downtown location to Bethesda. That move alone saves an estimated $300,000 a year in rental costs.

But cost-cutting aside, alternatives to the collegial system have real disadvantages that Congress will want to explore fully before reaching its decision.

While the collegial system is not perfect, I believe it is still the best alternative. Even though there are problems in a collegial system, we should not let these problems cause us to abandon the system. I believe it is better to clarify and fine tune to correct any inefficiencies.

Since only Congress can make the decision on structure, I know that members of this subcommittee and all Members of the Senate and the House will study the pros and cons of all the proposals very carefully.

Whatever direction the Congress wishes to take, I urge that the Agency's current size and funding be retained.

There are some fine public servants with unique expertise and accumulated knowledge currently on the staff. It would be tragic for the American people to lose the benefit of that skill, should considerations of efficiency and cost not be balanced by considerations of due process, thoughtful decisionmaking, and thorough research. CPSC has been meeting its obligations to the public. Any proposal to change its structure should be given serious and thorough

review.

Thank you again for this chance to address some important issues confronting the CPSC. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Mr. FLORIO. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Graham.

STATEMENT OF ANNE GRAHAM

Ms. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I do have a statement that I would like to submit for the record. I concur with Commissioner Dawson's remarks.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Graham follows:]

STATEMENT OF ANNE GRAHAM

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee today to testify on the reauthorization of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The Commission is an independent Agency accountable by statute to the Congress. This independence is fundamental to our ability to execute our mandate. Through your authority to hold reauthorization and oversight hearings, Congress keeps the Commission accountable. I welcome that accountability.

Our mandate is clear-to protect the public against unreasonable risks of injury associated with consumer products. I believe that in any position of public trust, the mandate must take precedence over any ideological viewpoints. Having spent almost a year and a half at the Commission, I am convinced that consumer issues should not be partisan issues.

The mandate is as important today as the day 15 years ago when Congress created the Consumer Product Safety Commission. For these reasons I believe reauthorization is in order. A 3-year (or 4-year if 2-year budget cycles are adopted) reauthorization would send the clear message that the Agency's mission is important. A significant reauthorization period would provide stability and permit more effective planning of priorities.

If serious consideration is to be given to what structure best serves consumer protection, the debate must rise above the current climate and address the credibility and integrity of the institution. I believe there are significant benefits for supporting a collegial structure. The collegial structure provides flexibility, independence

and diversity of opinion needed to fully address the policy issues involving more than 15,000 products. The magnitude of this responsibility requires the checks and balances a collegial structure provides.

Should the Commission remain a three-member body, a quorum change from three to two would strengthen the ability of the body to resolve issues on the agenda and provide each Commissioner more accountability. With respect to more accountability, I believe the statute needs to be strengthened to include more Commission approval of all key positions in the Agency. Even though the Commission is small, we have serious responsibilities. Thus, we need the highest caliber of professionalism. The only way to insure such accountability is to give the Commission clear oversight of the senior managers.

I must note that the vast majority of the career staff at the Commission are concerned professionals who consistently put the consumers' best interests first. They are the glue that holds the Commission together.

During this reauthorization period I will continue to focus on the need to address fully the necessary remedies to the hazards posed by all-terrain vehicles. I also plan to see if our compliance and enforcement efforts can be increased and to look for new opportunities to strengthen the Agency's presence in areas of interest to the

consumer.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to be before this Subcommittee.

Mr. FLORIO. Thank you very much. I appreciate the participation of all of the Commissioners.

First of all, what I heard from all three Commissioners, which may very well be the end of agreement this afternoon, is that there is no interest in incorporating the Commission's function into a cabinet function.

We are going to hear later on, I think, from someone who is going to be advocating that this be incorporated into the Public Health Service of HHS, which of course would undermine the ability to have an autonomous Agency, which is what the Commission

is.

Is there unanimity in opposition to that approach?
Mr. SCANLON. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FLORIO. Let me talk about our first witness and the situation of the lawn dart experience.

Mr. Chairman, I saw in your statement you were advocating, if I get the language correctly, your preference for voluntary action over compulsory enforcement. I am not sure I fully understand.

It seems to me the opposite of compulsory enforcement is voluntary enforcement efforts. Are we saying that when we have regulations, we shouldn't have compulsory enforcement of the law?

Mr. SCANLON. No. There are two different issues involved here, Mr. Chairman. I prefer, when seeking safety standards, that they be voluntary rather than mandatory.

Mr. FLORIO. In the context of the lawn dart, though, we are talking about standards that you have spelled out, regulations that are there. Now, is this in any way your concept of compulsory enforcement and your suggestion that you don't prefer it? How does that apply to the enforcing of regulations, and I would hope compulsory enforcement of those regulations?

Mr. SCANLON. There is compulsory enforcement of the lawn dart standard. This was a mandatory standard promulgated in 1970 by FDA, which then had jurisdiction over lawn darts.

Mr. FLORIO. Then let's talk specifically about what it is you are doing to enforce the law. Maybe I would ask one of your staff people, in this particular situation, are there investigators out there? Has anyone been cited in this instance?

It appears to be a flagrant violation of your own regulations. Mr. SCANLON. Allow me to start, Mr. Chairman. When we heard of this true tragedy, our San Francisco Regional Office embarked on an indepth investigation. That has been completed.

We are now reviewing our regulations to see whether the rule promulgated in 1970 and amended, I believe, in 1971 is strong enough.

We are going to do a number of things. One will be talking to our State designees to see that more checks are made-checks similar to what we have done with refuse bins for which there is also a mandatory standard-to see that these darts are, in fact, sold only in nontoy areas of stores.

Mr. FLORIO. This concept of State designee, can you elaborate on that?

