Children's Products Safety Act of 2007

Mr. President, in a Senate where recently it has been so hard to get things done, Democrats and Republicans have come together in a bipartisan manner to produce a strong conference report that is a victory for children and families.

I have a message for American parents everywhere who are concerned about the safety of their children's toys, ``We have heard your concerns, and today, Congress has acted.''

The Senate is about to approve landmark consumer legislation to protect our kids from dangerous children's products and hazardous substances.

I want to thank Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Stevens, Senator Pryor and their staffs for all of their hard work and dedication to this important bill.

As both a parent and a grandparent, I have been incredibly distressed by the seemingly endless stream of reports about defective and dangerous children's toys and products.

Consumers Union dubbed 2007 ``The Year of the Recall'' after 45 million toys and other children's products were recalled. Recalls jumped 22 percent for the 9-month period that ended June 30 of this year.

Clearly, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has not been able to keep pace with the growing market of consumer products many of which are now manufactured abroad.

For too long we have asked this agency, which has a staff of approximately 400 charged with overseeing the safety of 15,000 consumer products, to do too much with grossly inadequate resources and enforcement tools.

The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 addresses those resource problems and finally brings the CPSC's enforcement powers in line with those of other Federal agencies charged with protecting the public.

The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 includes a strong ban on lead and phthalates, requires testing of all children's products that must meet mandatory toy standards, and for the first time, includes a public, searchable national database on the CPSC website of all consumer complaints filed with the CPSC so consumers can be better informed about dangerous products.

The bill also strengthens the Consumer Product Safety Commission's authority to recall products, increases enforcement authority for Attorneys General, includes stronger civil and criminal penalties for violators, bans industry sponsored travel, and provides whistleblower protections for employees of manufacturers, private labelers, retailers, and distributors.

I want to thank the conferees for including two provisions I authored in committee.

The Labeling Requirement for Advertising Toys and Games requires products sold over the Internet or in catalogues to list any cautionary statements, such as choking warnings, in their advertisements.

These labels would normally be visible when the products are purchased in the store but oftentimes are not visible to the consumer when sold over the Internet or in catalogues.

My second provision requires manufacturers of durable infant or toddler's products to provide consumers with postage-paid registration forms with each product so consumers can be better informed if the product they bought is eventually recalled.

This provision was based on a bill by Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky called the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act.

Danny Keysar was a 16-month-old child who died when his Playskool Travel-Lite portable crib collapsed--5 years after the CPSC had ordered it off the shelves because it was dangerous. Danny was tragically the fifth victim to die due to the faulty design of this crib and a sixth child died 3 months later.

From 1990 to 1997 more than 1.5 million portable cribs with a similar dangerous design were manufactured. A total of 17 children have been killed by these types of cribs.

Neither Danny's parents nor a caregiver at the daycare where the accident occurred were aware of the recall. State inspectors who had visited the daycare a week before were not aware of the crib's recall.

Our provision will provide parents with a method for receiving these vital recall updates that could save their child's life.

I was also pleased to work closely with Senator Klobuchar, Representative Waxman, and other conferees to get a strong ban on lead in toys and other children's products to protect our kids from dangerous lead contamination.

I also want to thank Chairman Inouye and Senator Pryor for their leadership and support on this issue.

We all know that lead poisons the brain and nervous system, can decrease IQs, and cause behavioral problems, and that it is especially dangerous to children.

Let me tell you about Colton Burkhart, a 4-year-old boy from Oregon on a family camping trip who became violently ill from lead poisoning after he swallowed a medallion from a necklace bought in a 25-cent toy vending machine. The medallion turned out to be 39 percent lead, which had elevated his blood lead level to a potentially

fatal level of 123 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood, more than 12 times the CDC's lead poisoning level of concern.

