because we're replying to these proposals and unreasonable interpretation of our statute. this language consistent with assuring compliance. and the problem is very quickly it's inconsistent with established cpsc policy. if you looked at the component part testing rule, which was non-controversial -- >> so you're in a bureaucratic quagmire? >> absolutely. yeah. >> 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 timeline for getting it finished? we want this finished. so when are you going to have it finished by? >> so we'll have three in the next few months to vote on and then there's more to come after that. >> give me a few months. a month? two months? three months? what do you mean? and i think within june we'll have the first up and then two more by september. >> okay. so that's going to be your deliverable. let me ask you something else. i mentioned a lot of dissatisfaction and the way you're going about the 1110

rule. all the public comment except one was against that. but i think what i'm hearing is you move forward with a little bit 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 what i -- the feedback i'm getting, those are your words but your actions are much more heavy-handed. that you've determined what you want as 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 respond to those type of comments made about the way you all are

approaching rule making? >> is that for me? >> yes, sir. you're the chairman. >> and is that question specific to the 1110 rule or more general? >> it is specifically to 1110, but in general when it comes to dealing with industry. >> sure. so i'll address both. the 1110 rule is in indefinite pause at this point. i was not the chairman when that came up, and that was not part of what i worked on, but as soon as i became chairman i engaged staff and worked with them to be sure they were doing more collaborative engagement with the -- with our -- >> are you still advancing that? >> no. it is not moving right now. >> you want to put it xleesly on pause. >> it is in pause mode. it's already completely paused. and what we have been doing is working with our stakeholder community through an advisory panel on the issue of the single window and our imports. we're running a pilot that's going to be coming out. the fr notice in a few months. and we're trying to get it right. we are having those exact collaborations you're talking about.

>> my time is out and i will -- i've got one other question. but i will submit that to you in writing, thank you all. i yield back. >> the chair thanks the gentle lady. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. olson, five minutes for questions, please. >> i thank the chair and welcome to our witnesses, especially welcome to former house colleague ann marie buerkle. good to see you again. i want to talk about nanotechnology. as a 1985 graduate of rice university in houston, texas, we are proud that two of our professors, robert krol and richard smalley won the nobel prize for nanotechnology. in fact, dr. smalley taught me chemistry 102. so it's very special to me about nanotechnology. chairman kaye, i wrote you a letter february 25th about this issue, the fact that your budget requests for 5 million more for nanotechnology, the research center, is almost 85% of the

proposed budget increase. that caught my eye. i appreciate a response to my letter. i ask consent to enter the letter and chairman kaye's 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 consumer products. can you elaborate on what these data gaps are, more details on the data gaps, sir? >> absolutely. and it's not only that we've identified those data gaps congressman. it's that the larger nano technology initiative, the nni which is the collaboration everyone wants to see from a federal government where all the agency that's have a presence on nano are working together, actually the nni working groups have identified this data gap and it really 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 nanotechnology, but none of that or very little of that money has gone to understanding the specifics of consumer product exposure, which is a unique exposure pathway. if you have a child out swinging a tennis racket and every time that child hits a ball, nano particles fly off and the child is breathing knows nanoparticles in and those nanoparticles reportedly mirror asbestos these are the critical health and safety questions we want to get at and are behind our requests. >> you listed four categories as criteria for success. the first waunz to develop -- and this is a quote -- robust test methods to determine and characterize human exposure to nanomaterials. what defines a robust testing method? >> that's what i leave to our toxicologists. certainly that's what this working group has been working on with the money congress has been giving us and that we in

conjunction with the national science foundation as well as a number of manufacturers and other agencies would hope to get to those answers at. i am not a technical expert. i can't decide what reaches that threshold of robustness, but we have the technical expertise at our staff level to be able to make that determination. >> in your letter you state you expect to staff this research center with 12 senior scientists, 15 technicians, 10 post-doctoral students, and 12 graduate students. these positions come from your current staff or come from outside? >> i think they would come from outside. it would be part of the funding. >> how much expertise does your current staff have on these nano issues? because they've been working this since 2011, i believe. >> we have some expertise. it's a thin bench. we have a phenomenal toxicologist who is our representative in this space with other agencies on the nni, but admittedly it is not a deep bench and that's one of the

reasons why we're not trying to go in the more costly way and try to just hire internally and procure a bunch of expensive test materials we might not end up needing. we're trying to do them in a more cost-efficient way of building off a successful model and pursue it through the nsf. >> how about stakeholders in nanospace? what kind of interaction do you have with these stakeholders? >> through the nni working groups there's a good amount of interaction. our staff reports back. >> does nni mean other agencies work on nano with yourselves or that's pretty much the primary agency? what other agencies? >> department of defense, homeland security. there are many, many agencies as part of nni. >> okay. that's my questions. yield back by saying go rockets. >> the chair thanks the gentleman. the 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 really enjoyed serving with you as mr. pompeo and i spent time in the state of new york, always fun to talk about you about what was going on with you back there. i have a question. on table saws. back when we were serving together table saw manufacturers in my district and i understand that the cpsc has begun a special study of national electronic 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 the industry's input can have been of value. so commissioner buerkle, was there any outreach to the industry representatives or manufacturers regarding this special study?

>> thank you. and it is good to be back here on capitol hill. in fact, a specific request was made we would reach out to industry and allow them to participate and be a part of that survey and 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 it's before a survey or before it's a proposed rule, that we engage with them so that we go forward and we 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. but 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 and 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. but to your point about the patents and the concerns about that, i have tremendous concerns about that. but it's not a project, quite frankly, that i think should be a priority of the agency right now. >> i have one more question. you recently stated that the sole basis for chap's recommendation to the ban of most widely used chemicals was a cumulative risk assessment which found that the majority i guess

of citizens advisory panel recommendation which found that the majority of the risk associated with these 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 of course is the proposed rule is of great concern to me. it 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 a public peer review at that point. from that point on to 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 cpisa and before the ban of those phthalates. 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 their proposed rule. because in order to get comments from the public, we have to include that information in the proposed -- in that opportunity for them to comment. >> chairman kaye 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's 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 the staff is ready to put that out for analysis for it to go out. as far as the cumulative risk assessment, i have to respect the work of the chap because that's the statutory regimen set up by congress in section 108 of the consumer product safety improvement act. that was scientific direction 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 has expired. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kansas, mr. pompeo. five minutes for your questions please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i 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

many witnesses. i appreciate you all taking the time to do that. now i want to make sure we don't cut short this process, we get the data right the science and engineering and technology right. that's why i've introduced a piece of legislation. have you had a chance to take a look at that? >> i haven't. >> i haven't seen your name as a co-endorsor, but i'm 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 stards 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 to the commission. we are taking it very seriously. similar to the work of directing staff to do analysis on the phthalates issue. i directed staff toe redouble their efforts to engage with the voluntary standards effort to try 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 it looks like a delay, even if not intended to be, and those delays cost lives. every year we look at getting close to 80 deaths per year, many of them children, associated with r.o.v.s. every year this issue is not addressed whether through a robust voluntary standard or a 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, you're talking about from an impact on the community and society about $8 million as our staff estimates from an economic standpoint. so if it's a two-year study and

you're talking about 150 deaths, that's upward near a billion dollars in cost to society that would result from np and probably in the area from timing perspective, i just had a conversation with mr. pritchard 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 a substantive technical discussion to try to resolve these issues. if this bill were to pass, it puts out for question for two years one of the key areas that both industry and the 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 in order to achieve that result. i'm not. i know nobody on the committee would either. it's a bipartisan piece of legislation. i know industry wouldn't want that either. i think it's required. i think you have to get the data. i'm not going to go through it but i've seen testimony from

staff that says we don't have the engineering and technology, right? bob franklin on your staff said we'd have to look at the data looking at exposure over time to the different r.o.v.s. 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 from 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 suspend the rule

making. that would have to be a commission decision. 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 that this deadline won't artificially create animosity where i think there's a chance to really get it right, save lives, and get the rule right. so with that, mr. chairman, i yield back.

