www.hhsdebate.org

the chemical leaches out of children's toys and affects the hormones of the child. It has a potential danger to the child's health.

Ben, then make an amendment.......

Jack, if you want, i would make an amendment. I don't, because it would end up rewording the entire bill

It doesn't matter if your amendment rewords the entire bill. If Senator Werner likes your version, he can use it and if he doesn't, he won't. If you have bill suggestions to make, make them now, so we don't spend the debate meeting discussing amendments that could have been addressed on the forums.

JWerner wrote:Section 4: The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) shall investigate the following items as they pose a risk to public health and propose new alternatives:
a. polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic
b. phthalates
c. polybrominated diphenyl-ethers (PBDEs)

This section does not make sense to me, why have you limited it to those few items. There is a whole variety of things that can be tested.

Fanders: we are not saying that the FDA test for only these items. We are asking the FDA to investigate about these items since studies have shown that these are dangerous.

Ok, we need speakers for this bill:

1st Pro: Senator Werner
1st Con: Ben Romano
2nd Pro: Senator Thakker
2nd Con: Justin Fanders

The FDA already investigates hazards so there is really no reason to state the obvious. However, the three I listed are key things that have perhaps been overlooked. But I see your point.

If I may, I would like to propose a amendment to improve the quality of this bill. This amendment would strick sub-sections a-c of section four and change section four from:

JWerner wrote:Section 4: The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) shall investigate the following items as they pose a risk to public health and propose new alternatives

, It would now say: "The Chemical Safty Board will decide what should be further investigated as if they are found to pose a possible risk to public health. The FDA will then investigate the items chosen and will pose new alternatives to it." This will better the bill as a whole if you think about it. To qoute Bromano,

bromano wrote:we should leave the decision of what products to test up to the Chemical Safety Board, as this is what we are doubling their budget for in the first place.

He has the right idea. If we are doubling their budget, why can't they do it.

Different nations have different standards than the USA. It brings problems to the companies who have to pay more money for testing. For the consumer, it creates the risks illness when he uses a product not subject to Federal standards, like a gift from a foreign relative, or a souvenir bought on a vacation. Because of this, I'd like to propose an amendment.

Section 7. The CPSC shall enter negotiations with its foreign counterparts with the purpose of standardizing product safety standards.

I'm not totally sure which part of the executive branch would engage in this sort of negotiations, so could somebody help me here?

Product safety is not the only problem that can be addressed here. If we are addressing this, then it might affect the standards in the companies in Asia, and that involves outsourcing. I would like to ask the Sponsors of this bill how they propose to combat this problem, as they do not have any jurisdiction over the companies that either sell to the US, or the standards in companies located outside of the United States.

For example, if Pipe Co. makes PVC piping in Bangladesh, and the PVC piping doesn't come up to our standards, then what are we going to do, especially if almost all of our PVC imports are now not able to be imported because the fail the standards. We are not able to have jurisdiction over these foreign companies, and because of this, and more specifically, the increase in outsourcing, we are at a loss of how to right this wrong of product safety

I think it would also be good to mention any sort of device that emits harmful rays/signals. For example, some children's toys are equipped on the inside with weak lasers, etc., for lighting purposes but it has been recently proved that such waves or signals could result in cancerous developments.

Yes, I know the idea is a bit crude, but can someone figure a way to reword this important component in a more accurate way?

And Eric's idea is a very good one. Other nations can have their own standards but when there is any sort of product exchange between members of the United States and any other nation, the transferred products should be examined according to US federal safety standards. Although, this is a very expensive process.

And Ben, of course you had to pick Bangladesh

Fanders: you have a great point and I like the wording as well as the content of you're amendment. However, my only opposition lies in the fact that the U.S. Chemical and Safety Hazard Investigation Board's job is not in charge of investigating certain materials that pose risks but rather investigate industrial accident involving chemicals and find ways to avoid future accidents. Find another organization to investigate these matters and consider your amendment added.

Bert: You raise a valid point, consider your amendment added.

SRaghaven (since I don't know your name): the U.S. already has precise standards on what is acceptable on potentially hazardous materials. Now if these figures are strict enough, thats another thing, but I understand your aims.

I have revised and edited the bill, see the new changes.

I'm still not content with the section causing most of the controversy, but I'll leave that up to you guys.

My guess is that todays debate is cancelled. So, are we going to push it back or scrap the topic completly?