I am working on getting you access to the entire video file of the hearing, stay tuned. To whet your appetite, however, here are three clips from the Q&A session. Dan Marshall of HTA, Rachel Weintraub of Consumer Federation of America and yours truly fielded some important questions about the excesses of the CPSIA. There are some really good nuggets in here, but my favorite is this exchange between Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA), Dan Marshall and Rachel Weintraub:
Rep. Pitts: "Let me ask you then, do you think American toy distributors should be able to sell European toys that are compliant with the European [EN71 safety] standard?"
Dan Marshall: "Yes. I don't think anyone here is going to argue that a toy that's been tested to EN71 standards is not safe for the American market."
Rep. Pitts: " Does anyone disagree with that? Ms. Weintraub?"
Rachel Weintraub: "This is a complex issue, one of trade issues and harmonization of standards and I am not an expert on those issues. But there are reasons why the absorbability concept of lead has been rejected. And for those reasons, and I could get into them, but for those reasons, the U.S. has rejected looking at lead from that perspective."
[Ed. Note: To quote Ralph Kramden of the "The Honeymooners": "Hamana-hamana-hamana-hamana"]
Rep. Pitts: "So you do not think the EU adequately protects their children?"
Rachel Weintraub: "Umm, no, I'm not saying that but in terms of looking at how the test is conducted, it's very different than how the CPSC does."
Priceless!
Enjoy the clips.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
Thank you Rick for your testimony. You did an awesome job!
I'm going to make several cooments.
I'm really annoyed at Waxman's deliberate attempts to keep refering to this as a "toy" law?
He made the reference twice in his opening remarks.
It's that misdirection that pulled in so many product classes in the first place and the fact he continues to do so is inexcusable.
Re all stakeholders being involved in drafting CPSEA. I certainly don't feel represented and since you have yet to receive answers to your FOIA request we don't know how closely the draft follows Tenenbaum and Adlers' POV.
Ms. Weintraub says "But there are reasons why the absorbability concept of lead has been rejected." There certainly are. Political reasons. Because if the lead is not ansorbable into the body it is not dangerous. But following the science instead of ideology would just make too much sense.
It's appalling that the champions of CPSIA continue to use Jarnell Brown's tragic death to advance their cause. No one questions the danger of lead in jewelry and lead in paint which is why they were illegal before CPSIA. But please stop using the dead to advance your other CPSIA goals unrelated to the facts of this case. It's very hard to have any respect for people who would resort to those tactics
I hope you had copies of all your documents for everyone!
Yeah, I noticed Ms. Weintraub's "reasons" too. I also noticed that she shares Reprehensible Waxman's attitude about hearing from all the "stakeholders." I really wish she and Waxman would be capable of understanding that there are plenty of "stakeholders" who aren't part of important organizations claiming to represent them, and who can't afford the time and money to create such an organization.
thank you for going rick. i thought you represented everything perfectly - i listened to the whole thing but these clips are great! i also give dan a pat on the back for maintaining his composure while sitting next to ms. wientraub.
"There are specific reasons, and I could get into them..."
...yes? AND? This is your opportunity to DO THAT!
Post a Comment