Jarnell Brown, another 4-year-old boy was brought to the hospital emergency department in Minneapolis, Minnesota complaining of vomiting. Believing that the child had a stomach virus, he was released. The next day, Jarnell was rushed to the hospital after having suffered a seizure and respiratory arrest. Jarnell later died. An autopsy revealed that he died of acute lead poisoning from a heart-shaped charm from a bracelet that his mother had gotten free with her Reebok sneakers. The charm was found to contain 99.1 percent lead. Reebok recalled 300,000 bracelets worldwide as a result.

The many recalls of lead toys and products over the past year have highlighted the need for action.

This legislation puts into place a ban on lead in children's products that gets increasingly stringent over 3 years, and that will help ensure that we protect our kids today and in future generations from the scourge of lead poisoning.

In addition, Senator Feinstein, Representative Waxman and I successfully fought, shoulder-to-shoulder, for a ban on dangerous phthalates in many children's products.

Studies show that phthalates are endocrine disruptors linked to reproductive abnormalities in male babies and many experts believe that the accumulation of exposures to multiple phthalates presents a risk to developing fetuses and young children.

Phthalates have been banned from many children's products in the European Union since 1999, and at least nine other countries have followed suit in an effort to better protect children from harmful health effects of these chemicals.

My home State of California was the first in the Nation to prohibit phthalates in many toys and child care products, and Washington State and Vermont have taken similar actions.

In addition, major retailers such as Wal-Mart, Target, and Toys ``R'' Us have already begun to take phthalate-containing children's products off their shelves.

China, which manufactures 85 percent of the world's toys, reportedly has created a separate manufacturing line for products intended for export to nations that ban phthalates.

This legislation will permanently ban three of the most dangerous phthalates, DEHP, DBP, and BBP from all children's toys and child care articles.

In addition, it imposes an interim ban on three other dangerous phthalates, DINP, DIDP, and DnOP, in children's toys that can be put in the mouth, and in childcare articles. That ban can only be altered after a detailed scientific review.

Of course, nothing in this bill undercuts the Commission's authority to go beyond the specific products listed in this section's ban, or the specific phthalates listed in the ban, in any additional action the Commission takes under its regulatory authorities.

States such as California that have been leaders in protecting children by restricting toxic phthalate alternatives, are protected.

I also want to thank the conferees for working with Congressman Waxman and myself to protect State warning laws related to consumer products, such as California's Proposition 65.

We are so pleased to see the final conference report clarifies that State and local toy and children's product requirements in effect before the date of enactment of this legislation are not preempted.

This bill is so important to the health and safety of our children and families. I want to again thank my colleagues on both the House and Senate side for all of their efforts on this legislation.

We can't risk one more child's injury or tragic death due to faulty toys or children's products. I am glad to hear that the President has agreed to sign this legislation.

I rise to discuss with Senator Pryor, the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, Insurance, and Automotive Safety, and lead sponsor of the Senate legislation, the preemptive effect of certain provisions in H.R. 4040.

I am pleased that the bill protects State warning laws related to consumer products or substances, such as California's Proposition 65. The conference report clarifies that any such warning laws in effect as of August 31, 2003, are not preempted by this act or the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. This important clarification effectively harmonizes the four statutes that are enforced by the Commission. Other laws enforced by CPSC, including the Consumer Product Safety Act, clearly do not preempt or affect State warning requirements like Proposition 65. The Federal Hazardous Substances Act, however, is arguably ambiguous as to its effect on State warning requirements. I am pleased that we have eliminated this ambiguity with this conference report and harmonized all of the Commission's statutes on this point.

I yield to Senator Pryor, and ask: Is it also your understanding that nothing in this legislation or any of the laws enforced by the Consumer Product Safety Commission will preempt or affect Proposition 65 in any way?

My second inquiry relates to the bill's provisions on phthalates. I am pleased that the language preserves the ability of States to regulate phthalates in product classes that are not regulated under this legislation, as well as States' ability to regulate alternatives to phthalates, such as other chemical plasticizers that might be used as substitutes to the phthalates that will be removed from toys under this law. I yield to Senator Pryor and ask, is it your understanding this law does not preempt or affect States' authority to regulate any alternatives to phthalates that are not specifically regulated by the Commission in a consumer product safety standard?

