 Okay, I assume I can now be heard and I want to welcome all members of the public and all members of the commission and staff to this public meeting of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission. We have one item on the agenda this morning, a decisional matter on what we call the fiscal year 2021 mid year to proposal. Today's meeting will address the extra funding given to CPSC and the recent America Rescue Plan Act or ARPA as I refer to it. This is money that is to be spent over the course of five years with a major focus on addressing product safety concerns arising from the COVID pandemic crisis. Specifically, we've been directed to the following purposes to carry out the requirements of public law 116-260 which among other things imposed a number of new legislative duties on the commission such as implementing a new standard for furniture flammability and implementing a new standard for portable fuel containers. Also to enhance the agency's port staffing capabilities, especially with respect to targeting and screening of COVID-19 products entering through traditional ports and de minimis shipments entering through traditional ports and lately other specialized ports. Third to enhance monitoring of internet websites for the offering of sale of piloted goods with the focus on COVID-19. Fourth to increase awareness and enhance communications especially about COVID-19 hazards. And finally, to improve the agency's data collection and analysis systems especially with the focus on underserved communities dealing with the COVID crisis. So our task today is allocate funds from these dollars for the remaining six months of FY 2021. As you can see staff proposes to allocate roughly $5 million to fund 28 FTEs which would be at a cost of $1.7 million and a contract for roughly $3 million for contract and equipment expenditures. The decision staff is set for the tentative plan for annual expenditures for the remainder of these funds. Please note we are not voting on any funding strategy for years beyond FY 2021. But to staff's credit we've been given a fairly clear idea of their notion of how that strategy shouldn't unfold. Needless to say future commissions will be the ones to decide expenditures and future uplands. Just a note in passing. Implicit in what the ARPA does is require not implicit experts to acquire additional staff that brings recurring expenses, which are not covered in ARPA. And of course that greatly concerns me, because I don't have to agree to a substantial increase in staff and then at some point when the funding runs out having to lay them off. So I hope Congress is listening. That said, I just want to thank staff again for their vision for the future. It really seems carefully thought out and I like them a lot. We have several staff members present in the event there any questions in the opening round. We have our Mary Boyle, CPSC Executive Director, Dwayne Ray, CPSC Deputy Assistant Executive Director, James Baker, Chief Financial Officer and Joe Mardiac, Director of Communications. Other staff are available as needed. So I want to thank all of the staff for being here today. Again, with questions for staff, if there are any, each commissioner will have 5 minutes for questions and we can go multiple rounds if necessary. After the questions are complete, I will then move a vote on mid-year and entertain any amendments to the plan. And as a starting point, I have no questions. Commissioner Kay, do you have questions? I don't. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to the staff for the acceptance of our work. Commissioner Biacco, do you have any questions? I do not. Thank you, everyone. Okay. Thanks again. And Commissioner Feldman, do you have any questions for staff? Thank you, Acting Chairman Adler. I do have some questions. First, I wanted to ask about the port staffing provisions in the plan that's proposed. So in the FY21 appropriations bill, Congress instructed CPSC to the maximum extent feasible to station inspectors with the goal of covering at least 90% of the consumer products that are entering the U.S. And I've seen at least three different terms in sort of the agency parlance. Screened, covered, examined. I've seen these terms used to describe how we might meet the congressional goal of 90% of consumer products entering the United States. And I'm curious, and I guess this is to Mary and Dwayne, is staff using these terms interchangeably? I'm happy to give it a shot. It's not our intention to use them interchangeably. We have been using the term coverage to indicate we have a port person at a port of entry. And we've used that 90% figure to indicate of all of the ports that we have risk assessment through the RAM, whether or not we have someone assigned to that port to do inspections. And we use the term screening to actually indicate we've pulled an importation and have inspected the contents of that. Okay, so when the mandate refers to covering 90%, we're all saying the same thing that we're talking about physical in-person actual screenings of the risk-scored products in the RAM. Well, I wouldn't use the word screening. I would say that we have people assigned to ports of entry. To be able to be available to screen. Correct. Okay. How did staff determine that adding the four new inspectors or the four inspectors at Newport was the best use of the additional four inspectors versus supplementing existing port coverage at our highest volume ports? I mean, I think I'll jump in there and Joanne, please, you know, supplement as needed. I think those are the next additional force that we've identified where there's the highest volume of potential risk. So we wanted to expand the breadth of where we were able to cover. That was the rationale. Feel free to supplement that. Yeah, I think commissioners, we talked about our percent coverage and trying to aim towards that 90%. You know, we're looking at locations that increase those percentages. Right now, we're roughly with the assistance of our field staff and that 83% kind of all part. If the commission approves this plan as presented, we believe that'll get us closer to 87. And then I think over the next couple of years, if we continue to step up, we'll definitely be approaching those numbers. Okay, so you think with the with the additional hires that were in this year. Thank you. You're you're reading in exactly where I'm going with this. You know, the goal in as stated in the legislation said covering not not cover 