>> chair thanks the gentleman. the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentle lady from indiana. five minutes for questions, please. >> 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 away money that could have been spent on r&d and these companies and innovation and resources like additional employment. one hoosier manufacturer told me recently consumer product safety improvement act was passed -- since it's passed they spent 12.5 million nasdaq testing costs alone. and that's not -- it's 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 the needed resources to do further r&d tone sure their products are safer. so mr. chairman, i have a question to you that with this in mind what actions have you taken in the past year to provide relief to companies with respect to costs of third party testing requirements? >> thank you, congresswoman. one of the areas we found interesting, and this was discovered by small business ombudsman, i don't want to get commissioner mohorovic upset since it involves his prior occupation. but we found a lot of third party labs are testing for services that are not required and so our small business

ombudsman and his office provide phenomenal support and assistance working with small businesses and i encourage any members with small businesses that have issues, reach out to neil cohen of cpsc because he can work with companies to go through testing reports and find out whether or not they really need certain testing. he doesn't actually go line by line, but he says here are general guidances and questions you should be asking. he really does a phenomenal job of empowering a lot of companies. i think that's gone a huge way to addressing some of these issues. >> thank you. commissioner mohorovic? >> thank you congresswoman. i think what you'll get is a lot of the dodging tactics from the agency to try 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 lack the will to be able to enact very many of the policies and suggestions that

have come before the agency. so we can blame the testing labs. we can blame retailers for retail protocols. we can dodge and weave on this as long as we want. but as i said earlier it is frustrating for me particularly because it's so -- it lacks alignment. it's so inconsistent with established cpsc policy. if we applied the same appreciation for risk tolerance that we did in the promulgation of the component part testing rule, we would have all of the emphasis and staff would be able to recommend countless means to reduce the cost and burden without any adverse health or safety impact. >> thank you. chairman kaye, it is my understanding that a million dollars of your 2015 budget was to be allocated to reducing the needless and duplicative testing burdens. can you explain what actions you have actually taken in leading the commission to fulfill that role? how have you reached out? what companies expect to see from this relief if we have mandated that in your budget. >> sure.

one of the limitations and i agree with commissioner mohorovic that we have a lot of what we need but we don't have everything that we need. one of the areas is it is a one time appropriation. we cannot staff up from it. it is not prudent to hire people without knowing how you pay for them in following fiscal years. so most of this money has gone through contracting. so we contract out with organizations who can do a lot of the technical work to figure out if there is possibility for relief. but ultimately our staff has to take that work. there has to be resources internally to be able to turn that work around and try to make it something actionable. so the three areas i mentioned in response to congresswoman blackburn's questions have to do with providing this exact type of relief. looking, for instance, at natural wood, whether or not if you use a natural wood alone, you have to test for heavy metals required by law. we keep trying to check off lists of materials and types of products that you don't have to test to to avoid these costs,

and that has been the theme in terms of stakeholder engagement and internal deliberations we are trying to pursue to make it worth the while. >> thank you. my time is up. i yield back. >> the chair thanks the gentle lady. the chair recognizes the ranking member of the committee mr. pallone. five minutes for your questions, please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my question is of chairman kaye, there have been concerning reports of young athletes that have non-hodgkin's lymphoma and other blood cancers and who also have been playing sports on athletic fields filled with crumb rubber coming from tires which often contains cancer causing chemicals. this past october i wrote to the agency for toxic substances and disease registry, explaining i believe additional research is needed into whether synthetic turf athletic fields increase the risk of lymphoma, leukemia, and other blood cancers. in the agency's reply they said they're supporting efrpts by the commission in this area. yet in 2008 the commission released a statement saying that

fields filled with crumb rubber are "okay to install, okay to play on." i was pleased to hear more recently a spokesperson explained the 2008 statement does not reflect your current views. so i just wanted to ask, is it correct your views are not reflected in that 2008 report and do you agree that additional research and study is necessary to determine whether crumb rubber used in synthetic turf athletic fields presents any public health dangers? and also, is the commission committed to working with other federal agencies to obtain this information and to ensure young athletes playing on these fields are protected? mr. chairman. >> thank you, congressman. and thank you for your leadership on this area. i think you have three questions embedded in there. i am going to try to address all three in turn. the first is you're correct, the 2008 release does not reflect my views of the state of play, and i think it is important to note that 2008 release didn't even reflect as far as i understand it the technical steps views at the time, that there was a

political effort at the time at the commission to say something in the headline of the release that may not actually reflect the state of play, which is that basically that those products are safe. i think there's a big difference in looking at the lead exposure that might exist from the blades of the grass and determining that based on a small sample size the staff was not able to say there were disconcerting levels of lead in those fields, in that particular aspect. that's very different from saying these things are safe to play on. safe to play on means something to parents that i don't think we intended to convey and i don't think we should have conveyed. so that's the answer to the first question. the answer to the second question is absolutely, we are working with federal partners to try to figure out a better and faster way working together to see if an issue such as crumb rubber can be resolved more quickly. as i mentioned to the ranking member earlier, we're working with e.p.a. we're working with n.i.h. through their center down in research triangle park in north carolina the national institutes of environmental health scientists and the

national toxicology program, cdc, atsdr, and then also the fda. we're trying to figure out a way for the government to come together, use our existing resources and authorities to address these issues. parents don't care which acronym named government agency is supposed to do what. they just want answers and they want thun certainty resolved. and the third question i apologize, i can't even remember what the third one was. if you wouldn't mind asking me again. >> i think it's really basically trying to find out what your view is and what the commission is doing and whether you're working with other federal agencies on the issue. >> absolutely. >> all right. thank you very much. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair thanks the gentleman from illinois. mr. kinzinger is recognized for five minutes for your questions. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you all for being here today. nice to have you in front of the committee. mr. chairman, chairman kaye, it seems that banning a chemical deemed safe by other government

agencies opens the door to use of substitutes that have been far less studied and with far fewer scientific and performance data available. is the agency prepared to deal with the market and potential safety repercussions of transitioning from well-tested phthalates to the uncertainty of any potential substitutes? >> this gets into the answers from congressman pallone. there's a larger issue going on of a policy matter where unfortunately the concept you're getting to is regrettable substitution, where one chemical is banned, and don't have a full sense from a science and safety perspective what the substituting chemical will be. i think that's a failed public policy. i have to admit. i think the better approach, and this could be done working with industry and something i would like to see happen, for government and industry to come together to focus on which chemicals shouldn't be used and faster route to which ones should be used. as a public policy matter that is my preference.

unfortunately, neither the resources nor authorities and directions the agencies have been going in for a long time are moving in that direction. but again, as part of these collaborative efforts we're trying to undertake from cpsc with these other agencies, that's one of the key goals we're looking at. >> until we get to that point where we can have that perfect system, i think we ought to be careful when we look at banning substances. because if we don't have a situation in place where we can do all the study of alternatives we ought to be very careful. let me following the phthalate rule making, commissioner buerkle noted in her concern on banning chemicals that have been in use for many years when little is known about the substitutes. you said you agree with that. i want to see commissioner buerkle, what's your thoughts on the idea of banning something with unknown substances to follow. >> thank you for the question. as you note, that was one of my concerns when the npr came oit, that we are now proposing substance foouts be used that we

know less that within we know about the chemicals that are r&r banned. my more general concern with regard to the chap, both in comment and here today and also in statements previous statements, was the whole process for how the chap report was done and now this proposed rule. i think we need to take a step back, whether regarding chemicals or regarding any of the things we do, we are a data-driven agency. so to make sure we have the data correct and to make sure that the processes we follow are correct and that the chap followed a process that the entire scientific community can accept as credible is key to our agency and the credibility of our agency. it's been noted the american people rely on information coming from us. so it's important that we get it right. so if it takes a little more time, if it requires a request to congress that we can't promulgate that rule within 180 days after the chap report was issued, so be it.

