Bush OKs Tough Product Safety Rules

Following Panel Recommendations, President Proposes Recall Authority For The FDA

(CBS/AP) 
Bush's proposal drew some quick criticism.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said the president's package "leaves consumers in the dark and continues the hodgepodge of federal oversight."

"Of course we need tougher penalties, more inspections, and better information sharing when it comes to the food and toys coming into our country," Schumer said. "However, the rubber won't meet the road until the administration does three key things: Provide the FDA and CPSC with more federal dollars so they can carry out their heavy mandates; give consumers quick and user-friendly access to comprehensive food and product safety information; and set and implement government-wide priorities for import and domestic food and product safety oversight."

Bush put an emphasis on the recommendation for an expanded enforcement role for the FDA.

"The FDA will be empowered to order a recall when a company refuses to recall their product voluntarily, or moves too slowly in removing an unsafe product from the market," he said. "With this authority, the FDA will be in a position to act quickly when the problem occurs."

Bush said the United States imported nearly $2 trillion of goods last year through more than 825,000 importers.

"And the vast majority of these imports are safe," Bush said. "Unfortunately, in recent months, Americans have seen imports from toys to toothpaste to pet food recalled because of safety concerns."

Bush said the Food and Drug Administration also was unveiling a food protection plan.

"This plan addresses both imported and domestically produced food and will strengthen the FDA's ability to coordinate with other federal agencies to protect our food supply," the president said.

"Identifying risks all along the food supply chain, this plan will help prevent the problems from arising, respond effectively if they do, and improve communication with industry and our public," Bush said.

Meanwhile, the embattled head of the Consumer Product Safety Commission vigorously defended her enforcement record Tuesday amid Democratic assertions that a slow product recall policy forces parents to play "toybox roulette."

Nancy Nord, a Bush administration appointee, said she supported additional money to bolster the troubled regulatory agency, calling a proposed House bill doubling its budget "a win for consumers."

Nord also told a House Energy and Commerce panel that she did no wrong by accepting three free trips from industry worth thousands of dollars, saying it had been common agency practice with approval from CPSC attorneys.

"This practice, not common by me, is legal ... and was in place for 20 years, long before I came to the commission," she told lawmakers who questioned her independence.

"Faced with limited enforcement dollars," Nord said, "I would much rather spend $900 in a laboratory than on airfare and hotel."

Still, Nord acknowledged that reasonable people could argue about the propriety of the trips and said that in the event Congress wants to ban the practice, she would support that. "If Congress wishes to do that and give us the funds, yes of course, I will," she said.

Nord, who has said she won't resign, contended that it was important for CPSC and Congress to work together to fix problems as the busy holiday shopping season approaches.

"As acting chairman, I believed that it was important for me to be proactive and come forward to Congress with my ideas to strengthen the commission's hand in enforcing our laws and protecting the American public from unsafe products," Nord said.

Some Democratic lawmakers weren't fully convinced.

"It's one thing when we all resolve to work together on the millions of millions of products recalled in the face of danger or injury. It's another thing when the chairwoman designated to take care of those issues responds by saying it is too cumbersome to adopt the reforms suggested," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill.

Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., said it was clear the CPSC has not been fully doing its job during Nord's two-year tenure.

"The CPSC once stood for the Consumer Protection Safety Commission. Today it stands for 'Can't Protect the Safety of Children,"' Markey said. "The reality is CPSC has lost 15 percent of its workforce since 2004. ...As the holidays approach, parents should not have to play toybox roulette."

Last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats demanded Nord's resignation after she opposed a Senate measure that would, in part, have authorized the hiring of more staff and a doubling of CPSC's budget. Nord says she opposes separate provisions in the measure that would have extended protections to whistleblowers and would have made it easier for the government to make public reports of faulty products.

Nord and her predecessor as chairman, Hal Stratton, reportedly accepted free trips worth thousands of dollars at industry expense. The purported aim: To share information with industry about "CPSC priorities" and discuss toy safety.

Nord has requested the Office of Government Ethics to review whether the trips created, as critics say, an improper appearance of conflicts of interest.

Consumer advocates have questioned whether Nord has the independence to energize a CPSC that has seen a record number of recalls involving millions of lead-tainted toys and other products this year.

