<DOC>
[107th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:81957.wais]
THE CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION: THE NEW CHAIRMAN'S AGENDA
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
of the
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 4, 2002
__________
Serial No. 107-128
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
81-957 WASHINGTON : 2002
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana, Chairman
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
JOE BARTON, Texas HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
FRED UPTON, Michigan EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida RALPH M. HALL, Texas
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
CHRISTOPHER COX, California FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina BART GORDON, Tennessee
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
GREG GANSKE, Iowa BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia ANNA G. ESHOO, California
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming BART STUPAK, Michigan
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico TOM SAWYER, Ohio
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
CHARLES ``CHIP'' PICKERING, GENE GREEN, Texas
Mississippi KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
VITO FOSSELLA, New York TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
ROY BLUNT, Missouri DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
TOM DAVIS, Virginia THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
ED BRYANT, Tennessee BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland LOIS CAPPS, California
STEVE BUYER, Indiana MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Louisiana
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire JANE HARMAN, California
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
MARY BONO, California
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
LEE TERRY, Nebraska
ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky
David V. Marventano, Staff Director
James D. Barnette, General Counsel
Reid P.F. Stuntz, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
______
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida, Chairman
FRED UPTON, Michigan EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
Vice Chairman LOIS CAPPS, California
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois JANE HARMAN, California
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
ED BRYANT, Tennessee EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California BART GORDON, Tennessee
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
MARY BONO, California ANNA G. ESHOO, California
GREG WALDEN, Oregon JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
LEE TERRY, Nebraska (Ex Officio)
ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana
(Ex Officio)
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
Testimony of:
Stratton, Harold D., Jr., Chairman, U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission.......................................... 6
(iii)
THE CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION: THE NEW CHAIRMAN'S AGENDA
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2002
House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and
Consumer Protection,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:11 p.m. , in
room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Cliff Stearns
(chairman) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Stearns, Bass, Markey, and
Gordon.
Staff present: Kelly Zerzan, majority counsel; Brendan
Williams, legislative clerk; and Jonathan Cordone, minority
counsel.
Mr. Stearns. The subcommittee will come to order. And let
me welcome all of you back as Congress starts this session. And
welcome to today's hearing entitled The Consumer Product Safety
Commission: The New Chairman's Agenda. As the title suggests,
we welcome the new Consumer Product Safety Commission Chairman
Hal Stratton to the subcommittee. We are pleased to have Mr.
Stratton, a former New Mexico State legislator and attorney
general, testifying before the committee this afternoon.
The Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection Subcommittee
has not held hearings on the CPSC to date, although that
certainly has not been for lack of interest on our part.
Unfortunately, without a confirmed chairman, the CPSC has been
legally without a quorum since May 2002, which has prevented
the Commission from fully exercising its enforcement authority.
For instance, it has been unable to impose civil penalties,
issue subpoenas, accept settlements, mandate recalls, issue
complaints or rules, adopt a budget, or even enact an operating
plan.
The arrival of the chairman, Chairman Stratton, remedies
the idleness at the Commission. With the new chairman now at
the helm, the Commission can reengage the fight to protect our
consumers and in particular our most vulnerable citizens,
including children and seniors, from dangerous and defective
products.
The CPSC is an important commission that has been tasked by
statute with protecting the public against unreasonable risks
of injuries associated with consumer products. The CPSC has
jurisdiction over more than 15,000 kinds of consumer products
used in and around our homes in sports, in recreation, and in
our schools.
As a commission with broad consumer protection
jurisdiction, the CPSC can be a very valuable bully pulpit.
This office can be and should be used as an effective means of
distributing information on dangerous products subject to
recall and for disseminating important consumer education
information. It is not the job of the CPSC, however, to use
that pulpit as a substitute for Commission action. If an
individual or a company is breaking the law and putting the
public in danger, the Commission should take action in regular
order. Moreover, the job of the CPSC is to actively enforce the
law as enacted by Congress. Thus, if the Commission believes
that the Consumer Product Safety Act needs to be changed, we
certainly welcome his suggestions.
I am pleased to know that Chairman Stratton is in agreement
with me that the Commission's mission is to enforce the law.
Indeed, one of the first actions taken by him was to impose a
$1 million civil penalty against General Electric for failing
to report to the CPSC in a timely manner a defect in certain
models of its dishwashers. For the protection of our citizens,
it is important that companies understand the importance of
complying with the law. Moreover, I agree with and support his
efforts directed at enhancing the Commission's efficiency by
strengthening its information-sharing activities with other
Federal and State agencies. Furthermore, as noted, it is
important that the CPSC explore improving its ability to
communicate important consumer product safety information to
the American public.
Speaking of information, I believe that a critical function
of the Commission is the collection and analysis of consumer
product safety data. Therefore, I urge you, Mr. Chairman, to
consider a rigorous review of the Commission's data collection
and review processes with the objective of improving the
quality of both the data and its analysis.
Mr. Chairman, I also agree with you that as the number of
consumer products that are imported grow exponentially, the
Commission should explore ways of enhancing its oversight of
these products. Let me suggest that one way of doing so is for
the Commission to work closely with industry standards-setting
organizations in general, and with international forums
specifically.
As for specific issues of interest to this committee, I am
sure you are aware that a number of committee members have
introduced bills that involve the CPSC. I, for example, have
introduced a bill calling on the Commission to set fire safety
standards for cigarettes. I know my colleague, who is acting as
ranking member today, the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr.
Markey, has a keen interest in that issue and also in Federal
regulation of fixed-site amusement parks. I agree with my
colleague that we should at least, with the Commission's input,
explore the fire-safe cigarette issue; yet, I respectfully
disagree with him that there is a need for Federal regulation
of fixed-site amusement parks. Those sites enjoy a great safety
record as evidenced by the fact that in the year 2000, out of
the 320 million visits to those sites, only 125 visitors were
hospitalized for injuries. State government oversight of such
facilities has proven to be very effective.
And, finally, I would like to bring to your attention two
other bills. The first was introduced by the distinguished
ranking member of this subcommittee Mr. Towns, who is not with
us today, from New York, and my colleague from Illinois on this
side Mr. Shimkus, addressing children's sleepwear. The second
piece of legislation which I support was introduced by my
colleague from New Hampshire Mr. Bass giving the CPSC
jurisdiction over a brand new innovative personal mobility
device called the Segway.
The CPSC has a full plate of issues before it, and I am
confident, Chairman Stratton, you will address each of these
issues with the same professionalism and experience properly
fitting the post. So I thank you very much for accepting the
position--and I mean that sincerely--and thank you for
testifying this afternoon before the subcommittee, and I look
forward to working with you in the months ahead.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Cliff Stearns follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Cliff Stearns, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection
Welcome to today's hearing titled ``The Consumer Product Safety
Commission: The New Chairman's Agenda.'' As the title suggests, we
welcome the new Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) Chairman, Hal
Stratton, to the subcommittee.
We are pleased to have Mr. Stratton, a former New Mexico state
legislator and Attorney General, testifying before the Committee this
afternoon.
The Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection Subcommittee has not
held hearings on the CPSC to date, although that certainly has not been
for lack of interest. Unfortunately, without a confirmed Chairman, the
CPSC has been legally without a quorum since May 2002, which has
prevented the Commission from fully exercising its enforcement
authority. For instance, it has been unable to impose civil penalties,
issue subpoenas, accept settlements, mandate recalls, issue complaints
or rules, adopt a budget, or even enact an operating plan. The arrival
of Chairman Stratton remedies the idleness at the Commission. With a
new Chairman now at the helm, the Commission can re-engage the fight to
protect consumers, and in particular our most vulnerable citizens,
including children and seniors, from dangerous and defective products.
The CPSC is an important Commission that is tasked by statute with
protecting the public ``against unreasonable risks of injuries
associated with consumer products.'' The CPSC has jurisdiction over
more than 15,000 kinds of consumer products used in and around the
home, in sports, recreation and schools.
As a Commission with broad consumer protection jurisdiction, the
CPSC can be a valuable bully pulpit. This office can be, and should be,
used as an effective means of distributing information on dangerous
products subject to recall, and for disseminating important consumer
education. It is not the job of the CPSC, however, to use that pulpit
as a substitute for Commission action. If an individual or company is
breaking the law and putting the public in danger, the Commission
should take action in regular order. Moreover, the job of the CPSC is
to actively enforce the law as enacted by Congress. Thus, if the
Commission believes that the Consumer Product Safety Act needs to be
changed, we certainly welcome those suggestions.
