http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/03/politics/03CONS.html
|
August 3, 2001 Democrats Reject Bush's Choice to Head Product Safety Panel
By LIZETTE ALVAREZ
By a vote of 12 to 11, Democrats rebuffed the nomination of Mary Sheila
Gall, saying her record as a member of the commission showed an alarming
disregard for children's safety and warning that her elevation to chairwoman
would benefit manufacturers, not consumers. They expressed particular concern
about her reluctance to push for federal oversight of faulty baby walkers,
baby bathtubs and bunk beds. Thousands of children were injured by the
products and some killed. Ms. Gall told the senators last week that she sought to curtail the
government's reach when other solutions seemed appropriate. She said she did
not think much progress could be gained by regulators who "club people
over the head." For months Republicans had predicted their first big confrontation with
Democrats over nominations would relate to judges. Instead, Democrats chose
Ms. Gall, an obscure member of a commission that typically attracts little
attention, but one whose track record they said made the Bush administration
seem callous about children's safety. The product safety commission sets safety standards and orders recalls of
products that could cause death or injury. Another Bush nominee, Robert S. Mueller III, was unanimously endorsed by
the Senate Judiciary Committee today to become director of the Federal Bureau
of Investigation. His confirmation by the full Senate is assured, probably
this week. On the safety commission nomination, Senator John Edwards, a North
Carolina Democrat on the commerce panel and a personal injury lawyer, said
that as chairwoman, Ms. Gall would have to serve as "chief advocate for
those who simply cannot protect themselves." "She has repeatedly opposed modest standards that would prevent
injury, even when the standards were supported by industry," Mr. Edwards
said. "Instead of trying to make products safer, she blames consumers,
parents and caregivers." Republicans immediately accused Democrats of playing partisan politics in
rejecting a nominee who had twice been confirmed by the Senate to serve on
the commission. Senator John McCain of Arizona, the ranking Republican on the
committee, labeled it a "smear campaign." Shortly after the vote, Senator Tom Daschle, the majority leader from
South Dakota, all but doomed the nomination by ruling out a full Senate vote.
"When the committee speaks on nominations, other than judicial, I think
that ought to be the final word," Mr. Daschle said. "I don't have
any expectation that it needs to go further than that." But the White House and Republicans vowed today to explore ways to rescue
Ms. Gall's nomination. One possibility was to persuade Mr. Daschle to change
his mind. A Republican senator raised the possibility of stalling the
Senate's work until Ms. Gall's nomination is taken up. The White House may
also have the option of downgrading the current chairwoman, Ann Brown, a
Democrat, to commissioner, to force action on the nomination. Ms. Gall is the
only Republican on the three- member commission. "Mary Gall did not lose today," said Ari Fleischer, the White
House press secretary. "Bipartisanship lost today. Suffice it to say the
president was disappointed in the vote." Republicans expressed astonishment at the Democrats' action, calling it
inexplicable considering that Ms. Gall had been renominated and confirmed in
1999 under President Clinton. President George Bush appointed Ms. Gall in
1991. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, a friend of the
current chairwoman, Ms. Brown, took a leading role in opposing Ms. Gall's
nomination. Senator McCain said that when Ms. Gall came to her confirmation hearing
last week: "What she faced was a group of senators with rope in their
hands. For partisan reasons, Ms. Gall was going to be hanged regardless of
what she said." But Democrats contend that Ms. Gall was reconfirmed in 1999 as part of a
quid pro quo deal with Republicans that also cleared the way for Ms. Brown's
confirmation as chairwoman. And they note that, as chairwoman, Ms. Gall would
have considerably more power to set the agenda. The Consumers' Union, which publishes Consumer Reports and typically does
not make recommendations on nominations, took the unusual step of opposing
her selection. At a hearing before the committee last week, Ms. Gall faced an onslaught
of difficult questions from Democrats about some of her votes. In 1994, Ms. Gall voted against opening an investigation into a faulty
brand of baby bath seat. Parents had complained that the seats easily tipped
in the bathtub, leaving their children vulnerable to drowning. At the hearing, Ms. Gall stated that in 1994 the commission faced
"extreme cases" in making their decision. In one case, the mother
was drunk, left the water running in the bathtub and failed to supervise the
baby. "There is no mandatory standard, there is no performance standard,
there is no bath that will protect the baby in that kind of circumstance,"
she said. This year, Ms. Gall reversed her vote on the seats, saying new evidence
showed there was a problem. Another problematic vote for Democrats concerned Ms. Gall's reluctance in
1999 to require bunk bed manufacturers to repair a problem that had injured
children by wedging them between slats. She was the lone dissenter that year
when the commission voted, 2 to 1, to require mandatory safety regulations
for bunk beds. Ms. Gall said she felt the manufacturer could voluntarily
agree to fix the problem. Consumer watchdogs said that 89 children had died and 31,000 had been
injured as a result of the defect. This was over a period of 10 years. "I am convinced that President Bush can do better," said Senator
Ernest F. Hollings, the South Carolina Democrat who is chairman of the
committee, before casting his vote. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ALL
INFORMATION, DATA, AND MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR
GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE
KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED
AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO
VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU
ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.