are approaching rule making. >> is that for me? >> yes you're the chairman. >> is that specific to 1110 rule or more general? >> it is specifically to 1110, but in general when it comes to dealing with industry. >> sure the 1110 rule is in definite pause. i was not the chairman when that came up, that was not part of what i worked on as soon as i

became chairman i engaged staff and worked with them to be sure they were doing more collaborative engagement -- >> are you still advancing that? >> it is not moving now. >> going to put it completely in pause? >> it is in pause. completely paused. what we have been doing is working with stakeholder community through an advisory panel on the issue of the single window and imports. we are running a pilot coming out, fr notice in a few months. and we are trying to get it right. we are having those exact collaborations collaborations. >> my time is out, i have one other question. but i will submit that to you in writing, thank you all. i yield back. >> thanks. the chair recognizes mr. olson five minutes for questions. >> i thank the chair and welcome to our witnesses, especially welcome to former house cleb anne marie buerkle.

i want to talk about nano technology. as a 1985 graduate of rice university of houston, texas we are proud that two of our professors won the nobel prize for nano technology. in fact, dr. swal ee caught me chemistry 102. so it is very special. chairman kaye. i wrote you a letter february 25th about this issue, the fact that your budget requests for 5 million more for nano technology at the research center is almost 85% of the proposed budget increase. that caught my eye. i appreciate response to my letter. i ask consent to enter the letter and response for the record. >> without objection, so ordered. >> thank you. i have a few questions to clarify issues from your letter. you state that the reason that cpsc needs 5 million is for a new research center is because

your work has, quote identified significant data gaps regarding exposure to nano materials from nano products. can you elaborate what the data gaps are? >> absolutely. it is not only that we identified, congressman, those data gaps it is that the larger nano technology initiative. nni, the collaboration would want to see the nni working groups identified this data gap and it goes to understanding the exposure from consumer products that have nano materials in them. and so there's plenty, there's a billion dollars, more than a billion -- billions that has been spent by the federal government on advancing nano technology, but none of that or very little of that money has gone to understanding the specifics of consumer product exposure, which is unique exposure. if you have a child out swinging a tennis racket and every time the child hits a ball, nano

particles fly off and the child is breathing those in and those particles mirror asbestos, these are critical health and safety requests that we want to get at and are in the requests. >> you listed four categories as criteria for success. first is to develop robust test methods to determine and characterize human exposure to nano materials. what defines a robust testing method? >> that's what i leave to toxicologists. that's what this working group has been working on with money congress has been giving us and that we in conjunction with national science foundation as well as a number of manufacturers and agencies would hope to get to answers at. i am not a technical expert. i can't decide what reaches that threshold of reobustness, but we have expertise in the staff level to meet that. i want to staff the center with 12 scientists, 15 technicians

10 post doctoral students and 12 graduate students. these come from current staff or outside? >> i think from outside part of the funding. >> how much expertise does current staff have ochb nano technology issues. >> we have a phenomenal toxicologist who is our representative in this space with other agencies on nni, but admittedly it is not a deep bench chlts we try to hire internally and procure test materials we may not need. we are trying to do cost efficient way of building a cost effective model and pursue through nsf. >> what kinds of interaction do you have with stakeholders? >> there's a good amount of interaction, our staff reports back. >> nni and other agencies work nano with yourselves or primary

agency? epa, what other agencies? >> department of defense, homeland security, many agencies are part of nni. >> that's my questions. yield back by saying go rockets. >> chair thanks the gentleman. gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes mr. guthrie from kentucky five minutes for your questions, please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i was preparing for the hearing today, i talked about commissioner buerkle, showed up it is you. glad to have you back. i didn't realize that you were in this role and always enjoyed serving with you as mr. pompeo spent time in the state of new york, always fun to talk about you about what was going on back there. i have a question. table saw manufacturers in my district, and i understand the cpsc has begun a special study of national electronic injury