I am pleased to know that Chairman Stratton is in agreement with me
that the Commission's mission is to enforce the law. Indeed, one of the
first actions taken by Chairman Stratton was to impose a $1 million
civil penalty against General Electric for failing to report to the
CPSC in a timely manner a defect in certain models of its dishwashers.
For the protection of our citizens, it is important that companies
understand the importance of complying with the law.
Moreover, I agree with and support your efforts directed at
enhancing the Commission's efficiency by strengthening its information
sharing activities with other federal and state agencies. Furthermore,
as you have noted, it is important that the CPSC explore improving its
ability to communicate important consumer product safety information to
the American public. Speaking of information, I believe that a critical
function of the Commission is the collection and analysis of consumer
product safety data. I would urge you, Mr. Chairman, to consider a
rigorous review of the Commission's data collection and review
processes with the objective of improving the quality of both the data
and analysis.
Mr. Chairman, I also agree with you that as the number of consumer
products that are imported grow exponentially, the Commission should
explore ways of enhancing its oversight of such products. Let me
suggest that one way of doing so is for the Commission to work closely
with industry standard setting organizations in general and within
international forums specifically.
As for specific issues of interest to this Committee, I am sure we
aware that a number of Committee members have introduced bills
involving the CPSC. I, for example, have introduced a bill calling on
the Commission to set fire-safety standards for cigarettes. I know my
colleague from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey, has a keen interest in that
issue and also in federal regulation of fixed-site amusement parks. I
agree with my colleague that we should at least, with the Commission's
input, explore the fire-safe cigarette issue. Yet, I respectfully
disagree with him that there is a need for federal regulation of fixed-
site amusement parks. Those sites enjoy a great safety record as
evidenced by the fact that in the year 2000, out of the 320 million
visits to those sites, only 125 visitors were hospitalized for their
injuries. State government oversight of such facilities has been proven
to be very effective.
Finally, I would bring to your attention two other bills. The first
was introduced by the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee,
Mr. Towns, and my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, addressing
children's sleepwear. The second legislation, which I support, was
introduced by my colleague from New Hampshire, Mr. Bass, giving the
CPSC jurisdiction over an innovative personal mobility device called
the Segway.
The CPSC has a full plate of issues before it and I am confident
that Chairman Stratton will address each of these issues with the
professionalism and experience properly befitting the post. Thank you
Chairman Stratton for testifying before this subcommittee today, and I
look forward to working with you into the future.
Mr. Stearns. With that, I welcome the ranking member, the
gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. Markey. I thank the gentleman very much, and I thank
the gentleman for conducting this very vigorous schedule. We
are the first subcommittee in the House of Representatives to
have a hearing. I know that it pleases everyone in the audience
that they are the first hearing after the break. You can see
the incredible enthusiasm that they have for being the first
people to make the adjustment from the summer into the fall
schedule, and I want to congratulate you for providing that
kind of leadership.
And to you, Mr. Chairman, welcome to Congress.
Mr. Stratton. Thank you.
Mr. Markey. It is a wonderful institution. It is one that
is not as fully appreciated by independent agencies as it could
be, but only because there is never a full appreciation for how
much we want to work hand in glove with independent agencies in
order to accomplish more good for the public. But we
congratulate you. It is a high honor, indeed, that you now
hold, a great responsibility indeed.
The CPSC was, in fact, established pursuant to the Consumer
Product Safety Act, which streamlined and consolidated Federal
safety regulatory activity relating to consumer products within
the Consumer Product Safety Commission. In my opinion, this
agency is a huge government success story. With a limited
budget and resources, it has been responsible for actions that
have saved the lives of countless Americans and protected many
more from serious injury. The CPSC is the government agency
that makes sure that cribs, toys, and other products in our
homes or around schools or in recreational areas are not
hazardous and recalls them when they are hazardous. The CPSC
oversees the safety of 15,000 different kinds of consumer
products. This is an agency with a long history of safeguarding
the public and particularly children from commercial products
that cause harm or threatens the safety of children.
This hearing is quite timely for us because it gives us an
opportunity at the outset of the new chairman's tenure to
ascertain his agenda and to identify ways in which the agency
can perform its functions better and how Congress can
supplement the authority and resources of this Commission so
that it can do even more good than it has in the past.
I have introduced three bills that address certain CPSC
issues. The first, H.R. 1488, would restore the jurisdiction of
the Consumer Product Safety Commission over fixed-site roller
coasters and amusement park rides for safety purposes. In 1999,
4 people died in 5 days at 3 different amusement parks; yet,
because of a special interest loophole in our consumer product
safety laws, the CPSC was and is totally powerless to do
anything about it. The Nation's chief product safety watchdog
cannot even send an investigator to find out what happens when
people die on these machines. The Consumer Product Safety
Commission cannot make safety recommendations. They cannot
ensure that every other park with the same or similar ride is
even informed of the causes of accidents, and it cannot take
any preventative action. Meanwhile, every time a park builds a
new ride, it is faster, more thrilling, closer to edge of
safety than the last one.
According to CPS data gleaned from hospital emergency
rooms, serious injuries on fixed-site roller coaster rides have
soared 95 percent since 1995. Still we do nothing. Roller
coasters are huge, complicated machines that hurdle children
through space at 100 miles per hour with the force of the space
shuttle. My bill would give the Consumer Product Safety
Commission the same jurisdiction over such rides that it
currently has over bicycles or cribs or other devices that, in
fact, are much less dangerous and move at a much slower speed
than roller coasters do.
The second bill, the John Joseph Moakley Memorial Fire
Safety Cigarette Act of 2002, requires the Consumer Product
Safety Commission to establish a fire safety standard for
cigarettes to reduce the risk of ignition presented by
cigarettes. Every year almost 1,000 lives are lost and $400
million in property damage occurs due to cigarette fires that
could be prevented with current technology. This legislation is
the first step in reducing the loss of human life and property
and the number of fires firefighters must respond to caused by
careless handling of cigarettes.
And, finally, I have introduced, along with Mrs. Capps and
other committee colleagues, the Consumer Product Risk Reporting
Act. This legislation is designed to remedy deficiencies in the
Commission's authority by eliminating the cap on civil
penalties for violations of product safety laws, increasing the
penalty for a knowing and willful criminal violation, and
giving the Consumer Product Safety Commission the authority to
overrule a remedy chosen by a manufacturer to address a
defective product in a product recall.
It is worth noting that during Chairman Stratton's first
week in office, the Commission fined General Electric $1
million for 3.1 million faulty dishwasher switches. Now, that
fine is a paltry sum for a company of G.E.'s size and for a
violation of such significance. Austin Powers might think that
$1 million is a huge sum, but in 2002 that fine simply doesn't
serve as a deterrent to a company the size of General Electric,
and Congress must act to remedy the current cap to give you,
Mr. Chairman, the sufficiently strong deterrent power which you
must--which you need in order to scare these companies, in many
instances, into doing the right thing because of their fear,
because of the paranoia that your Commission can induce by the
sure and certain knowledge that you are not limited in the
amount of penalty which you can impose upon these firms that
are creating, in fact, conditions that are very dangerous not
only to children, but to every other adult in our society.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this very important
hearing. And, once again, I welcome you to the national public
debate, Chairman Stratton.
Mr. Stearns. And I thank my distinguished colleague from
Massachusetts.
And the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I have
enjoyed your opening comments, both, and that they have been
informative.
[Additional statement submitted for the follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Chairman, Committee
on Energy and Commerce
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this important hearing. I am
pleased to welcome the new Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC), Hal Stratton, to the Committee. As the Committee on
Energy and Commerce has jurisdiction over all consumer affairs and
consumer protection issues, we are pleased to have you here today to
describe your agenda for the future of the CPSC.
Although a small agency in size, the CPSC has a remarkably large
responsibility to help keep American consumers safe from defective and
dangerous products. As a litigator and former Attorney General for the
state of New Mexico, you will find yourself at home heading an agency
dedicated to protecting the American consumer.