I also ask the distinguished floor manager Senator Pryor to confirm my understanding that the third-party testing provisions of the conference report have no preemptive effect on State or local testing related requirements. Is my understanding correct?

Finally, I wanted to confirm my understanding that the conference report makes it clear in section 106(h)(2) that State or local toy and children's product requirements in effect prior to enactment of this bill are not preempted by this legislation or by the Consumer Product Safety Act. Is my understanding correct?

Mr. President, the Consumer Product Safety Bill, while well intentioned, will do little to improve consumer product safety.

Since when should the Government be held responsible for the safety of consumers when time and time again the Federal bureaucracy has failed in its other safety obligations and responsibilities?

In 2005, Hurricane Katrina was a stark and sad reminder that a bloated, inefficient, and incompetent bureaucracy does not have the ability to protect citizens.

Just last year, the interstate bridge collapse in Minnesota reminded us all of the misplaced priorities of the Federal Government. Instead of ensuring

the structural soundness of bridges, politicians were more concerned with their earmarks, and diverted funds away from bridges such as the one in Minnesota for their own political benefit.

In another example of Government incompetence, the census is currently in grave peril of not completing its constitutional duty effectively and on time. This speaks volumes about the inefficiencies of our Government, as we have 10 years to prepare for the census with over two centuries of experience to draw upon to execute this responsibility.

This bill is a perfect example of politicians rushing to legislate on a problem that really isn't there in order to pat themselves on the back to try to curry favor with their constituents in an election year.

The truth is the paranoia and hysteria currently with consumer product safety is not proportional to the reality of the situation. Nancy Ord, Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, stated in January, ``Last year was marked by intense media scrutiny of the agency and of toy recalls in particular . . . the coverage reached near-hysteria level, And then, of course, some politicians, sensing a possible political issue, jumped on the bandwagon.''

While there has been a rise in product recalls, in a sense, the recalls are themselves a positive sign, as dangers were identified by manufacturers and products were removed from the market.

More importantly, these product recalls have not translated into dire health consequences, as there has been little evidence of any deterioration in overall product safety. There were few if any reports of consumer injuries from the recalled products. Although the number of injuries from toys increased somewhat in 2006, injury rates generally have decreased since 2001. Also, lead poisoning cases are at historic lows in many areas.

Regardless, many of the companies that fall under the CPSC umbrella have raised the levels of their own self-policing. Wal-Mart has announced that this month it will require independent lab testing for all new toys as well as those it reorders. Mattei and others have ended the use of certain kinds of batteries. And the Toy Industry Association has worked with the Commission on a plan to test toy safety in the design and manufacturing process as well as the final product.

The political reaction to the problem, like most Government solutions, is to throw money at it.

While some statutory upgrades are needed, almost doubling the size of the agency, as this bill does, will not eradicate or drastically improve the issue.

As we have seen time after time, when Government throws money at a problem, rarely does it improve a situation, and more often than not, it further complicates and aggravates the problem.

In addition, there are also a lot of unintended consequences in this bill, as it is a trial lawyer giveaway. While the dramatic increase in authorization is troubling, the provisions that subject businesses to the wrath of the trial lawyer and plaintiffs bar are far more problematic as they will raise the cost of doing business, hurt or destroy small businesses, and could further exasperate an already unstable economy.

Authorizing State attorneys general to initiate lawsuits, creating a consumer product safety database, and drastically increasing fines are free giveaways to trial lawyers that will do little for consumer safety and will unnecessarily damage small businesses.

Allowing State attorneys general to bring lawsuits on behalf of their residents for violations of consumer safety rules would reverse 35 years of successful policy experience.

Overzealous State attorneys general will now have the authority and discretion to interpret safety regulations and could unilaterally on a whim rule a business is noncompliant and could then hand over expensive lawsuits to their trial lawyer's cronies who are notoriously close with State law enforcement officials.