surveillance system data to obtain information about the type of table saws involved with incidents and other information about incidents. and this study began july 2014 and concerns me because it seems to me, and i am not sure, but seems to me no outreach to members of the industry by cpsc for this study and for years the industry tried to work cooperatively with cpsc and input had been of value. commissioner buerkle was there any outreach to industry representatives regarding this special study? >> thank you it is good back to be here on capitol hill. in fact, a specific request was made we would reach out to industry and allow them to participate and survey and it did not happen. i think that goes to the point i made earlier about collaboration and outreach. i think it is incumbent upon the agency to make sure we have

these conversations with industry beforehand, whether before a surveyor before it is a proposed rule, we engage with them so we go forward and get the right information. i will say that nice is one of the -- it is a data collection system that we use, and it avails us of a lot of very helpful information. to that end, that's an important project. having stakeholder engagement before the survey goes out i think is critical. >> a lot of them are concerned about mandating certain technologies particularly patent questions mandating a specific technology in a federal standard, and patent concerns have been raised through the table saw discussions over the years. is the commission aware that there are 140 patents related to proposed technology held by the petitioner to mandate this technology on all table saws? >> are you referring that question to me? >> yes, ma'am. >> let me say this. quite frankly, quite honestly, my colleague commissioner

adler, this is his pet project and i don't mean to pass the buck because this is not a priority of mine nor do i think it should be a priority of the agency, to your point about patents and concerns about that i have tremendous concerns about that. but it is not a project quite frankly that i think should be a priority of the agency now. >> i have one more question. you recently stated that the sole basis for recommendation to the ban of most widely used chemicals was cumulative risk assessment which found the majority of citizens advisory panel recommendation which found the majority of risk associated with chemicals was from another chemical, dehp. can you explain concerns for using cumulative risk assessment as a basis for such regulatory determination? >> thank you. the chap and the proposed rule is of great concern to me has been of concern to me since the chap issued its report because i

believe the chap report should have been a public -- should have been subject to public peer review at that point. from that point onto me the system and whole process has been flawed. the cumulative risk assessment you're talking about is one of my concerns in that the process that's used, that's not well accepted in the scientific community, cumulative risk assessment, so i think that goes to the process and validity and integrity of the chap report. more importantly and certainly another grave concern i have, is when the chap did their review, they used old data, data that was before the ban of fhalates. it is almost irrelevant because it doesn't use timely data. the commission has taken on analyzing more recent data. and i constantly and

consistently said and advocated we put findings and analysis of staff on more current data out for public comment. it should be put out at least 60 days, and staff should comment on how they're going to use that analysis relative to the proposed rule. because in order to get comments from the public, we have to include that information in the opportunity for them to comment. >> chairman are you concerned about cumulative data and do you believe it should be out for public comment? >> i agree with commissioner buerkle that the staff analysis should go out for public comment and i was the one that directed staff at the beginning of the process to undertake that analysis, and my hope is that we will reach agreement in the coming days when staff is ready to put that out for analysis for it to go out. as far as cumulative risk assessment, i have to respect the work of the chap because that's the statutory regimen set up by congress and section 108 of consumer product safety improvement act. that was scientific or policy direction to the chap members

which by the way were picked through national academy of sciences as the leading experts around the world on this issue. so considering that that's what the statute told them to look at and that's what they looked at i respect that decision on their part. >> thank you. my time expired. >> gentleman yields back. chair recognizes the gentleman from kansas. >> thank you mr. chairman. want to talk about the rule making. you testified before the appropriations committee, described the hearing as the longest hearing held in the cpsc history, went late into the night, many panels and witnesses. i appreciate you taking time to do that. i want to be sure we don't cut back this process we get the data right, science engineering, technology right. that's why i introduced legislation, have you had a chance to look at that. and i didn't see your name as co-endorser, looking forward to hearing you today say you think it is something that would make