In reviewing your testimony, a couple of points caught my
attention. Specifically, I hope that you will succeed in your mission
to increase recall effectiveness. There are a number of ideas that have
been floated to increase the percentage of consumers responding to
recall notices. One in particular, to require manufacturers to include
a postage-paid response card with each product, is one that should be
justified on the merits. The CPSC should study this issue carefully,
and any action should be justified by the data.
Additionally, you note in your testimony that you want to enhance
the consumer education information supplied by the Commission. I
wholeheartedly support this goal. An expensive and time-consuming
product recall is not the only way to ensure consumer safety. Education
and outreach programs aimed at the consumer should be the very first
line of defense. Not only can such programs help consumers make
informed product decisions, but can also help people use those products
in safe and responsible ways.
I hope that we can have an open dialogue regarding the future needs
of your Commission and the goals of this Congress. Thank you, Chairman
Stratton, for coming before this Committee today and I look forward to
hearing your testimony.
Mr. Stearns. With that, Mr. Chairman, we welcome you for
your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HAROLD D. STRATTON, JR., CHAIRMAN, U.S. CONSUMER
PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
Mr. Stratton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to be here today. It is an honor to come talk here,
and it is, quite frankly, a lot of fun. So I appreciate you
asking me over. I have to note that you have been asking me to
do this for a while, back through earlier this year, and I
apologize for taking so long to get confirmed, but it did take
a little longer than we expected, and I will try to do better
next time. I wasn't confirmed until July 25, and I was sworn in
on August 2. That is when the Commission then resumed its
quorum, which, as you indicated, it lost. I believe actually on
May 2 was when the quorum was lost.
I will also point out, however, that notwithstanding the
fact that a quorum existed up until the 1st of May, that there
was no chairman at the Commission, which is really the
administrative person running the Commission, since last
November. So it has been difficult. And I must say, based upon
what I have seen since I have been there, they have done a
pretty good job over there getting along without a chairman and
without a quorum.
And I must say, when it comes to the G.E. Settlement, as
the Congressman pointed out, it came in my first week, so the
staff has to be given a lot of credit for continuing to work on
that, along with the Briggs & Stratton settlement that we also
had that same week and a couple of other recalls.
I have filed a written statement for the record, and I
believe I have provided you with my Senate testimony and, if
not, my written statement in the Senate. And rather than read
that, I think I will just highlight that for you, and then we
can get on with whatever questions you have.
Once again, I have been there--although I was sworn in on
August 2, I have only been in my office since last Wednesday,
so that was my first day. It took a little--it turned out to be
a little more difficult to get the family moved from New Mexico
and out to Maryland than I thought it would, so it took a
little while. We were working--I will say, our staff was in and
working.
I told the Senate that I didn't have an agenda for this
position, and what I meant by that was not what we are talking
about here today. What that meant was I don't have any
political agenda for this position. The agenda that I have is
to get as many consumer products that cause an unreasonable
risk of death or injury to consumers off the market as quickly
as possible in accordance with the Consumer Product Safety Act
as passed by Congress.
There is a number of ways to do that. You know what they
are; they are in the act. They are by recalls. They are by the
penalties that the Congressman has talked about, we have got
injunctive power, and also by setting standards, voluntary and
mandatory.
So that is what our agenda is, pure and simple, and I find
it, frankly, fairly easy to determine what Congress's intent is
by looking at the statute. And I--I don't know whether that
comes from being a lawyer, a former legislator, a former
attorney general, or maybe all of those put together, but it is
pretty clear to me that this Congress wants unsafe consumer
products out of the market regardless of what the other
considerations are, other political considerations or any other
type of considerations. And so we understand what you want, and
it is going to be our intent to be very tough on those who
knowingly or even negligently without remedying it put these
kind of products in the market.
By the same token, I would hope--I hope our staff, if they
listen to our direction, will work very closely with those
companies out there that are willing to work with us and
cooperate and do recalls and do the right thing. We plan to
work with them and try to get those products off the market as
quickly as possible. The goal is not necessarily to be punitive
and not necessarily to penalize people for the purpose of
getting headlines in the newspapers, but first and foremost to
get the products off the market and get them out of the hands
of consumers who they might harm. Now, that doesn't mean you
don't go forward and penalize people for the deterrent reason
or for whatever reason, but that is what our No. 1 goal is, and
that is it pure and simple, and that is the agenda.
I did mention, and I will just mention them here, two or
three areas that I thought that we would work on kind of
outside of that statutory agenda or as part or as a subpart of
that agenda. The first one is better communication with the
agencies. As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman--actually, you set out
a good statement of my agenda, but I will just kind of
reiterate and highlight what we are planning on, and that is
better cooperation amongst agencies. We have seen how important
that is with our agencies; I have seen it in the past in the
law enforcement area, and I have seen what happens when law
enforcement agencies cooperate, and I have seen what happens
when they don't cooperate. And I can tell you, it is a lot
better when they cooperate. And we are going to do our very
best to cooperate with other Federal agencies of the Federal
Government and State and local jurisdictions to get as much
information-sharing and as much information as we can have.
We have recently signed an agreement with Customs to try to
get more information from them, for them to be able to provide
us more information. So we are hoping that that will be a step
in that direction to obtain more information from Customs on
imported products.
Also, the thing I hear from everybody, particularly my
family I might add, is how are we going to get notified about
these recalls? How are we going to get information from the
Commission? What is the process to do that? What, can't you do
it better?
I would suggest that if it could be done a whole lot
better, they probably would have done it by now. I don't think
there is any will not to find a good way to notify consumers
over at the Commission. I think they are doing what they can,
and I think the best vehicle that we have right now is the
media. And I today am not here to tell you that I have some big
grandiose plan that I have managed to derive to increase that
contact, but that is going to be a No. 1 goal, because no
matter how good our information is, if we don't get it out to
consumers, it doesn't make a lot of difference. So, that is No.
2. And we are open to all suggestions on that. Once again, we
don't have any prearranged agenda, but we do think it is a very
good function and something that needs to be improved.
Finally, as I indicated in regard to the Customs agreement,
we do want to work more on imported products. Most of the toys
and things like that are made overseas, so we need to make sure
that we cover that subject and that we have an ability to
determine products that are coming into the country that do not
meet the provisions of the CPSA. And we also, I think, need to
maybe--since we do have a global market now, that we need to do
a better job at coordinating with other countries and
harmonizing our laws with other countries and working with them
in the future. So that, Mr. Chairman, that is generally a
synopsis of what we plan to do.
I want to say to you, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for
your courtesy in meeting with us today. I personally, along
with anybody on my staff, am available at any time to meet with
Congress. We want to do this the way Congress wants us to do
it, and we look forward to working with you toward that goal.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Harold D. Stratton, Jr.,
follows:]
Prepared Statement of Harold D. Stratton, Jr., Chairman and
Comissioner, Consumer Product Safety Commission
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is an honor to appear
before you today as Commissioner and Chairman of the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC). I welcome the opportunity to appear
before your committee.
By way of introduction, I would like to begin by telling you about
myself.
I was born in Muskogee, Oklahoma and reared in Oklahoma City. My
father served in the 8th Air Force as a B-17 pilot in World War II and
subsequently practiced law for over 35 years. My mother, sister, and
her family, continue to live in Tahlequah, Oklahoma, the capital of the
Cherokee Nation, of which I am an enrolled member.
I attended the University of Oklahoma where I received degrees in
geology and law. Subsequent to graduating from law school, I served my
Army ROTC commitment on active duty in the United States Army.
Thereafter, in early 1977, I permanently moved to Albuquerque to begin
my career in the private practice of law and to live in the varied and
diverse culture and environment that is New Mexico.
In 1978, I was elected to the New Mexico House of Representatives
where I served four terms. Among other positions, I served as chairman
of the Judiciary Committee, vice chariman of the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee--and, one term as a member of the Transportation
Committee.
In 1986, I was elected to the office of New Mexico Attorney General
where I oversaw the state's only dedicated consumer protection agency
and the state's largest white collar crime prosecution unit.
Since the state constitution limited me to one term as attorney
general, I reentered private law practice in Albuquerque in 1991.
During my career, I have been honored to argue and handle cases
before a number of courts, including the United States Supreme Court.