State attorneys, then, would be hard-pressed to deny politically active State trial lawyers to sue companies when the litigation will not cost the State a dime and could, in many cases, bring the attorney general positive publicity.

This provides false incentives for overzealous attorneys general and would run precisely counter to the CPSC's policy of carefully balancing cost and benefit in making safety regulations.

Lawsuits, which are expensive, adversarial, and often drawn out, can be an impediment to a successful long-term relationship that maximizes compliance and safety.

State attorneys general should not have the power to reduce the effectiveness of the CPSC's efforts by undermining its balanced approach to enforcement.

Another free giveaway to trial lawyers is the creation of a consumer product safety database. The database is estimated to cost $10 million, which accounts for over 10 percent of the Commission's budget.

This section requires the CPSC to establish a Web site to post any complaint, regardless of accuracy or merit, from consumer groups or individuals.

While on the surface the database appears to aim to educate and warn consumers about potential product defect or harm, the reality of it is far from effective. It is highly doubtful that many consumers will know about or even care to peruse a Government Web site to validate whether a product is safe prior to purchase, especially considering the claims are not verified prior to posting.

What the database does provide in much more practical terms however, is a centralized, consolidated data source where law firms, unions, and lobbyists are given access to cherry-pick consumer reports for potential lawsuits.

There is already a consumer product database, called lawcash.com, that consolidates consumer product complaints.

The Web site brags that its database provides consumers ``the information you need and the access you deserve to find out if you are eligible to claim your share of billions of dollars distributed yearly through thousands of class action lawsuits.''

This reveals the true motives for such ``consumer product batabases,'' and accordingly the Government has no role in serving as a conduit of information that promotes hit job lawsuits.

This cumbersome endeavor will divert funds and resources from efforts that actually go toward consumer safety and redirect it toward maintaining a Web site that will only contain inflammatory information that unions and lawyers can utilize to sue businesses.

The bill drastically increases maximum civil penalties more than tenfold and the individual violation more than twentyfold, subjecting each product that wrongfully enters the market to a $100,000 fine. The threat of a $100,000 fine will cause many small manufacturers and retailers who commit only minor violations to declare bankruptcy.

Additionally, faced with these hefty fines, this provision could erode the healthy and productive relationship between businesses and the Commission.

Faced with bankruptcy, many businesses would be much less inclined to voluntarily report violations and as a consequence would not receive the proper guidance to fix the problem, subjecting the business and its employees to potential harm.

While allowing increases in frivolous lawsuits and drastically hiking up the fines for businesses may allow Senators to tout to the public that they are tough on consumer safety, these actions are unlikely to improve the situation, and more importantly, the unintended consequences would be to increase the cost of doing business, impairing economic and job growth at a time when our economy desperately needs economic and job growth.

That is correct. The whistleblower provision should be interpreted broadly and consistent with ``best practices'' to achieve the law's purpose. For instance, ``employee'' is defined broadly to include individuals in any dimension of the employment concept: incumbent or former employees. It protects all individuals who have received compensation to engage in activities for which the corporation is responsible. The law's purpose may not be circumvented by hair- splitting interpretations that plug safe channels for witnesses to disclose relevant evidence of safety hazards.

Yes. Consistent with long-established Supreme Court case law see e.g., English v. General Electric, 496 U.S. 270, 1990--these rights do not cancel or replace preexisting remedies, whether under other overlapping congressional statutes, State laws, State tort claims or collective bargaining agreements.

There should be no confusion that the rights for protected activity created by this statute are the law of the land. They supersede and cannot be canceled or overridden by any conflicting restrictions in company manuals, employment contracts, or exit or nondisclosure agreements.

Yes, that is my understanding.

Yes, the bill leaves such authority to impose testing requirements in place without preemption.

My colleague is correct. The legislation does not preempt or otherwise affect State or political subdivision requirements applicable to a toy or other children's product that is designed to deal with the same risk of injury as the consumer product safety standard, if such State or political subdivision has filed such requirement with the Commission within 90 days after the date of enactment of this act.