90, but to make best efforts essentially to get as close to 90 as we can. Right now, the current coverage is somewhere in the low 80s. And you think with the new additions, it's going to bring us not necessarily past but towards 90s. Yes. Okay. Um, has staff made any changes to the RAM in the past couple of months? And does that affect effect how we're calculating this coverage ratio? I wouldn't want to comment publicly on any of our targeting changes, but that's fair. Thank you. If maybe we can touch base offline and go into that, I do have some questions. Yes, sir. Thank you. Let me let me switch gears a little bit and I want to be respectful of time. I know that we had five five minutes, but I still have a number of questions. Bob, how am I doing? You're fine. Pierre, as I say, I try to be flexible up to a point. And so I would ask you to be mindful of that, but please feel free to ask your questions. Well, if you would kick me under the virtual table when I'm getting up to up to that point, I'd appreciate that's fair. Sure. Um, I wanted to ask a little bit about the communications provisions that are that are called for in the plan. Um, during the mid year one discussion on my influencer amendment, Commissioner came at the point that the burden of proof is with the proponents of the expenditures and not the opponents to demonstrate effectiveness. And while I don't want to put words in his mouth. And he can correct me if I'm misstating any of this with with with specific to influencers. I think the larger point is particularly relevant here that that that we need some answers about the expenditures for the proposed outreach strategies. And of course, I'm aware that the congressional mandate is to increase awareness and comms is related to that. But but we also have to make sure that the approaches that we're taking achieve the goals that Congress envisioned. So to get to the specific questions, the proposed CO poisoning campaign description in the plan states that O.C.M. will use a quote variety of approaches, collaborations and concepts, including strategically targeted email messaging improved digital initiatives and innovated market and innovated marketing strategies. And if I was asked, I'm not sure I can tell you exactly what those words mean, and what we're actually spending the money on. Mr. Moriak, can you explain what using these examples of what these descriptions entail. Thank you for the question. Two things. One is what we put into the proposal is a broad range of possibilities. And the second point is what's in the plan for this year is to draw up a strategic plan on how to approach this. And that comes back to the commission as far as the actual implementation goes or choosing at what level and what tactics and so it's premature at this point to be saying which of those tactics it would be what I was trying to emphasize there was what the team was trying to emphasize was this was the possibilities of looking at different approaches. But the funding that we're talking about today is to actually have an effort made to draw up that strategic plan. And then that comes back going into the next fiscal year when the commission vote on an operating plan. Okay. Again, then, I'm not entirely clear what we're being asked to spend money on and it sounds like you haven't thought this all the way through because my next question was going to be, you know, of the proposed or, you know, what evidence you have that that a particular technique or communications tactic is going to be more effective than another but I'm not hearing any particular lies. Any particular lies. Hey, this is how we would like to approach these campaigns. I would say that we have thought this through at this point, Commissioner, because this is a request to get outside expertise to the table to help to flesh out this kind of a plan. We are our in half expert. Yes. We have several experts obviously an OCM but in the size of this campaign that we're thinking about and the seriousness of it. That is why we're looking for outside help on this and input on it, just as we have on some of the other major plans that we have. Okay. Bob, how am I doing on time. I just have a couple more. One or two more and then I am going to have to. I'm not going to. I'm not looking to check up more than my share. I guess the last question that I'll ask is probably to Mary and Dwayne and frankly, our general counsel and Jim Baker as well. But it has to do with what's called for in the plan for operational support staffing. In the mid year to plan, there's an increase for enforcement staff. And with an increase with increased enforcement staff, it frankly makes sense that they're going to see an increased workload and therefore it may be called for for some additional operational support. But I really don't have a sense of, you know, what the historical ratio of EXRM and financial management staff to other employees has been and whether the additional sort of the additional support staff that's called for gales in a way that historically tracks with what we've seen in previous years. So, can you talk about that a little bit? I'll start and please James and Dwayne jump in as necessary. I do think we looked at ratios in terms of the work that we would be adding. And my sense is that we were very conservative and that we added only one FTE for each of the support operations. My guess is that probably that underestimates the work that would be needed if we're going to be scaling up in terms of the FTE that we're adding an import. So, but because we are embarking on a hiring at a scale that we have in a long time, we want to be conservative to start with the hiring and we added one into the main units for operational support. You say it's conservative, but again, you can't tell me what the historic ratio of import staff to support staff has been. I would ask James if I know that we did look at ratios so I don't have them off the top of my head, but if James or Dwayne has additional information on that. Sure. I can jump in. We did our first cut looking at ratios and on a purely like total number of staff in the agency and then what portion of that is support staff. And it gave us some really big numbers that just did not feel like the correct starting off, especially since we're kind of gradually staffing up here, but we knew a couple of key things. If the commission approves this plan, we're hiring up a bunch of people so we need another HR specialist to help in