H.R. 1815 "Consumer Product Safety Solutions Act"

Another attempt at fixing CPSIA, this one coming out of the House.

Here is my first analayis of it, that I also posted on amendthecpsia.com

I am certainly anxious to hear what others have to say about this amendment. I have only had time to give it a brief, "once over". I need to go over it again, with the original law next to it, but no time for that tonight.

I like the title: "This Act may be cited as the 'Consumer Product Safety Solutions Act of 2009'" -- and I definitely believe it will solve some of the problems with CPSIA -- but I think there will still be many problems remaining.

For instance, on page 2, it proposes making the February 9, 2009 ppm requirement only apply to items manufactured after that date -- UNTIL 2010! And it does the same thing with the lower ppm requirement -- putting it into effect 2 years after the law was enacted, for items manufactured after that date, but then applying it to all children's products.

I wear many hats in my life right now -- but in my role as a reseller, this makes me want to scream! All it is doing is postponing the very real pain of having no idea what the ppm lead content is of the countless used items we receive. This would give me some additional time, until February 2010 to be able to sell some of those items -- but the longer this "fix" takes, the less that impresses me. And every item of unknown chemistry that were to come into my shop between now and February would do so with the distinct possibility that it would then become illegal for me in less than a year. This is not the type of help resellers need. We need exemption, period.

These limits should only be applied into the future -- not retroactively like they are currently, or like this bill would propose.

I do see more flexibility being given to the CPSC as well -- but I don't think it's going to be adequate, not with these few modifications.

And did I miss it, or are there no changes to:
1) the outrageous age limits of the current law?
2) no protection for crafters or others who make one of a kind items?
3) no change in the outrageous fines under CPSIA?

Personally, I liked DeMint's amendment better -- and see this one as only putting a small bandage on a gushing wound!

Shakespeare and CPSIA

We can't get away from CPSIA anywhere, not even in Shakespeare class.

Last week, we found this when reading Love's Labour's Lost: “The way is but short; away!” “As swift as lead, sir” “…Is not lead a metal heavy, dull, and slow?...I say, lead is slow.”

And today, there was that pesky CPSIA lurking in Love's Labour's Lost again:
“Sir, he hath never fed of the dainties that are bred in a book; he hath not eat paper."

The Myth of Good Intentions

DownsizeDC runs another great article on Washington politics and politicians being out of control: This one on "The Myth of Good Intentions" of CPSIA. The author makes a good point, "... I think these assumptions about 'good intentions' are a little naive . . .Their motive was good publicity, not good intentions."

I have been watching the CPSIA mess for almost 3 months now, and I am certainly beginning to believe that this law did not ever have good intentions. While it might be plausible (though not encouraging) to think that over 500 Congressmen/women and Senators managed to not read the bill before they voted for it last summer, and that they might have gotten through last fall without knowing how bad this law really was....But it is very unlikely that by two months into this mess that they could be unaware of the damages they are doing now.

So, if this isn't about the good intentions of protecting our children...then what is it about? It really isn't too far fetched to think that all Congress was/is thinking of with CPSIA is the good publicity they got from "protecting our children".... And they certainly aren't getting much BAD publicity as a result of all the damage they are doing.

Senate Amendment 964 Fails April 2

One of first amendments to CPSIA to finally get voted on failed:

S.AMDT.964
Amends: S.CON.RES.13
Sponsor: Sen DeMint, Jim [SC] (submitted 4/2/2009) (proposed 4/2/2009)

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to protect small and home businesses from the burdensome and impractical requirements of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008.

4/2/2009:

Amendment SA 964 not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 39 - 58. Record Vote Number: 151.

COSPONSORS(5):

Sen Bennett, Robert F. [UT] - 4/2/2009
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY] - 4/2/2009
Sen Brownback, Sam [KS] - 4/2/2009
Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] - 4/2/2009
Sen Vitter, David [LA] - 4/2/2009

Old Library Books to Washington, D.C.

I purchased 38 old children's books at a library book sale. I am sending them to Washington, D.C. to the staff at CPSC, several Senators, and several members of Congress who think that old books are not still around and/or are not still important. They will be accompanied by the following letter:

To Whom It May Concern In Washington, D.C.

It is a shame that CPSIA has been allowed to continue causing problems for so long already. It is regrettable that Congress continues to have so little concern for the pain they are causing both Consumers and Companies. That pain is being felt by those in so many industries: ATV/bicycles, crafters, clothing, toys, books, and so much more.

And all of this over a fallacy, the fallacy that the presence of lead is a danger. No, the CDC has clearly shown the ingestion of lead is dangerous. And children are not ingesting the above mentioned products.

Contrary to what many of you are claiming, this law does not protect children! It is hurting their ability to have inexpensive, pre-owned clothes, books, and more! And soon it will limit their ability to purchase many of those things new as well.

I am enclosing an old children’s book I purchased from a library book sale. Contrary to the popular opinion of some in D.C., this book is not dangerous. But it is now illegal for me to sell this book, because I cannot prove it is effectively lead free. And it is, or soon will be, illegal for the library to even loan out a book such as this. How do decisions like this get made? Can you really think it is in the best interest of children to deprive them of books such as this?

I look forward to the day when enough members of Congress can admit that this law is flawed, and that they can do the proper thing and repeal it. Barring that, some serious amending would be a step in the right direction!

Sincerely yours, a concerned mother and businesswoman,

National School Supply & Equipment Association

CPSIA is being fought on many different levels, and yet Congress still is not getting it!

This page from the National School Supply & Equipment Association does a great job, in one place, of covering the law, the problems with it, the Rally, letters that have been sent in more. I would say this is one of the best "all in one" places I've seen with coverage of CPSIA!

Of course most of what they are saying is what so many of us have been saying for so long. I hadn't read their position paper on CPSIA or their letter to Congressman Dingell before. It was good to see CPSIA problems presented from the school standpoint.

Is CPSIA Unconstitutional?

I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I still think CPSIA is unconstitutional...What could we argue?

How about?
1st amendment -- "Congress shall make no law...abridging...the right of the people...to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
(Congress is certainly not allowing this under the CPSIA disaster.)
5th amendment -- "No person shall be...deprived of...property without due process of law."
(I think we would all agree that manufacturers, retailers, and resellers have all been deprived of property without due process of law.)
8th amendment -- "Excess bail shall no be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
(Let's see...Up to $100,000 fine, and 5 years in jail -- for selling a used item I didn't know had lead in it...Sounds excessive and cruel and unusual to me!)
10th amendment -- "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
(I think this has to be one of my all time favorite "forgotten amendments". I don't see Article 1, Section 8 giving Congress enough power to pass CPSIA -- surely "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States..." doesn't go this far?)