Mr. President, the first thing I want to say is this is a great bill. It is something every Senator should be proud of, because what we saw in 2007 was a record number of product recalls. In fact, last year, there were 45 million toys that were recalled. Every single toy was made in China that was recalled last year.

Unfortunately, it doesn't stop there. In 2008, we are 29 percent ahead of the schedule we set back in 2007. So this problem is not going away. This is a great bill, and this is a classic example that bipartisanship works.

We did this bill the way bills ought to be done. We worked it out in committee. I see that Senator Stevens walked onto the floor. He played a vital and important role in the committee process and afterward. We worked together with Democrats and Republicans, and the House worked with the Senate. It has been a great example of how things can and should work around here.

We added third-party testing for toys. We added a new database for people to search to look at complaints about products. We give the Attorney General the ability to follow what the CPSC has done and get dangerous products off the shelves. We add whistleblower protection, so if people in the private sector know about a dangerous problem and reveal that, they don't lose their jobs. We increase civil penalties to make sure these companies--especially the ones who are repeat offenders--will know the CPSC has the authority to enforce what they do and make them feel the pain of that. We ban lead in children's products.

We move the commission, which used to be a five-member commission and is now down to three, back to a five-member commission.

We change the rulemaking process so that the authority rests with the CPSC again and not with the industry.

I could go on and on about the great things in this legislation. I know my time is short. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. President, I want to make sure I thank the people who deserve the lion's share of the credit. Senator Stevens was critical. He came in at a very important time, early in the process, and helped shape the bill and helped to get us from a Democratic bill to a bipartisan bill that got us to where we are today. In fact, the House voted last night 424 to 1 to pass this.

I also thank Senators Sununu and Hutchison. Senator Inouye, chairman of the Commerce Committee, was fantastic. Senator Boxer was great; she

was very focused on several issues. Senator Klobuchar, although a new Senator, had a positive impact on the process. It was an honor to work with them. Also I thank several House Members, of course, including Chairman Dingell and Congressman Barton, fantastic partners over there, who worked hard to get this done. And also Speaker Pelosi weighed in at the end to make sure we got it done.

Maybe more important than all of us is the staff. We have a lot of staff sitting on the back benches. They have spent countless hours on this bill. They have been here weekends, in the evenings, and they have been haggling over every word, comma, and paragraph. I am so grateful to all of them.

The people on my staff include Andy York and Price Feland. When you look at the Commerce Committee, there is David Strickland, Alex Hoehn- Saric, Jana Fong Swamidoss, Mia Petrini, and Jared Bomberg. They were great. Of course, on the Republican side are Paul Nagle and his team, including Megan Beechener, Becky Hooks, Bridget Petruczok, Erik Olson, Kate Nilan, Tamara Fucile, Brian Hendricks, and Peter Phipps.

Also, I thank the CPSC commission. They helped as did their staff. Commissioner Moore, and Michael Gougisha and Pam Weller of his staff, as well as Jack Horner of the acting chairman's staff, all of these people played a key role in getting us to this very good bipartisan piece of legislation.

As I said, this is something of which the Senate and House can be very proud. Today, the White House announced they will sign the legislation. This is a major victory for the American people. Again, we followed the rules, we followed the correct process here. We got this done and we are going to make a big difference in the American marketplace.

Mr. President, I will turn it over to my colleague from Texas.

Mr. President, Senator Hutchison said something that is very important. We did focus on toys. Toys capture the imagination of the American public because no parent or grandparent wants to buy something and give it to a young child which could harm or, in some cases, kill them. That is the type of thing that grabs the headlines. Let me tell you, a couple of levels deeper, one of the ways we make toys safer for kids all over this country. What we did in this legislation is we established a statutory toy standard. Once we have that standard, and allow the CPSC to modify it over time, once that is in the statutes, that means we can test for that standard.

This bill has mandatory toy testing. For the first time ever, we are going to test these toys to make sure they meet the U.S. safety standards before they are ever sold in the marketplace.