the support and hiring up of that. We knew IT systems and the support for the user base is growing and we're challenged to continue to support especially in all of this remote and hybrid environments that we're in. And then we also knew with the added requirements for tracking how we're spending the money and the reporting out on that we need some support in James team. And also the additional support and general counsel for these this area. So, you know, we did look at ratios, but we also kind of did a gut check to say, well, that seemed a little too much if you just purely went down the ratio path. And so as Mary was saying, we're trying to start out, you know, kind of not not to let numbers drive us purely, but at least a good starting point to try to anticipate what we know is going to be a growth here. Okay, it sounds like you don't have the numbers immediately at hand, but what I would ask and then I'm done, Bob, is, is, if you wouldn't mind sharing with the historic ratio is bad. And it sounds like that what you're calling for here is conservative conservative relative to the historic ratio but again, I just, I'd love to know some particulars on what that looks like. That's about the ratio was above three FTE for every 10 that are higher. Oh, okay. Thank you, James. Okay, succinct and to the point. Thank you so much. And having heard no further questions and let me be certain, are there other questions that Commissioner K. Biaco, and I have no further questions. Okay, then staff, you are now excused. Thank you for your input. You can move to a listening mode. Thank you for all of your excellent work on the plan. I am now going to move that the commission adopt the mid year plan as proposed by staff. And that is a motion. Is there a second? Second it. Thank you so much. And of course, before putting the mid year plan as proposed by staff to a vote, I will now entertain any amendments to the plan that the commissioners may propose. I have no amendments. Commissioner K. Do you have any amendments? I do not. Thank you. Thank you so much. Commissioner Biaco, do you have any amendments? I don't. Thank you. Thanks so much. Commissioner Feldman, do you have any amendments? Thank you, Bob. I do have some amendments. And if they're in order, I'd love to introduce Feldman one. Yeah, and let's do it the way we did on mid year one, which is we will go through each Feldman amendment. And you will describe it for up to three minutes after that. I'll ask for a second, then we'll have any questions or comments. And then we'll put each one to a vote. Okay, well, there's only four this time. So hopefully this will go a little bit smoother than the last time. Okay. I'm offering Feldman one. COPF one is an amendment to prohibit spending on non-governmental spokespeople. Less than three weeks ago, we approved an almost identical amendment regarding the commission's use of celebrities, actors, social media influencers, personalities and other non-governmental spokespeople. And this amendment would do the same for the campaigns that are contemplated in mid year two. As I said then, the commission should approve either on a case-by-case basis or via an inclusive directive that the use of taxpayer dollars on compensating actors and influencers would be approved in that manner. I'd also hope that we'd be able to find individuals that are willing to engage with us on PSAs on a pro bono basis so that we can use our scarce resources on other things. I believe that we should have a directive governing this type of activity by now. We were promised one. That's not the case. But I think, therefore, again, I need to offer this amendment to make sure that there are safeguards in place for the commission funding. As was the case during mid year one, I don't intend this amendment to interfere with existing contracts. It's perspective, but I would want to thank everybody for their consideration and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you for describing your amendment. We need a second. Is there a second to this amendment? I second it. Thanks so much. And now we will proceed for commissioners to ask Commissioner Feldman any questions or make any comments. Commissioner Feldman, you're correct. This is the same amendment or a substantial the same that you introduced with respect to mid year one. I opposed it then I continue to oppose it. It's not that I am a huge fan of influencers and to the extent we could get influencers pro bono I'm all in favor of that but speaking for at least future chairman of the agency. I think this intrudes unreasonably into management responsibilities and it feels to me like micro management. And so I'm going to oppose it and those are my comments. Commissioner Kay, any questions or comments that you have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman to Commissioner Feldman just some clarifying questions about the amendment as I read it. It permits influencers to be used on a pro bono basis with the commission approval. Is that correct? Yes, it's the same amendment that I offered it to mid year one. And it also permits if there is a majority of commissioners who agree on a directive, it would then supersede this amendment and it would permit the use of influencers pursuant to whatever the terms of that directive is correct. That's right. And that allows for some future flexibility for the four of us or a future constituted commission to put their stamp on on on what this policy might look like. And, you know, this has not come up before but and I don't know maybe the general council wants to weigh in, or maybe you want to start commissioner film with your intention at least. Since this amendment is pursuant to a mid year, which is modifying an operating plan for fiscal year 21, I view that as similar to an appropriations rider where this would expire at the end of 2021. What is your intention with this amendment regarding its lifespan. The amendment is offered and frankly the amendment is previously offered during mid year one is very specific to the campaigns to which it applies. Again, it's not retroactive. But when I offered this two weeks ago now, it applied to just the individual campaigns that were specifically called out in the mid year. And likewise, this amendment is intended to modify section four of the plan as set forward by staff and would apply only to only to those campaigns that are called for. There's a campaign on that's targeted towards youth. There's a CEO campaign and