sense, that industry can work alongside you and get voluntary standards that make sense. >> thank you congressman. i know that you have been particularly interested and i appreciate that since the time you have been in office in the work of cpsc that's a good thing. it is important to have this continued dialogue. the rov issue is one of great significance, we are taking it seriously, similar to directing staff to work on the phalates. i asked them to redouble and engage with voluntary standards to reach a solution. i think that's the preferred solution many of us would like to see, if they can adequately address the hazard and it can be substantially complied with. as far as the bill is concerned i am not going to be able to tell you what you want to hear, i don't have the ability to co-endorse. >> you can say it here. >> sounds like i could say it, but based on where we are in our discussion, i think it is a well intended but unfortunately would have a negative impact for three reasons. one, i don't want to call it a

delay, but looks like a delay, even if not intended to be, and those cost lives. every year we look at getting close to 80 deaths per year, many children, associated with rovs. every year it is not addressed, through robust voluntary standard or mandatory standard is more deaths. that's something we should all be concerned about. second of all there are real costs, every time there's a death, talking about impact on the community and society, about $8 million as staff estimates from an economic stand point. so if it is a two year study talking about 150 deaths, that's upward near a billion dollars in cost to society that would result from this and probably in the area from timing perspective, and i just had a conversation with mr. prichard who you hear on the second panel before you came here staff and voluntary standards body meaning industry are at a position that i don't think they have been at for many years where they're finally engaging in substantive technical discussion to resolve

the issues. if this bill were to pass, it puts out for question for two years one of the key areas that industry and staff are driving to solve now. i just don't think that's going to help the timing of it. >> i appreciate that. no one wants more deaths no one is advocating for delay to result in death. i know nobody on the committee would either. i know industry wouldn't want that either. i think you have to get the data. i am not going to go through it but i have seen testimony from staff that says we don't have engineering and technology. we have to look at data and exposure to rovs. it might be possible to do something like that, but we have not done it. i am thrilled to hear you're having discussions with industry and making progress. that's a preferred solution for cpsc and my perspective, would be a great outcome.

but i would hope that you would be prepared to at least suspend the rule making for a period of time, put it on hold, keep it out there as something that might happen in the event that discussions don't move forward in the way sounds like you have some optimism as do i. i would love to see you consider suspending rule making or put it on hold while those discussions are happening. if they fall apart and you and industry can't get together so be it, you can continue to proceed. would you at least consider that? >> one, i don't have the power to unilaterally to suspend rule making. i would say whether industry likes it or not, one of the reasons we reached this situation where we are at a position where everybody is trying to finally reach a solution, i think that everyone has proper incentives. from my perspective, the fact that cpsc has taken it seriously to this point and is prepared to prove to a mandatory standard has provided the types of conditions that have created this environment, so i think

that it is incumbent upon us to keep moving forward as i mention the deaths they certainly weigh on me, and that's not something at this point that would be a positive. >> i hope you'll reconsider that. may or may not be the incentive structure that's achieved, we have june 19 deadline for comments. i want to keep it in a constructive way. i hope the deadline won't artificially create an moss tee where i think there's a chance to get it right, save lives, get the rule right. with that, i yield back. >> chair thanks the gentleman. recognize the gentleman from indiana five minutes for questions. >> thank you. indiana has a large presence of juvenile product manufacturers in the state that make everything from strollers to car seats and i heard firsthand about challenges that they face with regards to redundant testing requirements that might do nothing to advance safety while siphoning money that could

have been spent on r&d and innovation and resources like additional employment. one hoosier manufacturer told me recently consumer product safety act since it passed they spent $12.5 million in testing costs alone, and it is because they not only have to test every platform that the products are on but every skew as well. so not only do they spend an average of $8900 to test every new stroller or cradle design, but they have to spend another thousand dollars to test every paint, every new paint color as well. i think we all agree the safety of our children is of utmost importance and shouldn't be compromised, however i think we have to draw the right balance and ensure companies have resources to do further r&d to ensure their products are safer. mr.