we have to make that request because it is incumbent upon our agency to get it right, to take time we need to. >> i want to add to that, especially i guess maybe to reiterate what you said. i understand that there's in many cases a need for 180 days going past deadlines isn't fun, it's nothing any of us like to do. but i think at the risk of getting something wrong versus getting something right even if we have to go past a deadline, i think republicans and democrats americans, independents, far right, far left would all agree that's probably a preferable way to go. that's some of the concerns we have there. chairman kaye, i want to go to a bit of a different subject just real quick. in the preamble for the proposed rule on voluntary recalls, the cpsc indicated it has encountered firms that have deliberately and unnecessarily delayed the timely implementation of the provisions of their correction action plans. how many firms have deliberately and unnecessarily delayed the implementation of provisions of their corrective action plans? congressman, i have to follow up

and give you answer to that. i don't know the answer to that question. the voluntary recall rule as my colleagues know very well at this point from our continued reiteration of our positions on it has not been a high priority for me. i have higher priorities that go to saving lives. i'm not saying the rule is without merit. i think it has some yue. but it has not been something that i've sfent a lot of time on. >> can you give me an example maybe -- >> i can give you anecdotal examples of where we have reached a situation -- the agreements are voluntary. we reached a voluntary corrective action plan with a company and we notice when they file their quarterly reports that they're not doing what they said me were going to do. they're either not engaging on social media or they're not attempting to reach out and put forth the amount of resources and effort they said they would. one, i wouldn't name a company even if i could, but i can't name a company at this point. i thought commissioner adler last week during a public meeting we had when this topic came up had a phenomenal suggestion where he asked our staff to spend a few months

collecting this data and reporting back to the commission to see whether or not this is a real issue and to commissioner buerkle's point we are data driven and i think that will be a useful exercise and we'll all be curious to see that. >> i'd be interested to. and i just want to point out let's make sure if you're going to throw out the entire system that it is very data driven. thank you all for being here and i jeeldyield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma mr. mullen for five minutes for questions, please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you to the commissioners for taking the time to be here. i know you guys have a very busy schedule and anytime you have to come to the hill you've got to be thrilled about that right? but we are all held accountable for statements that are made. and sometimes when you're sitting in a position, chairman that you sit in your agency carries a pretty big stick and your statements can be devastating to people that are producing a product that depend on retail sales.

would you agree with that? >> absolutely. i think about that all the time. there' a lot of thought goes into what i say, whether i end up saying something like that or not. >> well i'm holding in my hand right here a story that was published by "indianapolis news agency" and it says, "if a consumer was to see a good can at a retail that contained a flame arrester we would encourage them to select such a model as it provides a vital layer of fire protection." that was made by your agency. are you familiar with that news story? >> i am. >> do you agree with that statement? >> i don't understand enough about the technical aspects of flame arrestors. i'm sorry. on gas cans. i can't comment one way or another. >> but your statements have an impact. the flame arrestors we're talking about, they're only sold on commissioner cans, not in retail stores. are you familiar with that? >> no, i'm not familiar with that. i don't have any familiarity

with gas cans other than talking to our staff and knowing the issue you're talking about -- >> but someone on your staff made this statement. and reason why i say this is in my district i had, had a manufacturer that produced retail gas cans. and your agency came out and made a statement referring to retail gas cans and has nothing to do with retail gas cans. they're only regulated by osha and the epa with the flame arresters. once again, we are held accountable for what we said, and your agency made a statement that could have possibly cost real people their jobs. so does the cpsc regulate commercial safety cans? >> we do not. but the statement you're talking about, i am not sure it is inconsistent with the position our staff has taken in the voluntary standards capacity. >> ol' well, okay. then let's talk about that. are you aware the commercial

safety can with the flame arrester failed an astm protocol? >> i am not. >> but you made the 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 of it is to keep children from being burned. but you guys made a statement that failed that exact test, yet the consumer can does. it met those astm standards. you don't see a problem with this? >> i see a problem with it if what you're saying is 100% accurate and -- >> i'm quoting a news story. you guys sent the press release. and this is coming from astn, their testing protocol, that said it failed. >> i understand that. my point is that i am not familiar enough with the area that you're talking about where i can give you the type of answer you're looking for.

>> how about we do this? why don't you get back with my office. >> absolutely. >> since you guys are making those statements, since they affect real jobs in my district, why don't you get back to me and give me that information so you can be spun up to it, so next time your agency opens its mouth and gives a statement like that maybe they're informed about what they're saying. >> would you be willing to have a meeting with my staff and me? >> without question. we would love to. because we would like to get to the problem of this too. statements like that hurt real people. >> excellent. my hope is you would be willing to come to the testing center where we have the technical expertise and we can walk through the gas cans and we can look at the issue together. would you be willing to do that? >> absolutely. >> great. >> then we have to come back, if i am willing to do that, if what i am saying is accurate, i would like you guys to make another statement publicly backing that up. >> let's get the answers together and figure out where we go from there. you have my commitment. if it turns out we said something -- >> well, it's not if. the statement says it -- >> the -- if we said something

that is not accurate you have my commitment that i will say something that is accurate. i'm not going to leave it to anybody else. i will say it. >> good enough. mr. chairman, i yield back. thank you. >> you're welcome. >> chair thanks the gentleman. the gentleman brings up an excellent point. several years ago i took a field trip out to the cpsc testing facility and it was a very illuminating day. my understanding is you're in new headquarters now. and i think the gentleman is quite right a field trip of the subcommittee out to the cpsc would be both informative and instructive and probably help the commission as well as the subcommittee members. and we will see about putting that in the process. i'd just also observe that in addition to being chairman of the subcommittee i am the chairman of the house motorcycle caucus. i know that's kind of a disconnect, but i am. and going over to talk to that group one day after we passed the cpsia here in the

subcommittee in 2007 or 2008 there was a young man, very-old young man, probably 12 or 13 years old, who stood up in front of the group and said "mr. congressman, if you promise to give me my motorcycle back i promise i won't eat the battery anymore." apparently youth motorcycles sales had been prohibited and until technical corrections were enacted it made it difficult for people that sold youth motorcycles and parts. so we do have to be careful about the unintended consequences. seeing no other members -- did you have a follow-up question? seeing no further members wishing to ask questions for this panel, i do want to thank you all for being here today. this will conclude the first panel. we will take an underscored brief recess to set up for the second panel. thank you all very much for your time today.

>> welcome back. the subcommittee will come back to order. i will thank everyone for their patience and taking time to be here today. we're ready to move into our second panel for today's hearing. and we'll follow the same format as during the first panel. each witness will be given five minutes for an opening statement, followed by a round of questions from members. for our second panel, we have the following witnesses. mr. ronald warfield, i have here buck, is that correct? ceo of atv/rov/utv safety consulting. miss heidi crow michael. from winnsboro, texas. thank you for being here today. miss cheryl falvey. co-chair of advertising and product risk management group.

at crowell mooring. and mr. eric pritchard, executive vice president and general counsel for the recreational off highway vehicle association. we will begin the second panel with mr. warfield. you're recognized for five minutes for the purpose of an opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman, ranking members and members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of hr 999, the rov in-depth examination. my name is buck warfield. and i have extensive experience in dealing with safe and appropriate use of off-highway vehicles. first, a bit of background. i was employed by the maryland state police as a police officer or a trooper for over 23 years, and i retired in 1993. with regard to off-highway vehicle experience, in 1985 i

was trained and certified by the specialty vehicle institute of america, svia, as an atv instructor. in 1989 i became an atv safety institute or asi licensed chief instructor, and i continued to be contracted by asi to train, license, and monitor other atv instructor staff. with respect to recreational off highway vehicles known as r.o.v.s or side by sides i have assisted several agencies including military and government groups developing primary r.o.v. training programs and combining thee inging recreation alal off-highway vehicle association approved training program in december of 2010. i currently serve as chief rov driver coach trainer and i have a training facility at my farm in sikesville, maryland which

has been designated a brova as a survivor coach training center. and that is only one of three in the entire united states. one personal note. i logged over 900 hours as an operator of my personal rov since 2006. i currently own two rovs, utilized primarily for rov training, and two more utilized for daily facility maintenance at my training center and farm. i participated in the development of rov basic driver course curriculum which is designated for current and prospective off highway 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 and techniques, addresses basic operation and emphasizes safety awareness, related specifically to rov operation.

