I mentioned many issues, but I know I specifically addressed the issues of books, and I said that the stay did no good on these issues, and I explained that only Congress could fix the problems with the bill.
Here is his reply:
Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns regarding the implementation of P.L. 110-314, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008. I appreciate hearing from you.
You would be interested to know that in response to concerns regarding the testing requirements for children's products under P.L. 110-314, on January 30, 2009, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced that the implementation of such requirements will be delayed for one year, until February 10, 2010. Previously, the CPSC stated that resale and consignment stores will not be responsible for testing products, however these stores have a responsibility to not carry products that are harmful. For additional information on this issue, I would encourage you to contact the CPSC, through their website, on the Internet, at www.cpsc.gov, or at 301-504-7923.
Thank you again for contacting me. Do not hesitate to let me know if you have any other questions or concerns.
Here is my reply:
I wrote to you about my concerns about the CPSIA, specifically, I believe, in connection with the requirement that books printed before 1984 are now illegal to sell without expensive testing.
Your reply was that I should be comforted to know that there is a stay, and that any further questions I have should be directed to the CPSC and not to you.
Sir, we are well aware of the stay. Perhaps you are not aware that the stay specifically _excluded_ children's books printed before 1985. The stay does nothing for that issue, which is one I specifically discussed in my previous email- those books, RIGHT NOW cannot be sold without expensive testing which runs from 100 to 400 dollars per book. Since pre 1985 children's book typically sell for anywhere from a quarter to perhaps 10 dollars, obviously, this testing effectively renders pre-1985 childrens' books contraband. They are legislated out of the market- although no child has EVER been harmed by lead in a child's book.
I believe we specifically mentioned that pre-1985 books are one of our biggest concerns in our letter to you, so it is somewhat disappointing to be given erroneous information from you. The stay ALSO does not cover zippers, snaps, buttons and grommets, nor does it cover mini-bikes, ball-point pens, and a number of other items. Therefore, regardless of the stay, it is illegal to sell children jackets, shirts, or onesies of they have snaps or zippers, unless they are tested. This is impossible for the second hand market. Regardless of the stay, it is illegal, right this minute, to sell mini-bikes or most bicycles to children.
The problems with this bill cannot be fixed by the CPSC. Congress wrote the problems into the bill, and they are ironclad. Congress ruled that ALL children's products were covered by the testing requirements. Congress required wet testing, which destroys the sample, and when selling pre-1985 books, we typically only have a single copy.
Congress wrote the law so that the books that 12 year olds read are treated precisely the same as books two year olds read. Only Congress can change that. The CPSC can offer no fix to remedy this problem.
The CPSC is prevented by the law from exempting ball point pens, pre-1985 books, or mini bikes from the onerous and nonsensical requirements of this law, even though children do not lick their tire stems or get any more lead from them than they would from a glass of tap water. Only Congress can fix this.
These are just a few of the problems with the CPSIA as written, and all of the remedies from the worst consequences of this bill must come from Congress, not from the CPSC. This was also made clear in the letters career staff with the CPSC wrote to Rep. Dingell.
Meanwhile, the stay you recommend to me as a remedy to the fact that it is now illegal to sell pre-1985 children's books if children are expected to read them. It is left to one of your constituents, apparently, to inform her Representative and his employees that the stay you believe is a remedy actually specifically excludes pre-1985 children's books so that it is illegal to sell them without testing. Therefore, since you advised me that the stay is a remedy when it is not, what do you suggest I do with my stock of such books? Are you promising me that even though the CPSC specifically excluded those books from the protection of the stay, you are over-riding that exclusion and saying I can sell those books? Will your assurance protect me in the event the Attorney General chooses to charge me?
I would like to ask that you and/or your staff who answered my previous email actually read the stay and take note of what it does and does not cover before responding again. It is disappointing, to say the least, to receive inaccurate information from one's Representative on a law that he voted for.
I don't expect to get any forrader with that letter than I did with the last one, but it shan't be said that I didn't try. Pin It
