<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.] -