there's a flammable portable fuel container campaign that's contemplated right now. Do you envision that extending past the fiscal year or only for the funds that are approved by the commission for those plans for this year. This amendment would only apply to to to those specific campaigns. It's my hope that that so we don't have to keep doing this every time a new campaign is proposed that we can all work together on an overarching directive that establishes commission policy or these types of expenditures and the use of influencers. We haven't done that yet. But right now this campaign would would would apply to just those campaigns that are listed. I see it not only I see it not only applying to those campaigns that are listed. I see applying just the funds for this fiscal year for those campaigns. But your larger point. I agree with completely, which is that there is there could be an effort underway to resume the directive. I know that the last time that there was that my office provided robust feedback to that draft. We're ready to do that again. And so I see many paths forward if there is a desire for the use of either unpaid or paid influencers. So with those paths that you've provided I plan to support this amendment. Thank you and I appreciate your support Elliott. Thank you so much, Commissioner Kay and Commissioner Bianco any questions or comments for Commissioner Feldman. You're muted data. And Commissioner Feldman, I think that this amendment, the one you raised to was a couple of weeks ago, and your questions to Mr. Marty at today all support and establish once again that if we had a communications plan that I moved forward during the operating plan, we wouldn't be here having to do this in piece mail. We would have an understanding of what campaigns we had how much they were going to cost the size and the seriousness I heard is very important but we have no planning and I heard today that we're going to be hiring outside this should all be done and approved before the, you know, before we get into this piece mail thing. So from that perspective, I would support it. However, I mean, I wholeheartedly agree and nobody has been a bigger champion of planning for this particular office than you've been. Thank you. I will though add one caveat. I am not against paying actors or influencers in certain circumstances. So I if your amendment is designed to carve them out completely. I need to know that because in this day and age, whether I love it or not, influencers are affected in certain circumstances. And as we have discussed on more than one occasion, we aren't reaching some of the people we need to reach. And especially if they are practicing getting their messages like old people like me, and we have lots of young mothers out there who do things differently than than I did. And I think that sometimes influencers and or actors really can help. So I'm not against that. I just what I want to do is see a presentation on why we need them, what the cost is, and I think there should be commission or commission approval on those things, not just having someone in our communications department make that determination as they see fit. So I just want to clarify that your amendment here is not designed to exclude outside sources completely. But what you're saying is they won't be paid for without seeking commission approval first. No, you're absolutely right. And your understanding is correct. It allows for that. But with the approval of the commission. Okay. All right. With that, I don't have any more questions. Thank you. I just did want to make one comment. And I must take issue with the notion that the commissioners have not been consulted with respect to education campaigns. Back in December, we circulated a draft of something like 25 education campaigns, and asked for feedback on those campaigns and they were described in full. And it's the best of my knowledge we've we've heard no feedback on that. So, wait a minute. Wait a minute. We get these things Bob often at two o'clock with a note from somebody in communications that says we plan on running this at close of business. That's that's not a description. That's not acceptable to me. And sending us, you know, generic forms like we heard today is not a communications plan. And I would have to take issue with that point. And why would I freeze this. We do have a good faith disagreement, but I think that you would, you were given this specific education campaigns with with descriptions, but this is something that we can explore further. I think right now, let's focus our attention on the vote. And so if there are no other questions or comments, I'm going to call for the vote. Commissioner Kay, how do you vote? I vote aye. Commissioner Bianco, how do you vote? Yes. And Commissioner Feldman, how do you vote? I vote yes. And I vote no. The votes are three. Yay. And one no. The amendment by commissioner Feldman is adopted. Mr. Feldman, your second amendment, please. Thank you. So Feldman to is an amendment to ensure transparency in meeting that 90% screening goal that we talked about during questioning in the Congress called for in the FY 21 appropriations bill. Congress directed CPSC for screening 90% of all consumer products entering the United States that are risk scored in the RAM. And according to our own staff provided statistics during the pandemic screenings fell significantly. And for the fiscal year to date, screenings are still down, even based on where we were last year. The reporting that Feldman to calls for will achieve transparency and help the commissioners, frankly, understand how and if CPSC is achieving the 90% screening over time. Frankly, it will also help the commission with with planning for fiscal 22 and beyond. It's a fairly straightforward reporting amendment, but I want to thank everybody for considering it and I'm happy to answer any questions that you have. Is there a second commissioner Feldman's amendment. I second it. Thank you very much. We'll now have a round in which commissioners can comment on or ask questions. And I strongly oppose this. And commissioner Feldman, I realize this is a good faith attempt on your part to incorporate the language of the statute, but what I think you've done is you've taken some stuff out of context. And I think you've left out some critical words. The critical words were that we are to ensure to a maximum extent feasible that investigators are stationed at ports of entry. In other words, this