the overall aim of the driver course is to provide for drivers' development in the area of skill and risk management strategies. this includes learning to foster driver gains and basic knowledge, skill, attitude, values and habits. i am here to support hr 999. the legislation would only pause the consumer product safety commission's on-going rov rule making until the national academy of science in cooperation with department of defense and national highway traffic safety administration perform a study of the vehicle handling and requirements proposed by cpsc. i do not claim to be an engineer or to fully understand the complex engineering issues, but

i do understand that these are some basic disagreements on a select few issues between engineers at cpsc and the engineers who work for major manufacturers. i appreciate that cpsc is well intended. i also know the manufacturers develop safe, capable vehicles for me, my family, my friends and students i train to use. my decades of experience includes training countless people with no prior experience with atvs or rovs, show me these vehicles are safe with amazing capabilities when operated as intended. hr 999 is narrowly tailored to examine first of all the technical validity of cpsc's proposed lateral stability and vehicle handling requirements. also the number of rov rollovers that would be prevented if the

rule were adopted and whether there is a technical basis for the proposal to provide information on a point of sale hang tag about a vehicle's rollover resistance on a progressive scale and lastly the effects on the utility of rovs used by the u.s. military if the rule were adopted. so in conclusion i think the best way forward would be for the industry and cpsc to work together to find a voluntary solution that works for all of the parties and protects the safety of rov drivers and passengers. barring a cooperative solution, the best and safest way forward is for independent third-party experts to make sure we get it right. thank you, sir. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair thanks the gentleman. miss crowmichael, you're recognized five minutes for purposes of an opening statement, please.

>> thank you. my name is heidi crowmichael. and i would like to thank you all for allowing me to speak today on behalf of my son, j.t. crow. i play many roles in life, i am a homemaker and an advocate but most importantly a mother to five children. j.t. crow is my second child and first-born son. he was a happy and extraordinary 9-year-old boy. at school he was a straight-a student with perfect attendance. he loved science and learning about birds and butterflies. j.t. also loved being outside and playing sports like soccer and football. j.t.'s life was cut short when he went for a ride in a 2007 yamaha rhino 450. while riding at a slow speed around a slight curve, the rov suddenly and inex-plikably rolled over. though j.t. was wearing a safety belt he was thrown from the rhino r.o.v. and crushed by the half-ton vehicle as it rolled over. paramedics rushed him to the emergency room but he sustained more injuries than his young body could handle. my son died that day when he was

9 years old. and my life was forever changed. on a daily basis i live with the pain of the tragedy that struck my family and the fear of knowing it could happen to other families. this fear has led me to become an advocate for r.o.v. safety and industry reform. i have been given the opportunity to use my son's life to make a difference, a difference that can save lives. as we sit here this morning, the r.o.v. industry is one that sets its own safety standards and makes its own rules. and innocent people are paying the price. i'm not against o.r.o.v.s. i just want safe r.o.v.s. many consumers buy r.o.v.s because they have seat belts roll bars and roofs and they look safer than atvs, but r.o.v.s are not safe. it has been many years and every day that there is not a better solution implement ford r.o.o.v. safety is a day that more people, more children, our children are put at risk. when we wrote the citizen's report on utility terrain

citizen hazards and urgently need to improve standards in february of 2009 asking for standards including minute ma'am occupant containment stability zparnds we were hoping our recommendation informs safer rovs would become standard. we asked for action. nothing happened. awn already unacceptably high casualty rate will continue unless action is takentaken. in 2014 r.o.v. use resulted in 14 deaths and eight more in 2015. while less stringent than the recommended measures in the report the cpsc has recommended standards that would significantly improve rov safety. if the rov industry wants to protect their consumers why wouldn't they want to make the safest product possible? why wouldn't they want to do all they can do to protect the people who purchased their vehicles? i've been given the opportunity to speak to many families and we all share a common bond. we have lost someone we love in a r.o.v. rollover accident.

perhaps the most painful part of my role as an advocate for this cause is hearing the heart-wrenching stories from those families. i know i'm not alone in asking this committee to allow the cpsc rule-making to issue rov safety standards and stop the senseless death of our loved ones in my journey over the last eight years i've collected the names and stories of those who shared a fate similar to jt's and it is for them that i speak today for ellie sand age 10. kristen lake 11. dusty lockabee, 14, ashland vargas, 12. danny bernard, 18. stephanie kaiton, 26. whitney bland. 13. sydney anderson 10. and abby west age 13. our stories did 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, dance recitals graduations, birthdays, weddings, and holiday celebrations. we will live with the consequences forever. today you have the opportunity and i think that the obligation to help me honor these young lives, their families and the life of my son, jt crowe. but it is more than that. you have the opportunity to become a part of their story, the part that offers hope for the future by bringing about change. our request is simply common sense. it is unimaginable that anyone would feel differently. if you don't do something about it, can you live with yourself? delay is a problem. delay puts our children at risk. it has been too many years and too many tragedies already. we urge you not to contribute to any further delay. thank you for your time. >> the chair thanks the gentle lady and the gentle lady yields

back. >> chairman burgess, ranking members and distinguished members, thank you for providing the opportunity to discuss the statutory framework that the consumer product safety commission will use to address the kind of risks we've just heard about. i served as the general counsel of the consumer product safety commission from 2008-2012. during the implementation of both the virginia graham baker pool and spa safety act as well as the consumer product safety improvement act. both of those statutes made voluntary standards mandatory. i've been asked to discuss the way that the cpsc statutes interrelate to the voluntary standards process, to inform the committee's consideration of hr 999. my oral remarks will focus on three important aspects of the interrelationship between the voluntary standards process and mandatory law. first, safety standards developed by the cpsc require

time and effort to develop in order to meet the statutory requirements. it's not easy. section 7 of the cpsa provides the cpsc with the authority to promulgate rules that set forth performance standards and require warnings and instructions. but only when the cpsc finds such a standrd reasonably necessary to prevent or reduce an unreasonable risk of injury and that the benefits of such regulation bear a reasonable relationship to the cause of the regulation. the commission must consider and make appropriate findings son a variety of issues, including the degree and nature of the risk, along with the utility of the product, and the costs and means to achieve the objective. to issue a final rule, the commission must find that the rule is necessary to reasonably eliminate or reduce the unreasonable risk of injury.

and that issuing that rule is in the public interest. must also find that the rule imposes the least burdensome requirement that would adequately reduce the risk of injury. congress recognized how difficult it was for the cpsc to do that when it instituted the cpsa. due in part to resolute efforts to ranking member shakowskiy streamline the process of making voluntary standards mandatory law. second, the cpsc statute favors voluntary 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 it finds that the voluntary standards is not likely to eliminate the risk of

injury, and that and/or it's unlikely there will be substantial compliance with the voluntary standard. these can be very difficult findings 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 both its standards and consensus consensus-driven voluntary standards. but the cpsc must still atoemt extrapolate from current data the likely future effects of its proposed rule-making. the legislative history of the cpsa 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's an unreasonable risk in certain circumstances is easy. it can be extremely difficult when you're dealing with a highly technical issues of vehicle rollover.