Throughout my career, my highest priority has been to work and to
serve my community with honesty, integrity, impartiality and fairness,
toward my employees, other state executive and legislative officials,
my collegues in the legal community and, most importantly, toward the
people I have served.
As I stated at my confirmation hearing, it is my sincere commitment
to serve the people of this country with integrity, fairness, and with
independent unbiased judgement. This is the way I approached my role as
a consumer advocate in New Mexico and I look forward to continuing this
role at the national level.
On a personal note, my wife Theresa, and I are the proud parents of
two daughters, Alexandra, age 7, and Claire, who is 3. As parents, we
fully appreciate the importance of consumer product saftey for all
American families. As a father of two young children, I can assure you
that I think about product safety every day.
The Congress has vested CPSC with the power to affect the safety of
every consumer in America. The commission's actions have saved many
lives; prevented many injuries; substantially improved the safety of
countless consumer products; and heightened the public's awareness and
knowledge about consumer product safety.
As a former state legislator, I very much appreciate the important
role this committee plays in consumer protection. My job is to enforce
the laws that you pass. Consequently, I would welcome a continuing
dialogue with you to insure that the commission understands the
committee's positions and provides the committee with the information
it needs to effectively perform its legislative responsibilities. My
staff and I will make every effort to be available to you in a formal
or informal setting. I hope that the committee members will let us know
what they are thinking on these important issues.
In the short time that I have been on the job, I have had the
opportunity to work closely with many of the CPSC staff, and have been
impressed with their professionalism. A transition time is always
challenging, but it is also rewarding.
Although I have been on the job in this position only a few days, I
would like to respectfully suggest a few general areas that I believe
are important to the success of the CPSC's mission.
First, it is our intent to administer and carry out the mandate of
the Consumer Product Safety Act as written and in accordance with the
intent of congress. This means eliminating from the market consumer
products that create an unreasonable risk of injury or death.
With respect to unreasonably dangerous products, I encourage
companies that discover such products that require action to notify the
CPSC immediately, as the law requires. We will do everything we can to
work with them to remedy the problem in a way that protects the public.
Companies that withhold such information, and who do not do as the
law requires, will be dealt with accordingly. The CPSC exists to get
dangerous products out of the market place. The public takes it
seriously, I know that you take it seriously, and those who fail to
disclose unreasonably dangerous products will find out we take it
seriously at the CPSC.
In the management area, I intend to explore ways where the
commission could benefit from increased communication with other
federal and state agencies. I believe improved information sharing
betweeen these agencies would enhance CPSC's capabilities and maximize
the commissions' limited budgetary resources. CPSCs mission often
complements that of other agencies such as the Department of Justice,
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and the Environmental
Protection Agency, to name a few. As a former state attorney general, I
have seen both good and bad interagency communications. I know from
experience that agencies get more done with less when they communicate
well with other agencies working on similar matters, and build good
working relationships.
In addition, I belive it is very important to strengthen and
enhance the commissions consumer education and information outreach
programs. To that end, we intend to work hard on increasing the
effectiveness of consumer product safety education. Educating consumers
as to product related hazards is an important component of the CPSC's
mission.
The problem here is not a lack information. we have plenty of that.
The commission implements and participates in numerous recalls during
the course of a year, some big, some small. The problem is getting
information to the public, and, often, getting people who are
distracted by the hustle and bustle of day-to-day life to pay attention
to it. I expect the CPSC to continue to develop more effective ways of
communicating our message to the public.
I also believe it is essential to continue to enhance the
commission's oversight of imported products. CPSC's repsonsibilites
continue to grow dramaticallly as more and more consumer products enter
the United States. Working with appropriate government agencies, I
would like to review existing roceedures and if warranted, attempt to
improve them.
Many imported products do not meet our safety standards. There can
be no question that the most efficient way to protect the public
against dangerous imported products is to stop them at the border.
Once again, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am honored
to be here. I am prepared to respond to your questions.
Mr. Stearns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I will just start out with some of the questions that I
have. I think you touched on perhaps three of the things that
we are concerned about one is information-sharing between all
the government agencies; and, two, just as your wife said, how
is she going to get notified when there is a discrepancy or
there is a problem with the product; and, three, your idea of
what are you going to do about this global market, and how are
you going to ensure that Americans have products that are safe.
That is a full agenda for you.
And I think the thing I was--my first question was--is
going back to what your wife said to you. Then there does need
to be a better notification system. Now, should you go on the
Today Show? Should you somehow try to get evening news
coverage? I mean, that is what you will have to decide. But I
think there is a certain element of this media side to get it
out, because the wheels of government grind very slowly, and
for your wife to get notified about a product is going to take
a long time. And so I think you are going to have to--with your
experience as attorney general, you were elected to attorney
general, you served in the statehouse for 7 or 8 years, you
obviously had that skill. So I would urge you to be proactive
on this basis. And I am not sure that just depending upon the
government and its wheels to grind out this information is
going to be enough.
And, you know, that is what I would say to you. You have
got to convince Congress and everybody that you are going to be
proactive here, because your wife and mine want to know what is
happening and not wait until they continue to buy a poor
product.
Mr. Stratton. Mr. Chairman, I only say that I hope I don't
have a problem with my wife, because if she isn't the first to
know, then I have bigger problems at home than I have down at
the Commission.
I was on the Today Show my first week in office and some
other shows, and I had made the comment when I was being sworn
in at the Commission with the employees that I was going to be
on the job 24 hours a day and 7 days a week, and they took me
up on it. They came over to the house at 2:30 in the morning in
Albuquerque, and I had to get up at 1:30. And so I decided that
if I was going to make those comments, I had to do that. So I
have already done that, and I have indicated I am going to be
available to do that any time, any place.
And I can tell you that I have been very impressed with the
public affairs staff at the CPSC, to get sworn in on a Friday
and already have a round of things going on, those shows the
following Wednesday or Thursday, was pretty quick.
But I understand what you are saying. I think that is very
important. I was, quite frankly, surprised at the number of
people that day that saw me. I attended an event with the Vice
President that same day, and I was surprised at the number of
people that actually saw it. So there is no question that it is
quite effective, and I intend to do as much of that as the
media will allow.
The one other thing I would mention, and I would ask
particularly the print media to help us on this, we need--when
we send them notice of the recall, we need them to print them.
And we would ask that those media outlets have a special column
or at least a special procedure that once they get those, that
recall information--and they are going to get it from us
immediately--that they run it.
You might think that is happening already, but it is not.
There are a number of very important newspapers in this country
that don't run that right away, and I know my newspaper in
Albuquerque, even though we got it to them the day--I think the
day before we announced it, they didn't run it for a week or
two. So, I am going to ask all of these media outlets to try to
cooperate with us, and run that information prominently and as
quick as they will do it.
Mr. Stearns. You mentioned in your opening testimony that
you are going to get tougher on the safety of imported
products, and you mentioned the global economy that we face.
And I guess my question is, to you, do you have any specific
plans perhaps that are new to your agency on how to get this
goal realized to protect Americans from products that come from
the Pacific Rim or from the North American continent or the
European Union in which we do not have complete jurisdiction
over, and yet these products come in here and consumers are
using them in their day-to-day activities and finding that they
are a problem and they are not safe? And so I think that is
another area where you could help give us some assurance that
you intend to be aggressive on this and to provide assurance to
the American public about safety and global products.
Mr. Stratton. Mr. Chairman, I hope we have taken the first
step toward doing that by signing this agreement with Customs.
The best way I know of of interdicting the illegal products is
to hit them right at Customs and to be notified by Customs. So
if we can get a relationship going with them to help then
cooperate with us, that will go a long way toward achieving
that goal that you just mentioned.
The other thing we need to do is we need to be just as
tough on importers as we are on domestic companies who violate
the act. And if we can't get to the companies in China or
Europe or wherever they happen to be, we can certainly get to
their importers and distributors here, and that is where I
think we will have to begin the enforcement process.
Mr. Stearns. Mr. Chairman, do you have any way to get to
the companies in, for example, China or India? I mean, these
are companies, particularly in China, which I am not sure that
you could make any kind of impact. So, how do you handle that?
Mr. Stratton. Mr. Chairman, I frankly don't know the answer
to that question, but I suspect we can't get to them directly,
and that is why I say we have to--they all have distributors
here, and they all have importers here who handle that here on
this side, and then they all have retailers. So I think we can
get to them that way, and if they don't have distributors or
importers doing it, then they are not going to get products in
the country. They can't do it directly.