was to increase staffing at the ports, not to track individual consumer products. We have a massive volume of consumer products under our jurisdiction that enter at the ports. And even with risk scoring we actually screen only a small percentage of the products. And what we're talking about the 90% number is port coverage, not product screen under the Ram. And if we were to try to do it, according to the literal words of your amendment, I'm afraid we'd need something like 10,000 port inspectors. One additional point you call for report on screen if possible violations of voluntary standards at ports. That's not something we typically do. The only time that I'm aware of that we do it is when it's a 15 J, which is more in the nature of a rule. And I guess the other thing is this is information. You talk about transparency, but this is not information that is made public. These are these are confidential reports. And I have noticed that some of our confidential reports have been leaked in the past. And I hate to say this, this may well provide more information to be leaked. So if you wanted to respond, or we could move on to any questions or comments that Commissioner Kay has. Just that the I'm reading the statue right here that we shall ensure that that that inspector shall be stationed with the goal of covering no fewer than 90% of all consumer products entering the United States that are risk scored in the risk assessment methodology system. That's not ambiguous at all, what the congressional mandate is, and I think you're reading this is fundamentally flawed. Well, I realize that you are tracking some of the language of the statute, which I think still leads out the critical words, investigators are stationed at ports of entry. This is not the most artfully worded statutory direction to us, but this is something that we have been implemented we've made clear to the Congress that this is the way that we're implementing it. And I, and I think that if we were to take your words literally, you would stop the commission and have us do nothing but inspect products coming in through the ports. Respectfully Bob, these aren't my words, their Congress's words. Yes, part some of their words, but not the critical words, which to me still pertain to investigators state words of entry. That was what Congress was looking to. Commissioner. Hey, do you have any questions or comments? I don't have any questions. I think that as long as we continue to get briefed on these issues on a weekly basis, I'm comfortable with maintaining that. I will say that we're all at a bit of a disadvantage because we appropriately cannot discuss some of the aspects of our ports work. And so that makes for probably a slightly stilted and awkward back and forth. And so I'll just leave it at that. But again, as long as we continue to get our weekly briefings and we're provided with this information, I'm comfortable with the status quo. Thank you so much. Commissioner Bianco, any questions or comments? I do. Commissioner Feldman conceptually and substantively. I think there's a lot of validity to your proposed amendment. I object, however, to the process here. I think that what we're being asked to vote on is simply the budget. And how exactly that money is going to be spent. And I'm not inclined to support a reporting requirement as part of that. I don't think it fits. I also think that the language that Congress has given us speaks for itself. So respectfully, I'm going to not support it for just those reasons. I understand if I may respond. I think that there is a link in between reporting and in the budget. I expect that at some point in the future that the commissioners are going to be called to account for how we spent money to meet these new mandates. And, and, you know, asking for reporting on this. Certainly it's not micromanaging. It's our job. I just don't want there to be any surprises. Again, I don't disagree with you substantively. This document, I just don't think it achieves in this document what you're trying to achieve. I do think we should be getting as much information as possible. And I have always been a supporter of expanding our court inspectors and our equipment and so on and so forth. But I'm not a big supporter of spending money on reporting requirements. I think that's part of the job. So, thank you. If there are no more questions or comments, I will call the question with respect to Feldman to Commissioner K. How do you vote? I vote no. Commissioner Bianco, how do you vote? No. Commissioner Feldman, how do you vote? I vote yes. And I vote no. The votes are three nay, one nay. Commissioner Feldman two is not approved. Commissioner Feldman, your third amendment please. Okay, thank you. So, Feldman three is an amendment that would add additional port inspectors at the key high volume port. If they're needed. We've all, all four of us have supported expanding full time port inspectors to conduct inspections at the highest volume ports of entry. And the plan that's been proposed frankly does a fantastic job at focusing on e-commerce and expansion into ports where CPSC currently lacks coverage. But what the plan doesn't do is expand our strengths at the key high volume port. Congress directed the commission to add staff at the key port into what were feasible and to reach a 90% threshold of inspection. And I question, is there anything more key than our high volume port? The plan as drafted adds four new inspectors to four additional ports and two additional supervisors. But what my amendment would call for is to increase the number of port inspectors by up to 10 if we haven't met that 90% threshold by the end of the current fiscal year. The amendment seeks to provide for any staffing shortages that may come up in working towards that goal and it's a, it's a, it's a safeguard essentially. Again, I would, I would thank you for your consideration. And if there's a second, I'm happy to answer any questions that my colleagues have on this amendment. Thank you so much, Commissioner Feldman. Is there a second? I second it. Peter, you look like you wanted to say something additional at this point. Okay. Again, I, I appreciate the sentiment. I think that we're all supportive of expanding our port presence. And even if we were to dramatically expand our port presence, we'd still be falling short of what my notion is of what is needed to protect consumers from the product coming in through the ports. And I am delighted that we are looking