"Acting Chairman Nord is totally wrongheaded in her approach. She's forgotten that it's the Consumer Product Safety Commission, not the Business Product Safety Commission," said Ann Brown, who chaired the CPSC during the Clinton administration.

On Tuesday, CPSC commissioner Thomas Moore said it was vital that Congress act quickly to provide CPSC more money. At the same time, he pleaded for patience to let the agency rebuild as Nord clings to her job.

"The downsizing and dismantling of the agency has been going on for a while, so I ask you to be patient with all of us at the agency as we rebuild our staff expertise and, with your strong support, refocus our efforts on providing a greater level of product safety," said Moore, a Democrat.

[starleo146]

Impeachment''s not the solution to psychosis, no matter how flagrant. But despite their impressive foresight in other areas, the framers unaccountably neglected to include an involuntary civil commitment procedure in the Constitution.

Still, don''t lose hope. By enlisting the aid of mental health professionals and the court system, Congress can act to remedy that constitutional oversight. The goal: Get Bush and Cheney committed to an appropriate inpatient facility, where they can get the treatment they so desperately need. In Washington, the appropriate statutory law is already in place: If a "court or jury finds that [a] person is mentally ill and ... is likely to injure himself or other persons if allowed to remain at liberty, the court may order his hospitalization."

I''ll even serve on the jury. When it comes to averting World War III, it''s really the least I can do.

[starleo146]

You''d better believe these guys would do it too. Why not? They have nothing to lose -- they''re out of office in 15 months anyway. Aprhs Bush-Cheney, le diluge! (Have fun, Hillary.)

But all this creates a conundrum. What''s a constitutional democracy to do when the president and vice president lose their marbles?

The U.S. is full of ordinary people with serious forms of mental illness -- delusional people with violent fantasies who think they''re the president, or who think they get instructions from the CIA through their dental fillings.

The problem with Bush is that he is the president -- and he gives instructions to the CIA and military, without having to go through his dental fillings.

[starleo146]

Planet Cheney.

Zakaria may be misinterpreting the president''s remark about World War III though. He saw it as a dangerously loopy Bush prediction about the future behavior of a nuclear Iran -- the idea being, presumably, that possessing "the knowledge" to make a nuclear weapon would so empower Iran''s repressive leaders that they''ll giddily rush out and start World War III.

But you could read Bush''s remark as a madman''s threat rather than a madman''s prediction -- as a warning to recalcitrant states, from Germany to Russia, that don''t seem to share his crazed obsession with Iran. The message: Fall into line with administration policy toward Iran or you can count on the U.S.A. to try to start World War III on its own. And when it comes to sparking global conflagration, a U.S. attack on Iran might be just the thing. Yee haw!

[starleo146]

Huh? Iran is now a major threat to Europe? The Iranians are going to launch a nuclear missile (that they don''t yet possess) against Europe (for reasons unknown because, as far as we know, they''re not mad at anyone in Europe)? This is lunacy in action.

Writing in Newsweek on Oct. 20, Fareed Zakaria, a solid centrist and former editor of Foreign Affairs, put it best. Citing Bush''s invocation of "the specter of World War III if Iran gained even the knowledge needed to make a nuclear weapon," Zakaria concluded that "the American discussion about Iran has lost all connection to reality. ... Iran has an economy the size of Finland''s. ... It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are 110 times greater. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are ... allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?

[starleo146]

That would be with Iran, and you''d have to be deaf not to hear the war drums. Last week, Bush remarked that "if you''re interested in avoiding World War III ... you ought to be interested in preventing [Iran] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." On Sunday, Cheney warned of "the Iranian regime''s efforts to destabilize the Middle East and to gain hegemonic power ... [we] cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its most aggressive ambitions." On Tuesday, Bush insisted on the need "to defend Europe against the emerging Iranian threat."

[starleo146]

Forget impeachment.

Liberals, put it behind you. George W. Bush and *** Cheney shouldn''t be treated like criminals who deserve punishment. They should be treated like psychotics who need treatment.

Because they''ve clearly gone mad. Exhibit A: We''re in the middle of a disastrous war in Iraq, the military and political situation in Afghanistan is steadily worsening, and the administration''s interrogation and detention tactics have inflamed anti-Americanism and fueled extremist movements around the globe. Sane people, confronting such a situation, do their best to tamp down tensions, rebuild shattered alliances, find common ground with hostile parties and give our military a little breathing space. But crazy people? They look around and decide it''s a great time to start another war.