But I must say, you have got me on that one. I will have to
get that answer for you and get back with you.
[The following was received for the record:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81957.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81957.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81957.003
Mr. Stearns. I am going to ask you a couple of questions
that perhaps--and I am very understanding. You have been on the
job since Wednesday, and I think you are doing a grand job, I
mean, and it is going to take a long time to understand all the
issues. But I present these because they are in the public
forum, and I think under this kind of hearing that we should
ask some of these questions just to lay them out.
The CPSC has spent over $7 million and at least 6 years of
significant staff time studying the issue of flammability
standards for children's sleepwear. And I guess the question is
after all this time and all this money, has this issue been
resolved? Has the CPS staff relied on good data, or it has
taken so long because the data is flawed? But perhaps this is
not a question that you can answer in this short time, but this
is--certainly long-term Members of Congress have concern. We
hear about this issue continuing to go on, so I ask you that.
Mr. Stratton. Mr. Chairman, that is a good question. I
checked right before I came over here today to see whether that
had been resolved or we had gotten the latest information from
staff on it. We had not. All I can say is it seems like a long
time, to me. And I don't know why it hasn't been resolved, but
it is something we are going to get resolved as soon as we
legally and procedurally can. But I can't----
Mr. Stearns. I understand.
Mr. Stratton. I can't tell you why it has taken 7 years to
do anything.
Mr. Stearns. My time has expired, and if the Members like,
we will have a second round. But now I yield to the ranking
member from Massachusetts.
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
One of the issues in the news very recently has been the
rapid growth of West Nile disease across our country and the
number of fatalities that have been identified related to this
mosquito-borne disease. And many of the reports in the media
indicate that children and senior citizens are the ones that
are most particularly vulnerable to that disease.
Former CPSC Chairwoman Ann Brown has recently spoken out
about the concern that many parents may overreact to the
prospect of their children getting West Nile disease by
utilizing bug spray and insect repellants containing DEET. Now,
DEET is actually not recommended nor is it considered to be
safe for young children, although adults can use it in moderate
doses. DEET actually is toxic to young kids and should not be
used for infants under 2 years of age and can sometimes cause
seizures in toddlers. For kids over 2, repellant containing no
more than 10 percent DEET is recommended, and parents are
encouraged to apply the repellant around the child's eyes,
avoiding the mouth and the eyes.
Given the concern about West Nile, many parents will be
purchasing insect repellant products for their homes and
families. Do you believe that the CPSC has any role in this
area in ensuring that such products are clearly labeled, that
parents are warned and are cognizant of the danger of DEET to
young kids? In fact, as we know and we watch on the news in the
evenings, in many of these areas we see children being bathed
in insect repellant by their parents in order to protect them.
Have you looked at this issue of DEET, and is it something that
you believe comes under the jurisdiction of the CPSC in terms
of your responsibility to warn parents about the dangers?
Mr. Stratton. Mr. Chairman, we have not looked at it that I
know of. This is the first I have heard of this. Ms. Brown
hasn't called us about this, as far as I know, so I don't think
she has notified about her concern about this, nor do I believe
this is one I have seen in the media, and so this is the first
I have heard about it. It is something we will be happy to look
at without coming to a legal conclusion about whether we have
jurisdiction over that. I mean, if it is a consumer product and
it is not covered by some other agency or excluded by the act,
we have jurisdiction.
On that particular item, I don't know. We will be happy to
take a look and get back with you immediately and let you know
what we think.
Mr. Markey. And so will you give me a call?
Mr. Stratton. Absolutely.
Mr. Markey. Okay. I appreciate it.
Now, on the next issue I need your help, Mr. Stratton. The
amusement park industry has an admirable safety record in
general, but just as any other industry that you regulate,
accidents do happen. Right now if a child is hurt on an
amusement park ride, the safety response of that accident is
comically convoluted. If it turns out that the ride was mobile,
that is, not permanently fixed to the land it sits on--that is,
one of these traveling carnivals that moves from city to city,
from State to State--then the CPSC has full authority to
investigate, order safety changes, and share what it learned
with other similar ride owners and ride manufacturers. In the
last 5 years, according to emergency room data, injuries on
those rides went up 34 percent.
But if it turns out that the ride was bolted down to the
site, well, that is a different story for an injured child. In
its wisdom, Congress has declared that if the ride is fixed,
that is, can't be moved, as one of the giant roller coasters or
giant rides, then the Consumer Product Safety Commission cannot
do its job. It has no jurisdiction. In the last 5 years,
according to CPSC's emergency room data, injuries on these
fixed-site rides rose a whopping 93 percent, 35 percent for the
mobile small rides that go State to State, 93 percent increase
in emergency room visits over a 5-year period for these fixed-
site rides.
My question is, does that make any sense to you, Mr.
Chairman, or do you agree that it would be preferable for you
to have uniformed regulatory oversight authority so that all
amusement park riders receive equal protection regardless of
whether it is a fixed-site or a mobile ride?
Mr. Stratton. Mr. Chairman, after being on the job since
Wednesday, on the details of that particular issue I don't
really feel qualified to give you advice on that today, but it
is something we would be happy to look at and consider and get
back with you on that as well.
I will say this: That right now my general feeling is that
anything you here in Congress pass and say we should regulate,
we are going to regulate; and anything you say we shouldn't
regulate, we are not going to regulate. And that is your
decision, your prerogative, your responsibility to do that. And
as far as expanding or contracting the jurisdiction position of
the Commission, I at this date don't have any real opinion on
that.
Mr. Markey. Thank you. Will you give me a call on that one?
Mr. Stratton. Yes, sir.
Mr. Markey. Okay. How long do you think it will take here?
Mr. Stratton. When do you want me to call you?
Mr. Markey. The end of next week.
Mr. Stratton. Sure.
Mr. Markey. Is that enough time?
Mr. Stratton. Sure.
Mr. Markey. Is that enough time?
Mr. Stratton. Sure.
Mr. Markey. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask that we include in the
record an article from the Annals of Emergency Medicine,
January 2002, titled Amusement Park Injuries and Deaths. As you
know, since 1999, I have sought a public health and safety
limit on these issues, and I would like to have it included in
the record at this time.
Mr. Stearns. By unanimous consent, so ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81957.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81957.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81957.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81957.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81957.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81957.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81957.010
Mr. Markey. And one final question, if I may, Mr. Stratton.
Do you support Congress acting to lift the cap on civil
penalties for violations of product safety laws? Don't you
think that a $1 million fine of a company the size of General
Electric is, for them, the equivalent of a parking ticket, just
the cost of doing business? And it doesn't even show up because
their numbers are so large that they are dealing with, even as
a rounding error it doesn't show up. Do you believe that you
should have a greater ability to impose larger fines on these
companies?
Mr. Stratton. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me say that I
don't see that as the equivalent of a parking ticket. And the
reason that I----
Mr. Markey. Well, to General Electric I said it is the
equivalent of a parking ticket.
Mr. Stratton. Or to General Electric. I do not consider
that to be equivalent of a parking ticket to General Electric,
and the reason is--is because I think there is a lot more to
being fined and getting a penalty from the CPSC than just the
amount of money. So I think there is--there is quite a stigma
that is attached to that. So I am not quarreling--I am not
quarreling with your premise, I am just saying that I don't
think that the amount of money is the only thing to be
considered in that particular scenario.
Mr. Markey. Well, you are saying that the stigma that is
attached from being criticized by CPSC is such an incredible
public relations disaster for General Electric that that itself
substitutes for the money that you are not able to extract from
them as a penalty?
Mr. Stratton. No, sir, I am not saying that. I am saying
that is an additional negative aspect.
Mr. Markey. I agree with that, but what I am saying to you
is that General Electric is $100 million, $200--a $100 billion,
$200 billion corporation, and a $1 million fine is so teeny
tiny that to change its entire chain of consumer products in
order to avoid--it can only really be given an incentive if the
financial penalty is so great--you know, with a $1 fine, a
company, with the stigma, you can get this thing resolved under
your theory. You know, the dollar amount isn't that important,
it is just the fact that the CPSC has censored you. But I think
that each of us makes a decision that--let us put it like this.