and that is why it takes staff time to develop the rule-making packages and why it's over 500 pages long. determining whether there's substantial compliance is also a challenge when so many products come into the country now from overseas. the legislative history of the cpsa directs that the commission look at the number of complying products rather than the number of complying manufacturers. and those products are coming in from all over the world. third and finally the challenges of making voluntary standards mandatory law is one of the most important lessons we learned in both cpsia and the virginia graham baker pool and spa safety act. because voluntary standards are irrattive, they evolve other years and unless we know that the test methods can be replicated and are reliable making them law prematurely can

be very dangerous. >> chair thanks the gentle lady. the chair recognizes mr. pritchard, five minutes for an opening statement, please. >> good afternoon, mr. chairman, ranking member and members of the committee. thank you for this opportunity to testify in support of hr 999. the rov in-depth examination or ride act. my name is eric pritchard, i'm the executive vice president and general coin of recreational off-highway vehicle association. rova is not for profit trade association sponsored by arctic cat, brp, honda john deere, kawasaki polaris, text run and yamaha. rova was formed to promote the safe use of rovs in north america. between 2011 and 2014 alone. rov sales are conservatively estimated to total more than 750,000 in the u.s. these popular off-highway vehicles are used safely by

families, emergency personnel and the u.s. military in a variety of environments ranging from mud to sand to forested trails. this is a high-growth industry and a bright spot in the u.s. manufacturing economy. rova is accredited by the american national standards institute to develop standards for rovs and has worked with numerous stakeholders for years to develop the standards. commencing in 2008 and culminating in voluntary standards approved in 2010, 2011 and forecast recently september of 2014. the cpsc has been involved in that process. the newest rov voluntary standard includes a new dynamic stability and handling test and requirement, as well as new alternative seat belt reminders that were proposed by the cpsc staff and driver-side speed limiting seat belt interlocks found in over 60% of the 2014 model year rovs. nonetheless, an essentially simultaneously with the approval of the new voluntary standards, the cpsc voted out the pending

notice of proposed rule making regarding rovs. the npr largely ignores the new voluntary standard. instead the cpsc staff analyzed the prior 2011 version of the voluntary standard. and based it on testing of vehicles from model year 2010. in a supplemental briefing submitted three weeks after the voluntary standard was approved the cpsc staff summarily rejected the new standard because it did not match the rule making. the cpsc's proposals are not supported by science or real-world application. one area of concern is the cpsc's application of on-road vehicle dynamics. to vehicles used in rugged off-highway environments. meanwhile, the cpsc actually continues to conduct testing in support of the mpr it's already voted out. while our review of the cpsc's data underline that the rule-make something not complete i can share a couple of

observations with you. according to the spsc's data. where seat belt use is known 90% of riders involved in fatalities, the riders did not use the seat belts in the rov. 60% of the severe injury rolled sideways incidents in the data were reported by a plaintiff's law firm this is a representative example of the reporting relied on by the cpsc. a 46-year-old man was injured by the tip-over of an rov who is unpadded roll cage crushed his foot on june 16 2006. while it has been a year sinceth accident, foot is still swollen he finds it extremely difficult to walk and is in considerable pain. end. putting aside the bias of a plaintiff's lawyer's reporting, this is not a scientifically sound approach to gathering data. it tells us nothing about how or why the alleged tipover occurred and it's not possible to draw any conclusions based on this limited information. these vehicles are significantly

more complex than other products under the cpsc's jurisdiction. the rov manufacturers engineers have serious safety concerns about the effects of the cpsc's proposals. the ride act will help resolve these matters by having these proposals examined by an independent agency such as the national academy of sciences. this common-sense approach resolving technical issues before considering implementation, should be supported by everyone. some, however have attempted to characterized r.i.d.e. act as further delay in a long process. the record does not support that criticism. the voluntary standard has been updated as technology has evolved. the fact that the cpsc spent years drafting a proposed rule based on vehicles from 2010 cannot be evidence that the rule should be pursued. nor is the quantity of pages in the briefing package relevant to their quality. and the npr comment period has been extended only because the cpsc failed until recently to turn over the documents and data

underlying the rule making. this morning an rov industry group is meeting with cpsc staff to discuss voluntary standards. rova members met with the cpsc on may 5. the effort to establish a mutually agreeable standard volunteer standard is the best approach. in light of this morning. but in the meantime the npr remains pending. it would be a mistake to proceed to a mandatory rule woet first conducting the testing contemplated by the ride act. it's imperative that we get this right for the family's emergency personnel and the military who use these vehicles in a variety of off-highway terrains and conditions, thank you for your time. >> the chair is prepared to recognize ms. shakowsky. >> i have to begin by saying as a consumer advocate pretty much all of my adult life i've been around these conversations for a very long time. and frankly, think this panel is reflective of what happens to

consumers. three to one. on not doing these kinds of mandatory standards. you know, one examineple, i've been working on this rear visibility and the number of children who are killed, often their parent or grandparent drives their car over backwards, on them, we had one in chicago, recently. and now we're going to have by 2018 mandatory in every car, there's 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 and 2013. and thank you ms. crowe, 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 ought to be 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 i think that while you want to get it right, absolutely. i'm sick of hearing, the fault is the trial lawyer's the fault is the user, who doesn't put on the seat belt. >> i'm with you, we need to have mandatory standards. if you had any 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 feel like the vehicles give a perception of safety. but rovs are not safe and the fact that so many children have lost their lives has proven that. time and time again. >> and when your son was buckled into the vehicle, did you trust that the seat belt would keep him from being thrown from the vehicle just like it would in a car? >> of course. we think the product that we buy are safe. >> did the vehicle your son was riding look like the kind of vehicle that would lead to more than 300 deaths or i guess you already said that the vehicle -- >> absolutely not. >> proponents of the cpsc rule and activist like yourself had said that the type of everyday use of the rovs that lead to rollover deaths is not necessarily obvious to riders. particularly children. do you agree? >> i agree.

>> and based on your work advocating on behalf of other victims of rov accidents do you believe that the children are particularly vulnerable? >> 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 have perhaps years more of study and years more of death that the industry work with the advocates and with the cpsc and with their investigators to if you don't think the rule, the mandatory rule is proper, then figure out what a mandatory rule ought to look like. didn't you say miss falvy that there's imports, et cetera and that we need to look at all of those? >> the way the statute would work, the commission would need to know that there's substantial compliance before they relied

upon a voluntary standard. or they could just decide we don't have confidence in these foreign manufacturers and that they'll be compliant and move forward with our final rule. >> so why don't we have a mandatory standard that would apply to all? including imports. i, 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, there's complicated mathematics that figures out money spent is it worth a life? i don't really abide by that. and it seems to me that the 335 is enough. i think your son is enough. that we ought to move ahead i support moving ahead as quickly as possible. with the mandatory standards and i yield back. >> the chair thanks the gentle lady and the gentle lady yields back and i recognize myself five

minutes for questions. miss falvey let me say thank you for your work on the virginia graham baker pool standards. i was on the subcommittee when that bill went through and actually added language for ornamental pools, because as you may recall we lost a number of people at a fort worth water garden just shortly before that came through which underscored to me 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 that process? >> yes, we did. >> and what were the advantages or perhaps the disadvantages in moving from the voluntary to the mandatory standard? >> the advantage is always safety and stopping death. you're always tempted to move as

quickly as possible in order to address an addressable risk. the disadvantage in that circumstance -- >> let me just interrupt you there for a second if i could. 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 the cpsc staff working together. on a standard that everyone can agree on. the problem with doing it too quickly and mandated in its law when it's not quite ready to be law, is that in that case we didn't make things safer. fast enough. in that the drain covers were tested by different labs and 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

brand brand-new drain covers installed that weren't compliant we had to recall them, pull them out. put them in and properly test them. that work well when it's voluntary and it rattive. it's helpful from a safety perspective to work as quickly as possible. and that's always the cpsc's goal. if you don't do it right it can cost an enormous amount of money and it doesn't save lives and that's what we want to avoid. >> mr. pritchard. i guess i should ask this question of you. the list that ms. carmichael read is impressive. it's impressive because of the young age of so many of the people who were met their demise. is there, do you placard these machines with an age restriction? or recommendation for training under certain ages? >> we do.

the industry's recommendation is that in order to drive an rov you need to be at least 16 years of age and 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 certainly part of the hands-on training. 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 i do want to clarify is that when we talk about a voluntary standard, the requirements under the voluntary standard, that's enforceable. that's enforceable by the cpsc. it's not voluntary in the sense of an opt in and opt out. it's the standard. that's how the approximately 14 to 15000 other products that are under the jurisdiction of the cpsc are handled.

