Subcommitte on Consumer Safety

C-SPAN is brilliant concept because it allows regular Americans to feel good about their own cognitive abilities. Congressmen and women are permitted to show case their absolute lack of understanding on every topic from securities law to illegal immigrants. Subcommittees, often shown on C-SPAN, serve a similar function: Americans can watch the experts - presumably they have some elevated knowledge on a particular topic if they are serving on a subcommittee - in their element. Today was the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection (link at www.uschina.org):

The House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection held a two-part hearing on Wednesday and Thursday that focused on lead in imported children's products. Similar to last week's Senate hearing on the same issue, members expressed doubt and dissatisfaction with the US Consumer Product Safety Commission's (CPSC) ability to inspect and ensure the safety of imported toys.

It is a bit absurd to think that CPSC is capable of inspecting imported toys and keeping our kids safe. Their job should be setting standards and determining whether particular categories are safe rather than individual goods in a category. I don't want CPSC testing 20% of all imported "Hoola-Hoop Barbie" hair to make sure the dye is consistent and lead free. They should promulgate standards such as "children's toys cannot have more than __% of lead on the surface of the toy," and "boxes containing toys for ages 1 to 3 should not contain guns and ammunition" for the few brainy parents - and judges - too slow to think for themselves.

The only way we will end up with safe products is if we place the burden on companies to meet certain standards and require them to provide proof of inspection by a third party prior to entry of the goods in the country.

Subcommittee members continually pressed Nord and Moore on whether CPSC needs greater resources to increase its staff and improve its facilities and whether CPSC should have the ability to perform inspections at the origin of a product, specifically China.

That our congressmen and women think the solution to every problem is to increase the size of the federal government says a lot. It should be the solution of last resort.

Nord and Moore differed in opinion; Nord said she felt the job could be done with the current staff, and Moore said he would like 500 additional staffers. In lieu of increasing staff, Nord suggested that private companies be responsible for certifying their products through independent third-party organizations.

Promote this lady!

Nord also rejected suggestions that CPSC have representatives in China or other countries to carry out inspections at the point of production. This would require a complete restructuring of the agency, according to Nord, raising it to a level similar to that of the US Food and Drug Administration.

I didn't know that the FDA had the right to inspect goods on foreign soil. I'm curious what the trade off is with foreign governments? If you don't allow American inspectors in your country we will not permit imported food and drugs. It sounds like something the WTO would ban. If I were China, I would extract a pound of flesh for that concession after I told the US to pound sand.

Nord clarified many of the misconceptions of what CPSC can and cannot do. For instance, the CPSC does not have the authority to send US inspectors to China and cannot conduct pre-market inspections. She stated that for CPSC to make pre-market inspections, the agency would have to be larger, more robust, and Congress would need to pass new legislation to give it new authority. As an alternative to sending inspectors into China, Nord pointed to last week's joint product safety summit as an example of productive cooperation between the PRC and US governments.

I agree with Nord 100%, so of course I think she is a genius.