A parking fine of $15 or $20, that is a risk you will run. A
speeding ticket of $200 or $250 or $300 with the accompanying
loss of your license, that is something that 99 percent of
people wouldn't even consider engaging in, Right? So the dollar
amount does play a role in terms of what the risk is that
people are willing to run in terms of the crime or the offense
that they are willing to commit.
Mr. Stratton. Mr. Markey, I don't disagree with you. And
let me----
Mr. Markey. So, are you saying that it is adequate?
Mr. Stratton. No.
Mr. Markey. That is my question. Do you believe that the
cap on you is okay, and you don't want it lifted, and you think
you can get your work done? Or, if Congress did lift it and
gave you greater discretion, would that be something that you
would receive with your approval?
Mr. Stratton. Well, I think it is something we need to look
at and we need to consider. But let me point out one thing. It
is not just--it is not as simple as raising the caps. I mean,
the cap is $1.65 million. So, the cap is more than $1.5
million, it is not $1 million. And you might ask the question--
in fact, I have been asked the question: Why didn't we get more
than a million? Why didn't we get the $1.65 million, because it
is G.E., and because the conduct is somewhat egregious in some
people's opinion. And the answer is it was a settlement prior
to litigation. We wanted $1.65 million; they didn't want to pay
anything. The lawyers get together and they--including the
Justice Department, because as you know, the Justice Department
gets involved in this, and the lawyers get together, and you
come to some compromise without litigation.
Regardless of what the caps are, if there are no caps
whatsoever, I can just tell you as a litigator for the last 25
years that the more money you try to get from somebody, the
more resources you are going to spend trying to get it, and
sometimes you have to do that. And I don't disagree with doing
that, and I think many times it needs to be done. And that
might very well have been a case that we needed to do it. But I
hope in considering whether the caps are lifted, I hope if you
do lift the caps and you expect us to get $10 or $20 or $100
million penalties from people, that you will give us the
resources to proceed to do that. We need the litigation
resource, including the lawyers and all the other litigation
support, to go after that.
Really and frankly, right now I don't know whether--I mean,
some people have criticized me for even mentioning this, but I
think industry knows this and business knows this. Right now
our biggest problem isn't the cap; our biggest problem is
having the resources to push it up to the limit of the cap and
get that money.
Mr. Markey. Right. But you were attorney general in the
State of New Mexico.
Mr. Stratton. Yes, sir.
Mr. Markey. So you know that as a negotiator, if the other
side already knows what your upper limit is going into a
negotiation and in a settlement, that they have the upper hand.
On the other hand, if you as the attorney general of New Mexico
had this unlimited ability now to impose a penalty, you were in
a position from the public's perspective, protecting everyone
in the community, not just the corporation, to extract a good
result that would leave the public protected for the long term.
Right now every company, every corporation that you are
negotiating with knows what the upper limit is. They know it is
$1.6 million. And you are handicapped, your hands are tied,
because they come in with a very good negotiating position. And
$1 million is a good result if you can't go any higher than
$1.6 million, but if you had no cap, Mr. Chairman, as you were
as attorney general of New Mexico, don't you think you would be
in a better negotiating position for the public to extract
public safety protection?
Mr. Stratton. Generally, yes, if you had the firepower to
back up your position.
Mr. Markey. Right. But the firepower is the fine. Now your
negotiators, your staffers have the ability to go in and
negotiate with some real clout behind them if the other side
believes the chairman would accept their recommendation.
Mr. Stratton. If I may. The firepower is not the ability to
negotiate; the firepower is the ability to go to court and
force them to do that if they disagree. And if they won't do
that, if they just say, we are not going to pay it, we are
going to see you in court----
Mr. Markey. Right. But----
Mr. Stratton. The firepower is having the staying power to
go into court and be there for several years and get the large
fine.
And let me just say, I am not opposed to your legislation.
I mean, I will go on record right now saying I am not opposed
to it. And if you pass that legislation, it is just fine with
me. I just want a little more time before I come to a
conclusion about what I think is the best course to deal with
that issue.
Mr. Markey. But if you want more firepower, you want more
staffing, you tell us what you want, we will give it to you.
Tell us how many more people you want to be able do this. But
let me also say this to you in terms of firepower: You may not
be given permission by OMB to ask for any more firepower, but
nonetheless, we would be willing to give--unless you want----
Mr. Stratton. We have a budget request.
Mr. Markey. If you work for the nuclear department, they
will give it to you. Okay? If you want Star Wars, they will
give it to you. But for consumers, I doubt that they will give
you any more firepower, so you are kind of stuck with what you
have got.
But what I am saying to you is that as the protector of the
public, the other side should be in a very uncertain world, and
you would get a much faster negotiated settlement if they knew
that your recommendation were ultimately to be to go to court
to get $20 or $30 or $40 million settlement and not $1.6
million, and that your side, your team, would be able to get a
settlement early and to get these defective products off the
marketplace.
We are talking about 3.1 million dishwashers that had a
defective product that could cause fires. So all you need is
three or four fires. With the average house or homes in the
United States right now, it hits $1 million after three fires,
if the homes burn down, and we are talking about 3 million
dishwashers that could have this defect. So the sooner you are
able to go in and effectively negotiate, the sooner the public
doesn't have to worry that this inherent defect could, like a
lottery ticket, come to their home, burn it down, lose their
life savings, but perhaps also lose the lives of some family
members.
We are on your team. We want to help you. We know you want
to do a good job, and we will do our best for you.
Mr. Stearns. Thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from New Hampshire is recognized.
Mr. Bass. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And congratulations, Chairman Stratton.
Mr. Stratton. Thank you.
Mr. Bass. And I apologize for having come in slightly late
and missed your opening statement.
I heard my friend from Massachusetts talk about the
amusement ride issue, which is interesting to me, with the
number of amusement rides in my home State as well. I recall
from my legislative days that we in New Hampshire have a bureau
in the Department of Safety that regulates ski areas, amusement
rides, and something else I can't recall. And I believe that
they have standards that are equal to or greater than any of
the standards that are promulgated by CPSC for mobile--for
mobile amusement systems. I just recall that, and it is old
information.
The other thing is it seems to me that increases in
accidents may be significant, but they may also not take into
account the fact that these fixed facilities now, instead of
having one roller coaster, might have eight or four or three.
And, therefore, I think it might be helpful in the debate
perhaps, if this continues to be an issue, to have CPSC do some
sort of a study to determine which States have regulations in
place that are adequate, and whether or not these increasing
number of accidents which on the face of it appear to be pretty
alarming are the result of factors outside of lack of Federal
regulation.
Mr. Markey. Would the gentleman yield just briefly?
Mr. Bass. Sure. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. Markey. From----
Mr. Bass. And I am not prepared to debate this, but----
Mr. Markey. I am not going to debate. The point that I am
going to make here is that I live in Massachusetts. We spent
every summer going up to vacation in New Hampshire. So, it is
good news to know that the people in New Hampshire put stronger
protections on Canobie Lake Park or other amusement park rides
that my family was on. On the other hand, what happens when New
Hampshire residents get in their cars and they go to other
States? It turns out that one-third of all rides in the United
States are never inspected by anybody at any time. So it is not
so much that you can protect your own State, because most
families get on these rides when they are not in their own
States, when they are traveling on vacations with their kids,
and they assume that the other State has the same protections
that their home State has.
Mr. Bass. It would be interesting to examine those issues
in those other States and perhaps determine to start a dialog
as to why they don't have the kinds of regulatory processes
that should be in place there. But I wasn't here to discuss
that.
I appreciate the chairman's making reference during his
opening statement to a constituent of mine, Dean Cayman from
Manchester--he is technically out of my district, I guess--but
who has invented a personal mobility device called a Segway,
and from a regulatory standpoint, at this point it is neither
fish nor fowl. And over the last year and a half or so, I and
others in Congress have been attempting to assure that CPSC has
jurisdiction over devices such as this or generically. They are
low-speed electric personal assistive mobility devices.
And I was wondering, Chairman Stratton, if you have had a
chance to think about this, and if you thought--if you could
give me your views about whether or not you think CPSC should
have jurisdiction over these types of devices.
Mr. Stratton. Mr. Chairman, once again I really--I have
thought about it because I read about it in the Wall Street
Journal and other places like that. I have not come to a
conclusion, and I haven't thought it through that much.