Mr. SCANLON. Yes. In every State we have a State designee, who is affiliated with an Agency within the State. Those agencies vary according to the State. Some are part of health departments, others are part of agriculture departments.

What these agencies do is agree, through memoranda of understanding with us, to do safety inspections on things that are highlighted by us at a given time.

They also help us with public information through consumer alerts. These are used, again, when something like this, a tragedy happens.

Mr. FLORIO. Do you have these cooperative agreements in every State?

Mr. SCANLON. Yes, we do.

Mr. FLORIO. Are these law enforcement cooperative agreements? Mr. SCANLON. No. In this case, if I could speak specifically to this tragedy, they would go into sporting goods stores, department stores, to see if, in fact, the code requiring the 4 inch high label and the coloration requirement is, in fact, being adhered to.

They would advise the Commission, through our Enforcement Office, if there were any violations of the regulation and we would take immediate action.

Mr. FLORIO. You are telling us, then, there is somebody in the State of California who is your designee to see that all of the regulations that you are

Mr. SCANLON. This arrangement with the States only augments what the Consumer Product Safety Commission does. We have our own inspectors.

Mr. FLORIO. How many inspectors?

Mr. SCANLON. In California?

Mr. FLORIO. In the country.

Mr. SCANLON. 150 in the field, approximately.

Mr. DEFIORE. Our entire field operation is 150 people, about 90 some of whom are inspectors, and they are augmented by State and local, usually Government officials, who operate under contract with us to do additional inspections, investigations, other activity, so we can extend our field operation beyond our own staff. Mr. FLORIO. Is there, therefore, any objection on the part of any of the Commissioners to this committee considering incorporating into the statute law enforcement authority to enforce your regulations on the part of State attorneys general?

Mr. SCANLON. I would certainly be amenable to consideration. Mr. FLORIO. You have indicated in the case of Mr. Snow's tragic situation that you have got somebody out there looking at these things. Is this someone from your own department? Or is this your designee?

Mr. SCANLON. That is correct, our own.

Mr. DEFIORE. The in-depth investigation was performed by a Los Angeles CPSC investigator.

Mr. FLORIO. This, of course, is after the fact. The hope would be that these situations would not be occurring.

Have you any information as to what degree this is a prevalent practice, that people are not adhering to the rules with regard to selling these things as toys?

Mr. SCANLON. Mr. Chairman, we have, as an ongoing activity, monitoring of the marketplace for any violations.

Mr. FLORIO. What has your most recent report indicated? Is there something in writing that you have?

Mr. SCANLON. Well, in this specific case, as soon as the tragedy occurred and it became known to us, we detailed, through our San Francisco office, a Los Angeles investigator. A full report

Mr. FLORIO. I am sorry, I didn't make it clear. I am not talking specifically about this situation. But I am talking specifically about the lawn dart regulations which you have.

How long have they been in effect?

Mr. SCANLON. Since 1970.

Mr. FLORIO. SO, obviously, it is during the tenure of all the people that are here before us.

How many reports have you received at the Commission that indicate that there is compliance, there is 20 percent compliance, there is 90 percent compliance? Do you get reports submitted to you in terms of enforcement activities? Have there been any enforcement complaints? Have you had any complaints that you have brought against anyone for not being in compliance with this particular regulation?

Mr. SCANLON. I will ask Dave Schmeltzer, our compliance director, to address that.

Mr. SCHMELTZER. Good morning. My name is Dave Schmeltzer. I am the Director of Compliance and Administrative Litigation.

In response to your question, Chairman Florio, we are presently investigating one distributor of lawn darts for violation of the regulation. That is not the distributor of this particular one.

Mr. FLORIO. What is the nature of the alleged violation?

Mr. SCHMELTZER. The labeling.

Mr. FLORIO. The labeling?

Mr. SCHMELTZER. The size of the labeling and the location of the labeling.

Mr. FLORIO. It is represented to me that as of 8 days ago, the situation that we have been talking about this morning was still there. That is, these darts were being sold in the toy department of this store.

Mr. SCHMELTZER. We received the indepth investigation from our Los Angeles office yesterday, and we examined it, and there are some questions of facts involved.

As I understand it, when the-

Mr. FLORIO. Can you give this committee the assurance that as of today this is not being sold in that toy department, this dart?

Mr. SCHMELTZER. I will be able to do that when I call back to my office. I have already put in a call, when I heard your opening statement, to check on that. So, there will be someone in the department store to assure that it is not being sold in that area.

Mr. FLORIO. Well, we heard testimony this morning. This accident occurred a while back, 8 weeks ago.

Mr. SCHMELTZER. Eight weeks ago, yes.

Mr. FLORIO. Eight days ago the thing was still there. Where have you been?

Mr. SCHMELTZER. When our inspector examined the store, there was a question of fact in that according to the inspector it was on an island-the lawn dart was-and it wasn't the same lawn dart, by the way, it was distributed by a different person-but the lawn dart was directly between the sporting good department and the toy department. There was an island on the left with sporting goods and an island on the right which was the toy department, and abutting that island was a wall, and that is where the product was being displayed.

I would be happy to give for the committee's records a copy of that indepth investigation.

[The following information was submitted for the record:]

Question: Mr. Florio-Where were the lawn darts located in the store where Mr. Snow purchased his lawn darts?

Answer: Mr. Schmeltzer-We are not absolutely certain where the set Mr. Snow bought was located when it was purchased around December 1986. However, based on a later inspection of the store, lawn darts were displayed on the left side wall of the store within 5 feet of plastic tricycles. One aisle closest to the display contained sporting goods equipment and the second aisle nearest the lawn dart display contained toys (see diagram). We believe it is likely that the lawn darts were displayed in this same location at the time of the purchase of Mr. Snow.

78-180 0 - 88 - 2