If you think about a recall, a recall is a very uneconomical--I will use that term--and inefficient way to find a dangerous product. So the manufacturer comes over here with a product--many cases from overseas-- and it is distributed, sold, and it injures someone, and the recall happens, and these products are all over America. We are streamlining it and making our marketplace more efficient and better for people all over this country.

I will end where I started. I see Senator Sununu here, who played a very key role. All of the Senators helped in some ways. Again, I will end where I started, and that is that this is a great piece of legislation. It really is. The American people will be so pleased with the work we have done to get this passed and get the President to sign it. It will make a big difference in everyone's lives all over this country. Again, it shows what we can do if we work together to solve our problems.

I am very honored and privileged to have Senator Inouye designate me as the lead guy on our side to do this, and to watch Senators Stevens and Inouye work together. They set the pace on this legislation.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008. This legislation makes a number of long overdue changes and improvements in the Consumer Product Safety Commission and their ability to protect children and other consumers. It will impose mandatory toy safety standards, in place of the current voluntary standards; create an online database, which parents and consumers can search for reports of safety problems; provide whistleblower protections to employees of manufacturers, retailers and distributors to promote prompt reporting of any safety hazard; and authorize a much needed funding increase for the Consumer Product Safety Commission to ensure that these reforms are carried out.

Most importantly, this legislation bans the use of six phthalates in many children's products and child care articles. It will ban the use of more than .1 percent of three phthalates--DEHP, DBP, or BBP--in toys for children ages 12 and under and childcare articles for children ages 3 and under; and place an interim ban on the use of more than .1 percent of three additional phthalates--DINP, DIDP, and DnOP--in any toy that can be placed in a child's mouth or a child care article for ages 3 or under.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission will convene a Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel, CHAP, to fully examine the science on the effects of phthalates and any phthalate alternative. After this study, they will determine whether the interim ban should remain in place.

I believe they will find that the ban is essential to the protection of children's health.

Let me say, it is about time. The United States is often behind the rest of the world when it comes to chemical policy. The same has been true for phthalates. These chemicals have been restricted in at least 31 nations, including European Union--27 countries--Argentina, Fiji, Japan, Korea, and Mexico.

It took action from three States--California, Washington and Vermont--before we have reached this point.

It took voluntary action from the country's largest toy retailers: Wal-Mart, Toys ``R'' Us, and Target, all of which have announced that they will stop selling products that contain phthalates.

With the passage of this legislation, parents throughout this country will have the same assurances as parents in the E.U., in Argentina, in Japan, and all of these other counties. They will be sure that the toys they give their children do not contain a dangerous plasticizer.

And make no mistake, these chemicals are dangerous. When children chew on toys filled with phthalates, these chemicals leach from the toy, and into their bodies. Phthalates have been linked to a variety of reproductive defects.

The science on phthalates is still evolving. But today, we are acting out of precaution: removing potentially dangerous substances from products until they are shown to be safe.

Our current system for dealing with chemicals requires that regulators show that a chemical is dangerous before it can be removed from the market. We have this backwards: the burden should be placed on the manufacturers to prove to us that the chemicals they want to put in everyday items are safe. Our children should not be guinea pigs for untested chemicals.

The interim ban on three phthalates marks a departure from this longstanding ``use chemicals first, ask questions later'' approach. These chemicals will be permitted back into toys only if they are proven to be safe, the very hallmark of the precautionary principle.

We need to move fully in this direction. It is my belief that chemical additives should not be placed in products that can impact health adversely until they are tested and found to be benign. I look forward to working with my colleagues to see that we exercise the same caution with all chemicals.

This is a sea change in our Nation's chemical policy, and predictably, we faced strong opposition from industry. Many people contributed to this victory here today, and I would like to mention a few.

I would like to thank Chairman Inouye, Senator Stevens, and Senator Pryor for their steadfast support throughout this process.

This would not have been possible without my home State colleagues, Senator Boxer and Congressman Waxman. They supported this from the beginning, and their work ensured that the best product possible emerged from conference.

