Product Safety Reform Plan Clashes With Senate's Version
By Annys Shin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 16, 2007
A bill that would overhaul the nation's consumer product safety system for the first time in a generation cleared a House subcommittee yesterday with bipartisan support. But while Democrats in Congress are pushing to pass reforms before the holiday shopping season ends, significant differences remain between the House and the Senate.
The House measure seeks to reverse a steady decline in the size and effectiveness of the Consumer Product Safety Commission by increasing annual funding over four years to $100 million from $63 million now, requiring toys be tested by independent labs and raising the maximum penalty for companies that don't report safety problems to $10 million from $1.8 million.
The House bill would also ban industry-paid travel for CPSC officials. That language was drafted in response to a recent Washington Post report that the current and former heads of the agency took dozens of trips underwritten by regulated industries.
Business and consumer groups support raising the agency's funding and mandatory independent testing but agree on little else.
One key sticking point is the agency's ability to disclose information about product hazards. Currently, the CPSC has to give businesses 30 days to review the information it wants to disclose about their products. Companies can sue to stop unwanted disclosures. The House bill would let companies retain the right to sue, but it would cut in half the review time and let the commission release information immediately for health and safety reasons. Consumer advocates say the House bill would not go far enough in eliminating what they see as constraints on the public's right to know about potential hazards. Business groups support retaining the right to review the disclosures for accuracy and to sue over them.
Another thorny issue concerns drafting state attorneys general to help enforce federal product safety laws. The House bill would allow state attorneys general to enforce CPSC rules and orders through court injunctions. Industry lobbyists prefer the House provision to a version in the Senate because they say the Senate version would grant state attorneys general even broader powers and could lead to uneven enforcement. Consumer groups say the House provision is too narrow because it wouldn't extend to most recalls, which are voluntary.
Despite criticism from all sides, the House bill is seen as more politically palatable to business and the White House than the measure that was approved by the Senate Commerce Committee last month.
Industry groups and the White House complain the Senate bill would encourage litigation and discourage cooperation by business by raising the maximum penalty to $100 million and taking away companies' right to sue the CPSC over public disclosures. They have called another provision that would expand corporate whistle-blowers' protection unnecessary.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.