Once again, if you all want to pass a bill that gives us
jurisdiction, we are more than happy to have it. Maybe we have
jurisdiction, I don't know. I don't know that the legal staff
has concluded that yet. But----
Mr. Bass. Chairman Stratton, would an effort--and you may
have answered this question already--by Congress to clarify the
jurisdiction be welcomed on your part?
Mr. Stratton. Always. Yes, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Bass, it
would be.
Mr. Bass. Well, Chairman Stratton, I look forward to
working with you on this matter over the next few months. And I
will yield back to the chairman.
Mr. Stratton. Thank you.
Mr. Stearns. The chairman yields back the balance of his
time.
The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized. Mr. Gordon.
Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Stratton, welcome to our hearing today.
Mr. Stratton. Thank you.
Mr. Gordon. In your remarks you said that your first
priority was--and I will quote here--means eliminating from the
market consumer products that create an unreasonable risk of
injury or death. What is a reasonable risk of injury or death
that you are willing to put up with?
Mr. Stratton. Well, Mr. Chairman, you can't determine that
here today without knowing the facts and the hypothetical. I
mean, automobiles create a risk of death. People get killed in
them all the time. Airplanes do. So----
Mr. Gordon. You know a lot about the sleepwear, since,
again, I am sure you have done your homework, I can tell, from
what you have done here and your staying up nights and your
getting up early. So you, I am sure, have reviewed this several
years and several--or thousands of man-hours and women-hours
working on this. So, if one child is seriously injured or dies
from the faulty sleepwear, is that enough, or do you need--or
what do you need? What is reasonable and what is unreasonable
there?
Mr. Stratton. Mr. Chairman, I don't know. It depends on the
circumstances of why that occurred, what the circumstances are.
But before you can make that decision, I suppose----
Mr. Gordon. So do you need more information? Have they not
provided you with enough--is all this 7 years and all this
time, is that not enough? What else do you need to know?
Mr. Stratton. I don't--I am sorry, Mr. Gordon, I am not
sure I know what your question is. What do I need to know about
the sleepwear standards?
Mr. Gordon. Well, first of all, I want you to try to tell
me what was a reasonable risk, and you said you couldn't do
that without specific information. So then I was saying that
how much more specific could you be--could you have, I guess,
than all the information that you have, your organization has
gathered on the sleepwear. So since you do have a lot of
information there, I thought that might be able to help you
explain to me what is the difference between a reasonable risk
and an unreasonable risk.
Mr. Stratton. I think first our final staff--I think our
staff has not completed their final studies on that, and it
hasn't been provided to me. And I am not aware of the 7 years
of work they have done on it, being there since last Wednesday.
I will admit to you I am not privy to everything that they have
done.
Mr. Gordon. But you have been studying and getting ready
for the office, haven't you?
Mr. Stratton. I have been--you mean during the course of
confirmation?
Mr. Gordon. Yes, sir.
Mr. Stratton. I have been keeping up. I kept up with pretty
much what I could in the media, but because I was not--I could
not be presumptuous about being confirmed or act presumptuous
about being confirmed, I was not having contact with the
Commission and ordering them to provide me all of this
information. So I was really not privy to help from the
Commission until August 2.
Mr. Gordon. Okay. Well, I am still interested in trying to
find out what the difference is. Since you--you know, this was
your testimony. You said, you know, that you want to eliminate
from the market consumer products that create an unreasonable
risk of injury and death. So I am just trying--or death. I am
trying to figure out what is the difference between reasonable
and unreasonable. I have got a 1\1/2\ year old daughter at
home. And we live near Rock Creek, and we don't take our
daughter out if possible in the early evenings or early
mornings, as recommended, because of mosquitos.
I am going to go home tonight and check on this DEET, is
that--I think that was what Mr. Markey said--because we, you
know, we use that. So, let's just--is a 1 percent chance that
this is going to be harmful to the health of children, is that
reasonable or unreasonable?
Mr. Stratton. It depends on the circumstances.
Mr. Gordon. Okay. Well, why don't you give me
circumstances, then, that would make it unreasonable and maybe
some that would make it reasonable so that I can get a better
feel of where you are and your difference between reasonable
and reasonable? Rather than--I am not doing a good job creating
these so I will let you create those facts.
Mr. Stratton. I think what you have to do is look at the
facts of each particular case as it occurred, and if it is in
the one-child situation, I think you have to make a
determination as to whatever caused that death is likely to
cause more. You may be on the front end of the product, you may
be on the back end of the product. What if the death occurred
the day the product came out? Or what if the death occurred 10
years later and that was the first death you had ever had due
to the product?
You have to take those kinds of factors into consideration.
And frankly, every single one of these, as far as I know, every
single one--that is too broad of a statement to make. But all
of these--all is not too broad, I suppose. All of these issues
are based upon scientific evidence and expert evidence that is
produced to the Commission about why this product is defective
or why this death occurred. And that is what most of the CPSC
is: engineers, scientists, and people like that who are
providing that information. We are the politically appointed
adjudicatory body that then makes a determination based upon
what they provide for us.
So to suggest you can say that one death is reasonable or
unreasonable, I am not willing to do it here today, because I
might get over there and have a case and I might find a case
where a death occurred in a particular way that I thought it
was going to be recurring throughout the course of that
product's life, and I might be willing to say it is
unreasonable, or I might find a death that didn't do that. So
it is impossible here to give you any kind of--it is
irresponsible to give you any kind of percent, average, or any
kind of hypothetical based upon that kind of factual or that
lack of factual situation.
Mr. Gordon. Well, how much more information could you have
than this 7 years of study on the sleepwear?
Mr. Stratton. I am unfamiliar with the 7 years, Mr. Gordon.
Mr. Gordon. Well, let us just say, well let us just maybe
make it a little more generic. A bunch. Apparently you have got
a bunch of information on this. How much more do you need?
Mr. Stratton. I don't know, because until the staff
provides that information to the Commission, I am unaware of
what they have or what they need.
Mr. Gordon. Is there a role for the chairman to encourage
the staff? I mean, is your role to wait till they come, or do
you feel like somewhere your role might be to say, it has been
several years, could you hurry this up, are we going to make a
decision? Is that your role or not? What would you consider
that?
Mr. Stratton. I would say that is my role.
Mr. Gordon. Okay. Well, I am sure you will be back and you
will have more time to think about this in the future. But I
would like to get a little better feel and maybe some examples
of what is a reasonable risk versus an unreasonable risk of
injury and death in terms of your office.
Thank you sir.
Mr. Stearns. I thank my colleague. We won't keep you too
much longer. I think I have a few questions and then the
ranking member has a few questions and then we will be
complete. So we just ask for your patience here.
Perhaps you are familiar with your predecessor. There was a
Daisy BB gun recall case that she instituted last year. And I
guess a question that we have on this side of the aisle is, do
you intend to do anything on that or what is the status of your
actions?
Mr. Stratton. Mr. Chairman, as I understand that case, the
status is that it has been sent to be heard before an
administrative law judge to determine whether there should be a
recall of the--I understand it is BB guns. I have intentionally
not looked at this issue, and you will see why as soon as I am
finished here. But that is my understanding of the status. And
my further understanding is then the appeal from the
administrative law judge is to the Consumer Products Safety
Commission to the commissioners, and then we then sit as an
adjudicatory or a quasi-judicial body to make that
determination.
So I am waiting, and maybe it is the lawyer in me or the
fact that I have been in the judicial system, but I am waiting
to see the evidence in that case and any action I will be
taking will be as an adjudicator, one of three adjudicators
that--to determine, based on the evidence, what should be done.
Mr. Stearns. And what do you think that timeframe would be?
Mr. Stratton. Mr. Chairman, I have no idea what the
timeframe is right now.
Mr. Stearns. You and I talked earlier, and my question was
talking about children's sleepwear. I have one on upholstered
furniture flammability. As I understand, the CPSC staff report
on upholstered furniture flammability issued last October is
the most extensive safety study and analysis in CPS history. It
should be. It took a full 8 years to do this study. Generally,
when they take that long, you wonder--and I guess, do you think
we are at a point, after 8 years and the money we have
invested, that there be a decision one way or the other, and
can we expect this issue to be resolved shortly? And, if not,
when?