the you can imagine the cpsc trying to write 15,000 different standards for every product out there. >> let me interrupt you for a minute i'm going to run out of time. miss carmichael on your facebook page set up to the memory of your son there's a list of i guess safety measure force want of a better term. one mentions the age, another mentions the helmet. these are things that your organization recommends? >> first off, i don't have an organization, per se but if we're 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 andrea jones, who is 34? >> that's an excellent point and i was going to ask mr. warfield. you've studied this for a long time, does the age placarding

may be one thing. but does, i want to say this as nicely as i can, but does body mass make a difference? that is the lighter the driver because most of the people older than the age of 16, that mrs. crowe-michael mentioned on her list, most of them were women. presumably of lighter body weight. does that make a difference? is that something that you have studied? >> not the weight itself, sir. what i see time and time again with these machines is it's operator error. it has almost nothing to do with the design of the vehicle. please let me carry one step further here. i've been operating these machines since 1985. i currently have 13 atvs, i have four rovs. i have brand new one coming in today. i am on those rovs every day. either maintenance or through training. i have never rolled an rov over. i have never rolled an atv over.

i have operated these machines in every state in the united states including alaska and hawaii. except for north dakota. i don't know why i missed out on north dakota. but what i'm getting at is i put these machines through their i've been operating a machine that was perfectly capable of doing everything i wanted. if we're going to make a change,

let's make sure the change is not a negative change. >> i'm going to ask you to hold that thought and the chair will recognize ms. clark for five minutes for questions please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the ranking member and i thank our witnesses for their testimony here today. it's been more than a half a decade since the consumer product safety commission issued the advanced notice of proposed rule making 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, 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

sea, limited a cpsc contractor to create an rov rollover simulator from scratch. in addition to the agency's own data collection this year the cpsc also held a seven-hour public meeting in which the commission heard testimony from and asked questions of witnesses 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 to issue appropriate standards. ms. crowe-michael, your son was not the only person affected by weak safety standards that continued to allow yamaha to continue to sell defective versions of the rhino rov. in 2009, the consumer product safety commission estimated that 59 people were killed riding the rhino. in fact the rhino incident, accident epidemic was one of the

primary drivers of the commission's original rule-making. but hr 999 would force the cpsc to contract with the national academy of sciences to conduct further research before implementing these reasonable and thoroughly tested standards. my question is ms. crowe-michael, do you think more data is needed to determine the rovs currently on the market are unsafe? >> cpsc -- i think they've 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.

>> then let me just follow up with that question. you've suffered an unspeakable loss because of an unsafe rov. do you think the cpsc is rushing to judgment in 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. >> the chair thanks the gentlelady. recognize the gentleman from kentucky, five minutes for questions, please. thank you, mr. chairman and thank you all for being here to testify today. i have a question for mr. pritchard. i notice in your testimony you mentioned that the rohva is accredited by the american standards institute to develop standards for the equipment, configuration and performance of rovs. can you tell us more about this process and how voluntary safety standards have been developed over the last few years? and does this process involve the cpsc? i know you touched on it but

how the process of voluntary stand thards are mandated and is the cpsc involved? >> absolutely. and cut me off when you get tired of listening because i could talk about this all day. rova was formed in 2007. the work on a voluntary standard began in 2008. so essentially almost immediately. in 2010, a voluntary standard was developed and published. then another investigation in 2011 and another investigation in 2014 reflecting the evolving technology. the way the process works is you get the process started through a procedure mandated by its antsi, for this process. you put out a proposed draft standard to the canvas and the canvas is made up of a variety of stakeholders and the stakeholders include in every iteration, has included the cpsc it's included consumer groups it's included industry, it's included user groups.

it's a broad swath. and the way this works is people get the draft. the canvases comment and submit their comments back in the comments are shared with everyone on the canvas. then rova responds to those comments. each one has to say your suggestion for this area, say seat belts here's our response. then the canvas gets all of those comments. from rova back to the canvases, so everyone gets to see the full exchange of information. then a consensus is built around the voluntary standard. it's then sent to antsi. here's how we did it and antsi checks the process and verifies you followed the antsi procedure. when antsi approves it it becomes official and ultimately a book for lack of a better word is published and that becomes a standard by which all of the vehicles subject to that voluntary standard must conform. >> so then it becomes mandatory.

>> it's voluntary -- >> what's the difference between mandatory and voluntary? >> it's voluntary in the sense of it's developed by stakeholders, but it's enforceable. mandatory means the cpsc imposes what it thinks is the best approach. and where we are now is at an impasse between a voluntary standard that's brand new that just came out in september 2014 and a mandatory standard or at least a proposal for a mandatory standard based on the old standard, but a mandatory standard proposed by the cpsc and the engineers and industry just cpsc lass got this wrong. >> was the voluntary standard better? was it more likely to protect life than the mandatory standard? what are the critical differences and why is yours more better? >> there are three, what i call three fundamental differences between the two.

one is on vehicle handling, the cpsc wants to impose something called an understeer man daet. every vehicle must understare an i can tell you about that. the next is testing the lateral stability. the cpsc's test for lateral stability frankly suffers from problems of reproducibility. which the cpsc is conducting testing to address right now. the final piece is seat belts. cpsc has proposed a seat belt interlock. which would essentially prevent the vehicle from moving above 15 miles per hour if the seat belts aren't used in both the driver and the passenger seat. now on the driver's seat there's actually a lot of agreement. the voluntary standard includes that as an approach. the dispute really soefr theis over the passenger seat. cpsc commissioned a study of the passenger seat interlock. they just got the results i think in february, they published them in march. got these after the voluntary standard was voted out and the study confirmed what industry had been telling them that we've heard enter our own consumers, which is no one wants this

passenger side seat belt interlock. because drivers don't want to lose control of their vehicle. you add on top of that the technical challenges, which would be if you put your dog in the seat, your tool box in the seat, this is an area for which there's no answer and the final wrinkle on this. is that even on the driver's side seat belt interlock it doesn't work with a diesel or carb carbor rated engine. that's one small example of what is a complex area and the cpsc's engineers, while i believe well intentioned, don't have this right and i want to add we didn't get we went through this voluntary standard process last year. which i didn't think the cpsc was very engaged in.

there's a meeting taking place between cpsc and staff right now to discuss the voluntary standards. that's the path forward. >> thank you and before i yield back if i could ask ms. crowe-michael, thank you for coming. your advocatecy is appreciated and i hope we can do the right thing as a result. >> the gentleman yields back the chair recognizes miss schakowski. i would like to put on the record of jk butterfield's opening statement. the statement of john sand father of an rov 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. crowe-michael referred to in her testimony. we'll add that to the permanent record. >> without objection, so

ordered. the chair would note i offered ms. schkowsky a follow-up question, she declined. i did have one follow-up question. ms. crowe-michael your son was injured on the yamaha rhino 450. and just ask the question if anyone on the panel is that particular model still available? is that something that is still sold on the market? >> i can address it. >> please. >> that vehicle is not sold. in fact it's you're talking about a vehicle from 2007. if i recall your testimony correctly. we're now three voluntary standards past that. so the technology has evolved beyond that. i can add there are tens of thousands of those rhinos still in use. that people enjoy at this point have probably put on hundreds of thousands, if not more hours of use. but no, we're the technology for these vehicles has evolved and we're now in a new standard.