to set up arrangements to address the de minimis shipments that are coming in at specialized ports and not necessarily generally through the major ports. I have to say the Feldman amendment to me goes well beyond the mandate that's contained in the COVID legislation, because it sets as a sort of an absolute number, meeting this 90% coverage. And that's not what the Congress directed us to do. It also forces the immediate hiring of additional staff. And I don't know what that definition, the definition of immediate is. But also, let me, let me be clear. The one Congress gave us this direction about the ports it didn't say you have to station people at the ports. It says they must be stationed at or supporting efforts at the ports and your amendment does not include that that language commissioner Feldman. In other words, you've tied our hands so that these staff must be stationed at the ports and that removes some important flexibility that we need in order to meet our congressional mandate. And I go back to this notion about voluntary standards we don't we don't inspect for voluntary standards for the most part. One other issue that I have probably a couple is you you talk about key ports of entry but I don't see a definition of what a key port of entry is. And what I'm afraid of is this opens up staff to endless second guessing about well this was a key port and the staff saying we didn't think it was a key port, and I don't see a good definition and also just in terms of the technicalities. If we got to September 30 and the day before we dip below 90% that we've been at 90% before and we came above it, we still seem to be obligated to hire additional FT ease because we missed it by one day. And I guess the other thing is that this is ARPA is legislation to deal with the COVID crisis. I don't necessarily want to see staff locked stationed at the ports. So, to me, this is my girl managing it's it's a worthy sentiment and it's one I fully support, but the exact wording of your amendment gives me a great deal of difficulty and commissioner Feldman if you wish to respond. I do have a response. First of all, the notion that the notion that the key ports is somehow coming from nowhere. I'm reading a copy of the bill here, and it specifically discusses additional CPSC surveillance personnel at key ports of entry. Now, when we've dealt with this in the past in most recently in the FY 22 budget request, we talked about a plus up to ports at our highest volume ports of entry. All of us are on record is supporting that. And the notion that that I'm ignoring the language of what's called for in title double X here that it discusses port personnel or supporting efforts at the port. We're doing that. The plan has drafted. Certainly contains a number of provisions and we just talked about all the supporting staff that that's being called for that additional personnel. This amendment would layer on top of that to address a shortfall at the port. If it's needed. It's a safeguard. Okay. I would just simply say that when the Congress is key ports we do you're right that's the commission staff has an interpretation of that term. But the fact is that I'm not clear that that's the term that you're using. And what I'm afraid of is that this opens them up, not to their interpretation of what a key port is but your interpretation. Rather than adding ports, it's a personality at at at any of the ports that we're at, we're opting to expand the ports will we currently have no present, frankly, low volume port. That's a point of disagreement among us what we're doing is providing additional staff capability for dealing with ports at those moments when they would be needed. And I think it's exactly the right approach, but not permanently stationing them at those ports. Commissioner, I'm sorry, Commissioner Feldman, if you have any additional response. The pace that I'm saying, if staff continues at the pace that that we're at, I'm concerned. And we're doing a great job. The amendment won't take effect. It's conditional. And it would it would simply add resources at the at the areas where there's the highest probability of effect and impact during our busiest month. Those are our key high volume ports. Thank you for that. Commissioner Kay, any questions or comments? No questions. Thanks for, you know, another amendment to try to get to where we're all want to go. But I am comfortable that staff has discovered no pun intended and that it seems like they're well on their way. That there is enough flexibility that if it turns out that there are some type of bumps that we can revisit this issue. I don't. This is the final time that we're going to be looking at this effect. We're going to have many opportunities as this moves forward to look at it. And so I'm comfortable with staff's plan. Thank you so much. Commissioner Bianco, any questions or comments? Just a quick one again. I don't think we'll ever have enough people and equipment at the ports in this day and age. And I certainly support putting more people and so forth. But I do think that Peter, your amendment could be argued that it's that it's limiting. And so rather than get into, you know, whether it's conditional, whether it's limiting, whether it's consistent with what Congress said, I'm just I'm going to rely on the language that Congress has given us. As you know, a lot of negotiation goes into those bills. And, you know, whether we agree or not agree, we are mandated to follow that. And I want to keep it as broad as possible. So I I'm going to I'm going to pass on this one respectfully. Thank you. Are there any additional questions or comments? Commissioner Feldman? Okay. If not, then we will move to a vote with respect to Feldman three commissioner. Okay. How do you vote? I vote no. Commissioner Bianco. How do you vote? No. And I vote no. I'm sorry. Commissioner Feldman. I apologize. How do you. Okay, the votes are three. One commissioner Feldman three is not approved. Commissioner Feldman may ask that you move to Feldman four. Yes. So Feldman four is an amendment that would provide transparency with respect to our remedial screenings. Through no fault of our port and field inspectors, we experienced a period where CPSC is in person port inspection activity declines during the COVID pandemic. Congress told us to focus on high risk products. And I can't think of a riskier product category than those that made it onto store shelves. Without their usual CPSC screenings for things