[killtheliars]

Watch what the FDA ends up banning. Our kids will still be exposed to toxic paint on chinese made krap, but they will stop any product that may cut inot drug company profits.

[bigsk8fan]

sure bush is concerned about product safety. I have a bridge in new york i want to sell you too.

the devil is in the details. let''s if bush provides any funding to actually oversee this new concern about product safety; or will it be underfunded like the "no child left behind" act?

the problem is that everyone knows george w bush and republicans are hypocrites. so we are waiting for the other shoe to fall.

[brianbwb-2009]

Boy it would seem there are lot of bigots who don''''t like bush. I like bigots as enemies
Posted by alanrobisch2

Come on Al, you have posted your rather generous share of bigoted statements also, does that make you your own enemy?

Actually, now that I ponder it, it does...

[missingamerica]

This doesn''t mean a *** thing, since it is the Administration''s practice that anything released by a Federal agency for public consumption must be reviewed by their representative.

Given their other practice of altering, censoring, or just concealing information if it might negatively affect some corporation''s profits, I repeat:

This doesn''t mean a *** thing.

[watcher269-2009]

Wow, one good Decision! After 7 years in office Bushit finally did something Good for America!

The republicans will probably try and nominate him for a Pulizter now.

At least with this decision American don''t have to step in Bushit on this one!

[jetranger7]

SAFTEY HUH ?? THE SAFEST THING IS FOR THIS IDIOT REDNECK PRESIDENT IS TO STEP DOWN AS PRESIDENT OR QUIT, THATS THE SAFEST THING FOR THIS COUNTRY !!!!

[mediapreachr]

I don''t care,I''m not buying chinese *** anymore.

[johnny_chaos]

alanrobisch2 - lol.

[racam_us]

After six and one half years he awakens. What an idiot!

[kjvprophet]

They Don''t call him "Doctor No" for no reason. Congressman, Paul never votes for any Bill which he feels is not authorized by The Constitution, regardless of what it is named. Ron Paul "is one of the easiest people in Congress to work with, because he bases his positions on the merits of issues," says Barney Frank, who has worked with Paul on efforts to ease the regulation of gambling and medical marijuana. "He is independent, but not ornery." Paul has made a habit of objecting to things that no one else objects to. In October 2001, he was one of only three House Republicans to vote against the USA Patriot Act. He was the sole House member of either party to vote against the Financial Antiterrorism Act (412-1). In 1999, he was the only naysayer in a 424-1 vote in favor of casting a medal to honor Rosa Parks. Nothing against Rosa Parks. Paul also voted against similar medals for Reagan and Pope John Paul II. He did offer $100 of his own money, though, to help pay for Reagan''s medal, and invited others in Congress to match his offer, but not one Member took him-up on it. Instead, Congress spent YOUR money. He not only routinely opposes resolutions that are unconstitutional, he votes against Bills which presume to advise foreign governments how to run their affairs: He has refused to condemn Mugabe''s violence against Zimbabwean citizens (421-1), to call on Vietnam to release political prisoners (425-1) or to ask the League of Arab States to help stop the killing in Darfur (425-1).

[alanrobisch]

Most are overweight, lack curiosity, have overly inflated yet extremely fragile egos and ugly wives.

Posted by johnny_chaos at 05:48 PM : Nov 06, 2007

Boy it would seem there are lot of bigots who don''t like bush. I like bigots as enemies

[alanrobisch]

Now going to the House Judiciary Committee.

We can only hope!!

Bring it on!!!


Posted by liberalme at 06:54 PM : Nov 06, 2007
+ report abuse


I hope they do it would show the country what they''ll get if they elect a democrat president

[alanrobisch]

bush supporters...

white trash, rednecks, illiterates, christian creeps, republican idiots, southern snakes...

did i miss anybody?

no, i think that''''s about it.

oh, i forgot those creepy evangelist.

ha,ha,ha

war, hate, arrogance, phony christian creeps...

nothing good comes out of the south


Where did you learn your bigotry?

[starleo146]

Posted by liberalme at 06:54 PM : Nov 06, 2007


As much as I would like this to happen remember Pelosi Its Off The Table watch her,