>> but you could still buy one on craigslist? >> yeah, i would guess. >> yeah. >> so it's going to be an informational challenge to get information to people who may be new purchasers of an old machine. >> but those vehicles respectfully, are not defective. period. i think that the -- >> i disagree. >> i think the incidents are more complicated than what we've heard today. i don't think that's a focus of today. i think the focus of today is can we get this right between industry and the cpsc and if the cpsc just won't listen to industry, it won't listen to folks who make these vehicles maybe they'll listen to the national academy of sciences. >> very well. chair wishes to thank all members of the panel. ms. crowe-michael. may i just echo what mr. guthrie said. i'm sure every member of the subcommittee extends to you our

condolences for your loss, seeing there are no further members wishing to ask questions, before we conclude. i would like to submit the following documents for inclusion into the record by unanimous consent. statement for the record from commissioner marietta robinson of the consumer product safety commission. a letter we already did mr. olsen's letter. a response letter from chairman elliott cade to chairman olsen. pursuant to committee rules i remind committee members they have ten days to submit questions for the record and i would without objection again my thanks to the panel and thanks for staying with us through a long morning and without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned.

back in 1983 when i was graduating from high school the song that has stuck with me for the last 32 years is a song called "hold on to your dreams" by a group called ouija you're all too young to know ouija. all right.

will you start the music, president? >> said he forgot the music. i'll sing it a cappella. will you all just help me out here? thank you very much. ♪ hold on ♪ ♪ to your dreams ♪ ♪ believe ♪ >> y'all don't know good music. i'm going to tell you the words. the song simply says hold on to your dreams. believe in love and let love be the light to show you the way. >> that and other commencement speeches from around the country saturday starting at noon eastern on our companion network, c-span and on saturday evening, a conversation with editorial cartoonists. including ""doonesbury's" gary

trudeau. 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. for he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother. be he never so vile this day shall gentle his condition. and gentlemen in england now abed shall think themselves acursed that they were not here. >> one drop of blood drawn from thy country's bosom should grieve thee more than streams of foreign gore. >> director of the folger shakespeare library michael whitmore talks about shakespeare and how politicians use quotes from him in their speeches. >> sometimes you have to go with the music of the words. poetic images the sound of the

rhymes and also the way in which senator byrd did, you're able to cause and linger over a long phrase and then stop and keep going. i think he's really using the rhythms of the language which is something that shakespeare did so brilliantly so that he can take english and put it into high gear at one moment and slow down. that's something that shakespeare lets you do if you're a politician. >> sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a. >> good night good night, parting is such sweet sorrow and it really is.

good morning. i call this meeting of the senate committee on agriculture to order. welcome to our first hearing on child nutrition, child nutrition reauthorization in this congress. commend my colleague debby stabenow on this issue. the richard b. russell child nutrition act of 1966 authorized critical programs of great importance for kansas, our nation, our farmers, our ranchers our growers, our vulnerable populations, including of course, hungry children. the school lunch program was originally created as a major of national security, to safeguard

the health and well-being of the nation's children and to encourage the domestic consumption of nutritious agricultural commodities. coming out of world war ii, congress saw the need to establish the school lunch program, in part to insure our military had a sufficient supply of eligible individuals to defend our nation from global threats. additionally, the current research regarding the need for adequate nutrition during a person's developmental stages provides further support for what congress knew even back then. hungry children do not learn. with threats to our national security and increasing economic competitions, it is imperative that our nation's youth are physically fit for military service and are not mall nourished at key times in brain development. furthermore, the original

two-fold intent of the program still holds true. still holds true today. first, the programs provide a safety net for our most vulnerable populations, mainly children, that are at times without sufficient food. secondly, the law requires a portion of the assistance for the school meal programs to be in the form of agriculture commodities produced here in america for our nation's farmers, ranchers and growers, as we begin the reauthorization process, it is important to remember the purpose of these programs. these programs are not about anyone's legacy. they are about insuring our nation's security. insuring that our children are well educated. and productive contributors to a competitive economy. and about helping the vulnerable among us who cannot help themselves. i plan to conduct this

reauthorization with full cooperation, with our distinguished ranking member. in the same way in which i am seeking to conduct all of our business here, at the agriculture committee. first with the perspective of our constituents in mind. we are here for farmers, ranchers, small businesses rural communities and program participants and stakeholders. we are here to write their interests and their will into law, not to impose the government's will and interest on them. second this reauthorization will include rigorous and thorough oversight of these programs. periodic expiration and reauthorization of legislation does provide congress with the opportunity to review and evaluate programs and this opportunity should not be taken for granted. it is our responsibility to closely examine each program. not every program needs a major overhaul. but every federal program can

benefit from increased efficiency improved integrity and reduction of waste. our committee will conduct this reauthorization in an open and transparent manner that gives members an opportunity to pass good legislation, toor their constituents. i would like for this to be a bipartisan bill. and i am pleased that senator stabenow feels the same way. with the entire community working together we can develop a well rounded bill that will improve the operation of these important programs. it is also my intention to complete this reauthorization on time. before the programs expire at the end of september. i understand there are some that may prefer that we not succeed in this endeavor. i caution those individuals that those programs are too important not to re-authorize. gambling, fortune telling or using a crystal ball to predict a better reauthorization in the future is foomish and short

sighted, it is time for folks to come together and be part of crafting legislation, not to stand outside the process, hoping it fails. we have been in a listening mode for the reauthorization and that culminates in today's hearing. i have been to schools talking with parents teachers, school administrators and others. we have had hearings last year and we have our experts here today. as we seek to put what we have learned into legislative form several priorities have become clear. first, reauthorization provides and an opportunity to review programs and improve their efficiency and effectiveness. in a school meal program. there are significant error rates and improper payment levels, these have been highlighted in reports from the department of agriculture's office of inspector general and the government accountability

office. we will need to improve the administration of these programs to reduce errors. but do so in a way that does not layer additional federal bureaucracy and overreach on those who are seeking to feed hungry school children. second it is evident that evolving programs encounter different challenge as they try to adopt a changing times. each new challenge is met with additional modifications guidance or regulation. and these can unintentionally evolve into very complicated systems that are often outdated or needlessly cumbersome. we need to identify areas in which we can simplify. make it easier for those participating and implementing the programs. third, my travels in kansas and i'm sure that this opinion is shared by many on this committee, have also indicated

that we need some some flexibility. many folks are worried about what flexibility means. but to me flexibility means we will still protect the tremendous gains already achieved by many. and provide assistance to others so they too, may achieve success. these programs can't help anyone if they aren't workable. department of agriculture and others have worked very hard to help those who are not meeting the current standards and have promoted statistics citing high rates of compliance. yet, we have schools that are currently struggling. and i understand that at least 46 states applied for the recent whole grain waiver and we have additional sodium restrictions that are still on the way. lines in the sand, an uncompromising positions will benefit nobody. and especially not the hungry. the hungry children that these

programs serve. working together i am confident we can find a way to preserve the nutritional quality of school meals without a one size fits all approach that prevent local flexibility. these programs have historically had strong bipartisan support. amazingly in 2004 and 2010, reauthorizations passed by unanimous consent but debate leading up to the bills also included significant controversy. similar to the issues we face today. yet republicans and democrats worked through the process together, and came up with legislation that everybody could support. finally it is vital that this legislation does not contain additional spending without an off-set. that's just where we are. we have received bipartisan suggestions for ways to improve these programs, but many of those have considerable price tags. our budgetary constraints are

real, our responsibility to our constituents includes not spending money that we don't have. i look forward to working with senator stabenow and each member of the committee throughout this reauthorization process i am also appreciative of the witnesses here today a special thanks to miss cindy jones who has been our shotgun rider, if that's the proper term. who has traveled from oletha, kansas to be on our secretary sekd pam. i look forward to hearing from witnesses and i thank them so much for their testimony before the committee in taking their valuable time to come here. i turn to my colleague, the chairperson emeritus of the committee, senator stabenow for any opening remarks she may have. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i look forward to working with you. on this important issue, we have been talking and looking for

ways that we can move forward together, and i look forward to working with you on this. as well as the entire committee. as we continue the work we began last year to strengthen child nutrition programs, i want to thank the witnesses as well for testifying today. you bring very important perspectives from all sides of the issue, there are a lot of important pieces to this legislation. it's important we hear from you. and work together to move forward. as we all know, our children's health and well being really are at a crossroads obesity rates in children have tripled in the last 30 years. today, one in three american children and teens are overweight or obese. we are now seeing health problems typically unseen until adulthood, high blood pressure to type ii diabetes are in young people who should be focused on