like lead and small parts. During the mid year one discussion, I offered an amendment asking for a plan and I was assured that the work here is in fact underway. It was suggested that discussion of that amendment would be better suited to mid year two. So I'm reproposing the amendment, albeit in a slightly different form. My amendment Feldman four would require staff to include in its weekly port and field staffing report that we all receive updates about the steps that staff is taking and what we're finding. The information that that's called for here is part of the required congressional report that's due on June 27. And I just I don't want there to be any surprises. My amendment is designed to ensure that there's transparency and nothing more. Again, thank everybody for consideration and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you so much. Is there a second to commissioner Feldman's motion. Thank you so much. And commissioner Feldman, I, I agree that it's important for us to look to see what got in during the early days of the pandemic. I have talked to staff and I think that this is a subject worthy of a briefing. I think they have done a brilliant job of tracking down stuff that may have come through the ports. And finding violated, excuse me, violative goods. And so I'm really delighted to see that they're doing that. And that is something that I believe that staff can brief us on. I do not agree that this is something that should be mandated in a report. First of all, it's adding unnecessary work and it's also pointing in directions that I am afraid will dissipate the incredible work that's being done by staff to address underserved communities. So I think that this expands what the Congress asked for and I don't see the need to enshrine it formally in weekly reports. And so I also am afraid that this again opens staff up to second guessing in ways that I find that make me uncomfortable. It says they have to address the remedial steps that are being taken. That's a term that could put them on the hot seat if they don't meet any particular commissioners notion of what remedial steps are. So I'm not going to support it, but I certainly support the sentiment that we need to address a violet of goods that came in during the early days of the pandemic and have a good comprehensive plan for addressing that. And I will say that I'm really delighted to see what staff has done. Do you have any comment, any response? The only response that I would have is that as I have not received briefings about the work that staff is doing to conduct remedial screenings. But the four of us as the agency's senior political leadership, we're stewards of the agency and the resource that it expands. And ultimately it's going to be the four of us that are called to account for our meeting or failure to meet the requirements that have been set forward in statute that we're supposed to be following. It's important that we're informed about what staff spends its time working on. Right now I have received no information on that front and requesting information that frankly should be shared without us having to request it. It's not micro management. It's good sound management. Yeah, and if I could respond that is information that the commission is entitled to. And as you know before we submit any report to the Congress that will be circulated to the commission for commission supervision. And so we this is information that we're entitled to I think the staff has been in the process of developing this comprehensive plan and an appropriate point. Staff will be briefing the commission on it plan will be circulated for commission supervision. I don't know what that means. Congress directed the commission to submit the report. The four of us are going to have to vote and sign off on this. I just don't want there to be any surprises. It's fair to say that there, there, there should not be any surprises and I think that's exactly correct. Commissioner Kay. Any questions or comments? I don't have any questions for Commissioner Feldman. I will say that this was the amendment I spend the most time on the fence about. I agree with a lot of what Commissioner Feldman has raised in terms of the importance of having a regular understanding of our work in this area. I don't want to get too far into the decision making from last year, but I think it's fair to say at least from my perspective that the remedial work was a key component for me in the decision making that we made, meaning that we would have a comfort level that we would do everything in our power to attempt to remediate the things that did slip through during the times when we didn't have full port coverage. So I think it's completely fair of Commissioner Feldman to have an expectation that we would regularly be informed of what's happening in that area. And so my office has been getting weekly briefings that have occurred with staff that are not specific to this, but include, include information about this topic. I'm requesting, Mr. Chairman, or expecting that that will continue and that we can count on that. And then also I think you suggested this might be a good topic for a close compliance briefing. I think that I would support that if that's what you're proposing. And so I think that it's fair that we continue to be kept informed on a regular basis, certainly orally, as to what staff is doing so that we can have an understanding of that. I do think that's a fair point to ask. And I am completely sympathetic to that. I'd be delighted to have a close compliance briefing to address this. As I say, I don't know all the particulars of it because the staff has been working on that. But what I've heard so far, I have been pleased to hear. So I do think regular briefings on this are an order. I just don't feel it necessary to enshrine it in a formal document. May I interject? Yes, please. I don't want to deprive Commissioner Biakko of her opportunity to offer any comments that she has. So I don't want to dominate the conversation here. But if hearing Commissioner Kay's line of questioning in the discussion about about both compliance briefings, if there is a commitment on the table for regular monthly compliance briefings on remedial action, I'd be more than happy to withdraw withdraw this amendment. I make no such commitment about regular monthly meetings. Just a brief on this point. I think that may be addressing it in ways that are unnecessary. I would make a commitment to a