Mr. Stratton. Mr. Chairman, I will just reiterate. I don't
know anything that I think should take 8 years. But once again,
I wasn't there for it, and they may have some reasons it has
taken that long. I doubt they will be able to convince me
anything should take that long. And you won't be seeing things
take that long, at least while I am there.
Now, my understanding is they set a hearing in June for
public input, a 2-day hearing for public input on these
standards at the CPSC. Unfortunately, although I expected to be
confirmed by then, I was not confirmed, so I didn't have a
chance to attend the hearing or be privy to that. But the staff
is assimilating that and they are going to present it to the
Commission, and I suspect it is going to be sometime this fall
that we are going to get that. But I don't have a better
timeframe than that.
I would like to say that I think when you go into one of
these jobs, that you have absolute control over the staff and
you can dictate when they get things to you. But I am not sure
that is the case.
Mr. Stearns. Okay. Let me conclude by just making an
observation on this fixed amusement sites issues. There were
320 million visitors last year at fixed-site parks; 99.99
percent visitors had no ill effects. So--and sometimes, like we
had recently this summer in which someone--there was a
fatality. It turns out that the person was mentally challenged
and tried to get out of the--pushed the lap bar up and caused,
in many ways, his own problem. And so when you look at the
statistics, they are very small in terms of fatality; and, in
fact, the latest CPSC figures show a 14 percent drop in the
number of injuries related to fixed-site rides since 2000.
So I think when you hear things, some of it is myth and
some of it is fact, and so as Mr. Bass has indicated earlier,
some of these facts have to be gotten under control to
understand. But that concludes my portion. And now the ranking
member will do his concluding remarks.
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My only bit of dicta
that I would add to what the chairman just said is that in
almost every case that you are going to be asked to work on, 99
percent of the devices will have worked well; only 1 percent,
or a smaller percentage, will not have. So the question is not
whether or not you are going to have to act to deal with
situations where 50 percent or 75 percent of the devices are
not working; in almost every instance your judgment is going to
be applied to a situation where it is 1 percent or fewer of the
devices are not working well.
So, just applying that to West Nile right now, 99.9999
percent of all Americans have yet to get West Nile disease. So
perhaps it is inappropriate to have that as the lead story in
America every day. But every American is thinking about this
disease right now because they don't want their children, they
don't want their parents, to be the ones who become the victims
of something that from their perspective may be preventable.
And that is where I put the roller coaster industry. It is
unnecessary to have this gap that exists between mobile rides
and fixed-site rides. And the only way in which you can deal
with the fixed-site issue is to have some Federal jurisdiction.
The roller coaster industry was able to build a loophole into
the first Ronald Reagan budget in 1981. Up until 1981 you and
your Agency did have jurisdiction over fixed-site amusement
park rides, but the industry didn't want to be regulated
anymore. They snuck it into that up-or-down omnibus budget bill
in 1981, and since then your Agency has been without the
authority; and the disparity between mobile rides and fixed-
site rides has risen as a result.
Mr. Stearns. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Markey. I would be glad to; glad to yield.
Mr. Stearns. I think, though, Mr. Chairman, we have to
understand that the difference between a fatality in which
someone deliberately caused the problem, whereas it was a
defect within the roller coaster--and this is not being
differentiated when we make this discussion between the actual
deficiency in the instrument versus the problem with the
individual, for whatever reasons, being a daredevil, not fully
understanding because of being mentally challenged--and so all
of that I think has to be also put into perspective and I thank
the gentleman.
Mr. Markey. I thank the gentleman again. When I was a boy,
and the gentleman from New Hampshire, Mr. Bass, made reference
to it, Canobie Lake Park had the state-of-the-art roller
coaster, this beautiful old wooden roller coaster which brings
back many happy memories for Mr. Bass and myself and hundreds
of thousands of others. Now, in this modern era, that Canobie
Lake roller coaster, which still exists, is the equivalent of a
Model T automobile compared to these supersonic-speed roller
coasters that are being built and marketed to children across
the United States today. The G-forces on many of these roller
coasters are equal to the G-forces, the gravitational pull,
that an astronaut is exposed to on the takeoff of the Shuttle.
Well that's not the Canobie Lake roller coaster. This is
something else altogether in terms of the speed and the danger
that these roller coasters present.
And by the way, Mr. Chairman, I have been waiting 4 years
to have a hearing on roller coasters, so you are in loco roller
coaster right now. You are subject to----
Mr. Bass. Would the gentleman yield just for clarification?
Mr. Markey. I will be glad to yield.
Mr. Bass. For clarification, the gentleman surely doesn't
mean, doesn't want to imply, that the Yankee Cannonball, which
is one of the great roller coasters built in 1938 in Canobie
Lake, is not to this day providing lots of enjoyment to many,
many children all over the country. It is a great roller
coaster, which although there may be more modern ones, this one
is certainly still a great attraction and a lot of people from
Massachusetts like to come up and spend their time in New
Hampshire because Nantasket, I guess, is gone now, and I guess
Revere Beach is gone and so forth.
I yield back to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. Markey. I thank the gentleman, and I wasn't really
intending to leave that impression at all. I was only trying to
point out that the relationship between the roller coaster
built in 1938 that is still operating today and which has
brought enjoyment to hundreds of thousands if not millions of
families and young people, the equivalent of that is the
equivalent of the casino in Hampton Beach of my youth, which
still exists as well, being compared to Fox Woods in
Connecticut. I mean it is--the scale is just so much greater,
you know, that you might as well be talking about prehistoric
time in terms of the type of entertainment environment that has
been created.
And so all we are saying here is that in the immortal words
of Thomas Jefferson, the government must evolve to deal with
changes, times, and customs and habits. And for children who
are on these rides, they are not being put on your grandfather
or father's roller coaster any longer. They are being put in a
completely different situation. And I would just hope that that
could be noted.
Mr. Engel, who is a member of the full committee, and who
is not a member of the subcommittee has asked me to pose to you
the following question, Mr. Chairman. The previous
administration was very supportive of a mandatory gun lock
standard that would improve the effectiveness of the safety
devices now found in the marketplace. In fact, Congressman
Engel and others have sponsored a bill that I am a cosponsor
of, pending before this committee, that would require the
Consumer Products Safety Commission to craft such a standard.
Do you share the previous administration's concern about the
quality of gun locks found in the marketplace that are being
marketed as safety and access prevention devices? And, if so,
would you welcome the jurisdiction provided by the Engel bill
so that you can deal with the safety implications of that
consumer product; that is, hand guns?
Mr. Stratton. Mr. Chairman, I welcome whatever jurisdiction
you give us. And I look forward to you working out the
amusement park jurisdiction because, as Thomas Jefferson would
indicate, that is, I guess that is why you get elected to
Congress. So we look forward to you all giving us direction on
that as well as this one. And I know that we are currently
working with the gunlock industry on voluntary standards. That
is my information. I don't know personally. This is what I have
been told. And so they are working on voluntary standards. So I
always share the concern.
I am not familiar specifically with the previous
administration's concern, but I share that concern and I
understand we are working on voluntary standards. If that
doesn't work out, then we will see what the next step is.
Mr. Markey. And I have one other unanimous consent request
to you, Mr. Chairman, to place in the record of this hearing an
exchange of letters between Representative Dennis Moore of
Kansas and former Acting Chairman of the CPSC, Thomas Moore,
concerning the need for implementation of a Federal standard
for childproof caps on gasoline containers.
Mr. Stearns. By unanimous consent so ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81957.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81957.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81957.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81957.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81957.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81957.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81957.017
Mr. Markey. I thank you very much. And I thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for coming in to see us today. You have one of the
greatest jobs in the government. You can do so much good, and I
hope that in your tenure you take full advantage of all the
opportunities which are going to be presented to you.
Mr. Stratton. Thank you.
Mr. Stearns. I thank my colleague and I thank my other
colleagues for their participation. And, Mr. Stratton, you
have--as I understand it, other than your confirmation hearing,
this is really your first congressional hearing. So
congratulations. You went through, passed with flying colors,
and we appreciate your participation--you and your staff who
have been taking voluminous notes behind you. So I am sure they
will have lots of information to give you. So again, thank you
for coming and we look forward to seeing you and talking with
you again.
Mr. Stratton. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Stearns. The committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:23 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
-