David Strickland, Alec Hoehn-Saric, and the Commerce Committee staff have been invaluable. They worked long nights and weekends to reach an agreement on this provision, and I appreciate it.

Kristin Wikelius and Chris Thompson of my staff, who quickly learned about this issue and worked hard to move this through the legislative process.

Dozens of grassroots groups from across the country supported my amendment and rallied their members to do the same. I will ask to have a list of these groups printed in the Record.

This Coalition was led by the Breast Cancer Fund, based in my home city of San Francisco. Their work, expertise, and support made this happen.

On another matter central to children's health, I am very pleased that this bill includes a provision that I sponsored to require secondhand cribs that are sold and used in the marketplace to have the same product safety standards as new cribs.

This bill will close a loophole in consumer product safety standards, and help reduce injuries and deaths that come from used cribs that have missing or broken parts.

Currently, U.S. consumer product safety standards apply only to new cribs and not to the sale or commercial use of secondhand cribs, which cause most crib-related infant injuries and deaths.

The measure included in the conference report would prohibit commercial users, such as thrift stores and resale furniture stores, to sell, resell or lease unsafe used cribs that are structurally unsound, and prohibits hotels, motels, and daycare centers from using unsafe cribs, and adds secondhand cribs to the list of child and infant products covered by the Consumer Product Safety Act, the law that already applies to new cribs and other children's products.

The safety standards for secondhand cribs will now match the safety standards for new cribs, including crib slats should be no more than 2\3/8\ inches apart to prevent infant from slipping through the slats and corner posts should not be higher than 1/16 inches above the end panels of the crib which prevents infant's clothing from becoming tangled on the crib.

Every year, more than 11,300 children require hospital treatment from crib-related injuries and over 30 children die from injuries sustained in cribs.

Most of these injuries and deaths occur in secondhand cribs that have dangerous features.

The language included in this conference report is similar to proposals that Representative Ellen Tauscher and I have worked on for many years.

I am very pleased that this legislation will help give parents the peace of mind that secondhand cribs are just as safe as brandnew cribs.

The phthalate ban, the expansion of crib safety protections, and the entire Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act are hard-fought victories for children and all of those concerned with their safety.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this conference report, and I urge the President to sign this into law the moment it lands on his desk. We have waited years to take action against chemicals like phthalates, and we should not wait any longer.

I ask unanimous consent that the list of groups supporting my amendment be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I wish to speak as to why the Consumer Product Safety Commission Reform Act is so desperately needed.

Most parents, and consumers for that matter, will not forget in the past--and it was as recent as this past summer--the huge amount of toy recalls. There were children's jewelry and toys that were covered in lead paint. There were toys with detachable magnets that can cause fatal intestinal obstructions. There were stuffed animals with small parts that can detach and become a choking hazard. There was a children's craft kit containing beads that when swallowed became ingested into the child's digestive system; and what came out of those beads was the same chemical compound, believe it or not, as GHB, which is the date rape drug.

The Laugh & Learn Bunny became a choking hazard. This magnetized building set, as shown on this chart--over 4 million units were sold-- those magnets became ingested into the child's digestive track. Thomas the Train, over 1.5 million units were sold, and lo and behold those were painted with lead paint. And then the Barbie accessories--675,000 units of those were sold--had lead paint. And there were other toys. In fact, one of them was some kind of little doll where the nose came off. It was exactly the size that could get into a child's windpipe and cause them to choke to death.

As a matter of fact, one of the children's hospitals in Florida I visited about this very thing gave me a plastic thimble of about the size they said they hand out to the children's parents because they want them to see the size of anything that could detach--if it did from a toy--that is a choking hazard for a child.

So in visiting with this team of emergency room doctors, they showed all these things in real life to me and told me about the invasive surgery that then they had to do on children that was traumatic for a child who is 4 or 5 years old.