commission close compliance briefing, and then to see whether we feel additional briefings on that point should be done. Commissioner Biakko. So I may be the chairman and I'll call on Commissioner Biakko. What I struggle with on this amendment is that it is premised on on the fact that some things may have gotten through during the early days of the pandemic and what I remember and I stand by our decision was a unanimous decision by this very commission to protect our staff. In the early days of the pandemic, when nobody knew what was going on, how dangerous the virus was, could be. We didn't have PPE. In fact, I think our agency actually donated the few pieces of PPE that we had to frontline workers, leaving us with zero. And so I feel what I'm hearing in your presentation of this amendment is that it's it corrects or is designed to correct something that we all voted on. And I think correctly voted on. And so I can't, I can't support it because of that premise. Okay, hearing no further questions or comments. Okay, if not, then I call the vote on Feldman for Commissioner Kay, how do you vote. I vote no. Michael, how do you vote? Reluctantly no. Commissioner Feldman, how do you vote? I vote yes. And I vote no. The votes are three nay one yay. The amendment is not agreed to. At this point, are there additional amendments before the commission before we move to the vote on the mid year. I have no additional amendments. Thank you so much. Having heard no further amendments or motions will now turn to consideration of fiscal year 2021 mid year to proposal as amended. After the vote, each commissioner will have 10 minutes for closing remarks. But I want to make sure that anybody who wants to be heard briefly before we vote on the mid year plan is heard. Having heard no further comments, I will now call the vote to adopt fiscal year 2021 mid year to plan as amended. Commissioner Kay, how do you vote? I vote yes. Mr. Bianco, how do you vote? Yes. Mr. Feldman, how do you vote? I vote yes. The yeas are for the fiscal year 2021 mid year proposal as amended has been approved. We will now provide commissioners up to 10 minutes of closing remarks for those who care to make them. And I have a very, very, very brief set of closing remarks. First of all, I want to thank CPSC staff for extraordinary work in developing the two mid year packages. They're thoughtful, they're comprehensive. They're actually, for the most part, very easy to read. We've got a lot of work to do and we need lots of additional resources to do it. I'm truly grateful for the extra funding that we got in the American Recovery Plan Act. But I note that's only good for five years and it actually falls short of what we need to do in the long run. So I'm extremely hopeful that Congress will respond, not just with ARPA, but with substantial increase in funding for the future. And I'm probably going to regret using this metaphor. CPSC may never get beyond being the runt of the regulatory agency litter, but we need to be a bigger, more aggressive runt. And so I thank everybody again. Commissioner Kay, do you have any closing remarks? I can't top runt, but I will say that I very much appreciate the work by the staff, especially like I said the quick and thorough work on trying to adapt to the bill passing. And thanks as well, Mr. Chairman, for your efforts and your staff's efforts in working with the Hill to formulate the $50 million package to make sure that it was going to meet critical needs. It, for many years, was a lonely road traveling with my office and I on trying to both increase our budget substantially and as well as our port presence in particular. And so while I don't love the circumstances that led to this increase, I'm grateful that Congress finally recognized that we do need additional assistance both at the agency writ large, but especially at the port. And I'm particularly pleased to hear what sounds like you next support both for a substantially increased budget amongst the commissioners, as well as substantially increased port presence. Both of those developments as they continue to occur are excellent for consumers and their safety. And also, I really appreciate the spirit of the dialogue, the fact that we can debate civilly, interesting topic, and work our way through it. And then at the end of the day, especially on this package, reach you and anybody. So thank you to my fellow commissioners and to your offices for the work. And that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you so much. Commissioner Bianco closing remarks. On this rare occasion, Bob, I don't have anything to say that I haven't already said. I greatly appreciate it. Thank you so much. And Commissioner Feldman any closing remarks that you have. I do. I also want to reiterate my appreciation for staff's work on on the proposed spending plan for mid year to. I think it's safe to say that we all share the commission's goal of protecting American consumers. It was my hope that the mid year process would occur holistically and I remain puzzled as to why it didn't. We could have done this in one piece, but that wasn't the case. Instead, we were asked to approve part one without knowing what was in part two. But that's all in the past and in turning to the mid year specifics. I'm pleased that the package takes steps to address the congressional mandates that were some of the congressional mandates that were included in the FY 21 appropriations bill. In particular, I commend staff for starting the process on establishing an e-commerce team, something that that I've long advocated for. But make no mistake, Congress didn't provide this extra funding because it thought we were doing a good job or that it agreed with the decisions that the commission had made throughout the pandemic. Again, I'm glad that we were able to get to yes on this bill. I think that there's more work that needs to be done, including when we return to consider our next operating plan. But in closing, I want to thank staff for their hard work and to my fellow commissioners for considering my amendment. Thank you so much. At this point, we want to thank staff for their participation. Thanks Steve McGuggan for making sure that the technical functioning of the meeting came off smoothly and it seems to have done so. So with that, I am not going to gavel, but I will call this meeting to a close and we will convene the commission in a closed session at two o'clock this afternoon. So thank everybody. Thank you.