little league or going to the prom. this obesity epidemic require as serious commitment on our part to continue moving forward with the nutrition policies we put in place five years ago in order to give our children a fair shot to be healthy and successful. last year this committee heard from retired military leaders desperate to help improve the health conditions of our soldiers and young recruits. s as the chairman said, the school lunch program actually started as a result of our military leaders in the department of defense. in his testimony. retired four-star air force general richard holly said obesity is one of three main reasons why an estimated 70% of all young people who walk through recruiters' door at the age of 17-24, one of three

reasons why they don't qualify for military service. and they indicated that was the largest reason. their concerns are echoed by more than 450 retired generals and admirals who are trying to raise awareness about the impact that poor childhood nutrition has on our national security. and its cost to taxpayers this recruitment crisis also requires us to continue moving forward with the nutrition policies they put in place five years ago. in addition to childhood obesity issues, we also have the second challenge. of childhood hunger. as we approach the end of the school year, more than 20 million young people 20 million students, who eat at school because they qualify for free and reduced-price meals will struggle to eat any meal let

alone a healthy meal in the summer. this hunger crisis for our children requires us as well to continue moving forward. to strengthen our summer meals programs, and other supports for children. we also have millions of pregnant moms and children, in our communities who are nutritionally at risk. which can lead to low birth weights, increased childhood disease, and impaired brain damage. that's why continuing to protect and strengthen the w.i.c. program is so important. it's for all of these reasons and many, many more that we need today. and it's the reason we must take this process if we authorize our child nutrition program seriously and i appreciate the chairman does. the good news is for the first time in years, it looks as though we're beginning to make some progress on these issues.

obesity rates have begun to stabilize in some areas. more children are eating healthy breakfasts and lunches. than ever before. children are eating 16% more vegetables 23% more fruits according to the harvard school of public health. and as i have said many many times, it seems to me that our children are worth continuing the requirement of school meals for a half a cup. it's not very big. it's not a whole lot that goes in this, actually. a half a cup of fruit or vegetable. as part of our commitment, it's not the whole commitment. but a very important part of our commitment to our children's health and success. but we know there's much more to do. nutrition at its core is preventive medicine. and child nutrition is about leveling the playing field so that any baby, any child any

teen whether they're in detroit or rural kansas or a suburb of atlanta or a farm in iowa, has every opportunity to be healthy and successful. that's why it's crucial that this committee work together in a bipartisan way to insure these nutrition programs continue to operate efficiently and effectively and that we continue to move forward for our children. our children and our families are counting on us to do just that. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator stabenow for an excellent statement. all members should be advised we have a vote at 10:30. well, let's just change that. the vote has been postponed until 2:00 p.m. so we can finish -- >> magic. >> you have such power, mr.

chairman. >> amazing what you can do with new congress, senator. sorry about that. >> i object. >> let the record show an objection was heard. let me introduce our first panel. steven m. lord managing director, general accounting office. forensic audits and investigative service, mr. lords currently serve as the managing director of the investigative service at the gao. he oversees a highly trained staff charged with conducting special audits and investigations on major federal programs prone to fraud, waste and abuse. mr. lord has received many awards over his 30-year, 30-year career. including awards for meritorious and distinguished gao service.

mr. lords, welcome and i look forward to your testimony and please go ahead and then i'll introduce ms. newberger for her statement. >> thank you, chairman roberts, ranking member stabenow, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me here to discuss the findings and recommendations of our 2014 report on school meals program. as you know and mentioned in your opening remarks, the school lunch and breakfast program play a very important role in providing for the nutritional needs of schoolchildren across the nation. at the same time the national school lunch program is on omb's list of high error-prone programs, due to its large estimated improper payments rate and this underscores the need to me to insure sound controls are in place to insure that $15 billion in federal funds are spent wisely. today i'd like to discuss two things, first some positive

actions, usda has take ton strengthen oversight of the program, as well as additional opportunities that the gao has identified to enhance controls. first in terms of first in terms of usda actions the department has worked closely with commerce to develop legislation that requires school districts to directly certify students in the snap program. according to usda officials direct certification of these students reduces the administrative burden on school districts. it also reduces certification errors and helps without adversely impacting access to the program. another positive development is state agencies now conduct administrative reviews of school districts every three years as opposed to every five years as is done formally. we think that's a really important part of the oversight process and the effort to help

ensure correct eligibility determinations. despite these positive actions we did identify some additional areas where they could enhance verification without compromising legitimate access to the program. first we believe the school district reviews of questionable applications could be strengthened. up to 25 school districts we examined 11 did conduct those for cause verifications but nine did not conduct any for cause verifications of questionable applications and the remaining five districts said they would do it on an occasional basis when prompted to do so by outside stakeholders. we recommended that usda study this and figure out why the school districts were reluctant to do it and consider additional guidance if needed. we also recommended that usda

consider using computer matching to help identify households whose income exceeded eligible thresholds. under the current standard verification process it's difficult to detect all households that misreport income because the so-called standard verification process is focused on a small slice of beneficiaries. those with annual income within $1,200 of the eligibility threshold. for example in our work we found that 9 of 19 household applications were not eligible for free or reduced benefits yet only two of these households would have been subject to the standard verification process because of the way they defined error prone. thus we think it could potentially significantly strengthen the verification

process and again without adversely impacting access to the program by those truly in need. and finally our report also recommended that we explore expanding the verification process to include those deemed eligible for the program by virtue of their participation and other public assistance programs such as snap, et cetera. we found that those are generally not subject to verification. in our report we found one household certified for this process because they stipulated they had a foster child yet when we interviewed them we found they did not have any foster children. another applicant reported they were enrolled in snap. therefore they were automatically eligible. yet when we contacted the state

officials they said this individual was not enrolled in the snap program. they're not generalizable to the entire population and we think it will help strengthen the verification process this concludes my remarks and i look forward to anything you may have. >> our second witness. >> she is a senior policy analyst. she works on the school meal programs and wic and has been

with the center since 2001. obviously a veteran and knows what she is talking about. i didn't mean to say you didn't welcome and i look forward to your insight. >> thank you as you said i'm a senior policy analyst and nonprofit policy institute that conducts research and analysis on budget and tax policy as well as poverty and social programs that includes low income children for who school meals may be the healthiest they get. there are also nearly 100,000

schools that operate the programs and they do a remarkable job. process applications and provide healthy meals and keep track of the eligible of each student they play a viral role in children's health and wellbeing. they must continue to play this role by administering the programs accurately. the net annual cost of lunches was $444 million they must make sure that federal funds are used for meals that meet criteria. there's a verification process in place and new review process and they just completed a study that not only met them but also the causes of errors which

allows for specific [ inaudible ] >> the snap program or medicaid for example. teams of eligible workers that spend all day every day sorting out the details in school there

might be a cafeteria worker or secretary. the question is girge the system we are dealing with how can congress -- can example can help show the way. building on that in 2010 congress set an expectation for them to improve their use of the programs made by other programs. that's the direct certification process. because the school meal programs are relying on a more rigorous assessment it saves time and reduces errors. there's been striking improvements. nearly half of all students approved for free of reduced meals are now approved without having to complete an application. congress played an important role by setting an expectation and then providing tools and

support to meet it. my written testimony describes other steps congress and usda have taken to strengthen the male meal programs but there's room to do more. provide extensive help to districts that struggle with errors and pursue innovations that can open up new ways to improve accuracy. for example they recommended exploring the use of data matching to identify incorrect information. that's worth trying. usda plans to develop a model electronic application for the first time. i urge you to can be these four questions. first does it have a proven record of errors? some might sound promising but haven't been effective when tested. second will it maintain program access for the most vulnerable children.

16 million children live in a household experiencing food insecurity. we don't want to worsen that problem. third is it administratively feasible? adopting a more time consuming documentation or verification system might prevent errors but could cost others by adding a step to the process and could spend more time determining school meal eligibility. fourth is it cost effective? information management systems could be very effective but might cost too much. as i noted it's critical that error reduction strategies not reduce access to school meals for children that need them. the best way to improve integrity is not through punitive policies but to continue sending a clear message to school nutrition officials that program accuracy is important and will be measured and federal officials will support them in implementing needed improvements. thank you very much. >> thank you very much.