Then, I had the very sad duty to visit with a momma and a daddy in Jacksonville, who left two of their children in a room with a disco ball toy. What happened? It became overheated because it was illuminated. It became overheated. It caught fire, and it emitted enough carbon monoxide to kill both the children.

Now, these incidents simply should not be happening. Yet with this bill Senator Pryor is managing on the floor, we can better ensure American parents do not have to face another summer of recalls.

So this act is going to do a number of things. It would increase the number of professional staff who work at the Consumer Product Safety Commission. It would ensure consumer access to information about these products. It would eliminate lead from children's products. It increases civil penalties for wrongdoers. And it protects employees from retribution who report violations of consumer product safety. This bill also requires the first mandatory standard for toy safety, and it requires third-party testing of toys and other children's products.

What has come to the floor is a combination of different legislation. What this Senator had contributed was S. 1833, the Children's Products Safety Act, which would require third-party testing of products intended for children aged 7 and under. I am very pleased it has been included in this overall package.

There are two provisions that are critical. First, the third-party testing provision ensures that all of those toys and products undergo testing by a third party prior to entering the stream of commerce. Any that did not have the third-party testing would be banned from importation. Now, why is this necessary? Because we were letting the Chinese industry police itself, and it wasn't doing it, and the Government of China wasn't doing the inspecting. So we had the substandard and indeed unsafe toys coming to the American consuming public.

Second, this bill would set the first mandatory safety standards by adopting the ASTM--the international consumer safety specifications for toy safety. That is often referred to as standard F-963. ASTM is a nonprofit standard-setting organization. It is an independent organization that involves the CPSC--the Consumer Product Safety Commission--consumer groups, and the industry in toy standards and the development process. The standards contain 100 other toy safety specifications, including testing for shock points, flammability, toxicity, and noise.

These standards, in their development process, also provide a fast, collaborative process to address these changing conditions. So when the detachable magnet issue arose last year, the ASTM standards development team recognized the seriousness of the issue. They came up with a new magnet safety standard 9 months after the problem was first reported.

Well, under the provisions of the bill, the updates to the ASTM standard will automatically be incorporated into the Federal toy safety standard, unless for some reason the CPSC would determine that it wasn't going to improve the public safety. So as a result, the consumers are going to have the benefit of new toy safety standards immediately after the adoption of this legislation.

Taken together, these provisions will ensure that toys will be tested by a rigorous third-party testing process that is constantly updated to address new and emerging hazards to our children. Third-party testing has been endorsed by a number of consumer groups and a number of the manufacturers that realize we have a problem here. So we need to build a consensus and get this legislation passed.

Last year, over 46 million children's products were recalled--can my colleagues believe that, 46 million recalled--and almost a fifth of those were recalled after a child was seriously injured or killed. It is not enough just to recall these toys; we need to make sure they never enter the stream of commerce in the first place, and this bill provides that safety.

I wish to say there is also something in here about generators, portable generators. If you live in a coastal State such as mine and you get hit by a big hurricane--and especially gasoline stations are learning they need them because people need to be able to drive

their cars and they can't get gasoline--well, in any kind of natural disaster such as that, people really rely on these portable generators to provide electricity. Unfortunately, every year, a number of people are severely injured or killed by the carbon monoxide poisoning that results from improper generator use. They crank this thing up in an enclosed room, and they ultimately are harmed or killed as a result of carbon monoxide.

Section 32 of the CPSC Reform Act requires the CPSC to complete a long-pending rulemaking on portable generator carbon monoxide poisoning within 18 months of the enactment. When this rule is finalized, it is going to require new technologies to stop these tragedies, and it will save lives. It is a wonder that the CPSC hadn't already done this when folks such as myself are articulating what has happened with the deaths in the aftermath of a hurricane and have asked them to do it. Now we are going to bring it to fruition because it is going to be required under this legislation.

I again thank my colleague, Senator Pryor, who is shepherding this legislation through a tortuous legislative process. I hope all of our colleagues will join in supporting this critical legislation.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum, unless the Senator from Arkansas--it looks as if his eloquent self is rising to speak.