Enjoy Your Life! Build Your Business! Have Your Way!
Here's a quick update on my post from yesterday at the upcoming March 27, 2012 cosmetics hearing at the House Energy & Commerce Committee.
I submitted this request to testify at the upcoming hearing.
I will let you know what I hear back.
I faxed my letter at 5:31pm EST.
At 6:22pm EST, I received this response from the House Energy & Commerce Committee:
Dear Ms. Coles Johnson:
Thank you for expressing your interest in testifying. We have already finalized our witnesses for our hearing, however, if you are interested in entering a statement for the record please feel free to send to me and I will pass it along to our counsels. The sooner you can submit a statement the better.
I responded with my surprise that a witness list had been finalized so quickly, considering the hearing was just announced yesterday. I also requested a copy of the witness list.
I will update you when I have more to report.
Thanks for the update dM.
Wow! Thanks dM! I can't wait to see who's on the witness list.
This is going to be a stacked deck in favor of those pushing for stricter regs I fear. Why the secrecy, why the failure to disclose the list? Why close the witness list so quickly, or is it really closed and is just an excuse of a way to shut opponents to new legislation? Why am I not surprised!
Seems very suspicious. I wonder who is on the witness list and how they knew about the hearing quickly enough to respond and get accepted.
You go, dM. Thanking you for all you do!
Reach out. Make friends. Let's lift each other!
Okay dM, please correct me if I'm wrong, because it seems like every other week the rules get fubar. Is it or is it not a federal rule or law that Federal level hearings are supposed to have a 30 day notice to the public? Because if it is, I do not see 30 days notice of squat. First I saw was an industry mag's online article and before I could get to my desktop to post it, you posted about. I even went to the Federal Register (and got semi-lost ) but I didn't find any notices. Are Congressional Committees exempt from the rules, even though they are Federal? Thanks if you can unravel that maze.
And on that note, here's one that's coming up from the FDA
The Food and Drug Administration has announced it will hold a public meeting to discuss the international cooperation on cosmetic regulations before its upcoming committee meeting in Rockville, Maryland in July.
I read "international cooperation" as meaning having the NGOs and fearmongers testify and whine about "let's all be like the EU" and add all it's silliness with the precautionary principle and then stifle innovation even more.
Federal regulators must give a certain amount of notice before an agency hearing. That is mandated by Congress as part of the administrative procedures pursuant to which agencies regulate.
I am not aware that Congress has required itself to give any particular advance notice of its own Congressional and/or committee hearings. All I know is that, in this case, I was told earlier this month that there would be a hearing. I posted about that here.
I was told that the hearing would be announced 7 days in advance.
Now, we know there is a hearing on March 27. That was made public on March 20, exactly 7 days in advance.
On March 21, I was told by an Energy Commerce clerk that the witness list had been finalized. This seems to indicate that the witness list was agreed upon before public notice of the hearing was given on March 20. I do not know of a procedure to ask to be on the witness list, so I just asked in writing and was told that the witnesses had already been selected, but that I could submit written testimony. (Which I plan to to do.)
I don't know of a law Congress imposes upon itself to disclose a witness list in advance at all. My guess is that there is no law, but there is probably some kind of customary practice.
I have my educated guesses about who may testify, and I've heard things here and there, but I do not know for sure who will be on the witness list.
I have asked the legislative staffer handling the hearing to share the witness list and any copies of bills or draft bills that are going to be the subject of discussion at the hearing so that I can prepare meaningful written testimony on behalf of IBN. My requests as of this writing have gone unanswered.
I know that does not answer all of your questions, but it is all I have personal knowledge of at this time, and therefore, all I can share with you.
I will post another update when I have one.
Thanks to you and everyone for their questions and comments. I wish the process was more transparent, but we work with what we have toward to goal we all have -- new laws that providing the pubic with safe cosmetic choices and which allow small businesses to participate in the industry on a level playing field.
Thanks dM for the update. I agree, it does sound suspicious and I am curious to see who is on the list.
Hmmmmm....*sniff sniff* Something smells of rotten fish....that's all I can say!
Hmmm, something fishy indeed. It seems that those who will testify may have been invited. Going by the wording of Debbie May's blog update on this hearing, she was "invited to testify". If the committee did do the witness list by invitation only, I wonder what was the criteria used to issue the invitations. The saving grace of this is that at least there is a representative for the small, micro and indie handcrafted cosmetics industry. While not in agreement with the stand Ms. May and others took regarding the SCA 2011, at least someone is there who has a grasp on what we do, why we do and most importantly, how we do it.
Thanks for the updates and your hard work on this.
I know Debbie May of WSP will be testifying for this.