[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Page 15098]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




THE NOMINATION OF MARY SHEILA GALL TO BECOME CHAIRWOMAN OF THE CONSUMER 
                       PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my serious concerns 
about the President's nominee to Chair the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission, Mary Sheila Gall.
  The Consumer Product Safety Commission was created nearly 30 years 
ago with the mission of protecting our families from consumer products 
that pose serious health or safety risks. The Commission serves as the 
consumer advocate for our Nation's children, protecting them from 
potentially dangerous, and in some cases deadly, products. In short, 
the Commission is charged with saving lives, and it has done so with 
great success over the past several years. This success is based 
primarily on the advocacy role that the Commission has assumed in 
fulfilling its duties for America's families and children. And it is 
Ms. Gall's apparent opposition to this advocacy role that has given me 
serious concerns about her nomination.
  As a Commissioner for the past ten years, Ms. Gall has opposed 
reasonable attempts to review questionable products and implement 
common sense protections for consumers. Perhaps the most troubling 
example of this trend has been Ms. Gall's record on fire safety issues. 
Ms. Gall opposed a review of upholstered furniture flammability and 
small open flame ignition sources, such as matches, lighters, and 
candles. In opposing the review, she stated that ``. . . the benefits 
from imposing a small open flame ignition standard on upholstered 
furniture are overestimated.''
  With all sincerity, I doubt that the brave men and women who risk 
their lives every day fighting house fires in Delaware and throughout 
the Nation would agree with that assessment. Nor would they agree with 
Ms. Gall's decision to walk away from fire safety standards for 
children's sleepwear. In 1996, Ms. Gall voted to weaken fire safety 
standards that required children's sleepwear to be made from flame-
resistant fabrics. Ms. Gall joined another commissioner in exempting 
from this standard any sleepwear for children less than nine months 
old, and any sleepwear that is tight-fitting for children sizes 7-14. I 
support the original standard, which worked for more than two decades 
before it was weakened by the Commission. And I have cosponsored 
legislation with my former colleague from Delaware, Senator Bill Roth, 
that called on the Commission to restore the original standard that all 
children's sleepwear be flame-resistant.
  But it's not just her record on children's sleepwear and fire safety 
issues that concerns me about Ms. Gall. She has turned her back on 
children and families on a number of occasions, rejecting moderate, 
common-sense warnings and improvements dealing with choking hazards, 
bunk bed slats, and crib slats. In some of these cases, Ms. Gall has 
even opposed efforts to merely review questionable products, to mention 
nothing about imposing regulatory standards to correct any potentially 
dangerous problems. For instance, Ms. Gall opposed a safety review of 
baby walkers that, according to the Commission, were associated with 11 
child deaths between 1989 and 1994, and as many as 28,000 child 
injuries in 1994, alone.
  This safety review brought to light ways to produce walkers that were 
safer for children, which were then used by manufacturers to develop a 
voluntary standard for producing a safer product. This voluntary 
standard was applied within the industry, and a media campaign followed 
to educate parents about the new, safer walkers that were entering the 
marketplace. The Commission has estimated that since the review process 
took place in 1995, injuries related to baby walkers dropped nearly 60 
percent for children under 15 months of age, from an estimated 20,100 
injuries in 1995 to 8,800 in 1999.
  These statistics are proof that the Commission's role as child 
advocate produces results. But if Ms. Gall had her way, we would not 
have had a review of baby walkers at all. And without this review, it 
is unlikely we would have had the important voluntary standards that 
have protected thousands of children. If Ms. Gall is unwilling to even 
take the first step in reviewing potentially dangerous products, I 
question whether we can expect her to fulfill the Commission's 
responsibility as the Nation's child advocate.
  I do not make this decision to oppose Mary Sheila Gall's nomination 
lightly. I have long recognized that the President should generally be 
entitled to have an administration comprised of people of his choosing. 
While his selections should be given considerable deference, that power 
is nonetheless limited by the duty of the United States Senate to 
provide ``advice and consent'' to such appointments.
  Throughout my tenure in the Senate, I have supported countless 
nominees for Cabinet and other high-level positions, including many 
with whom I have disagreed on certain policies. But I have also cast my 
vote against confirmation when I have become convinced that the nominee 
is not suitable to fill the role to which the person was nominated. I 
have reluctantly reached the conclusion that this is one such case. It 
is one thing to serve as a commissioner, as Ms. Gall has done these 
past ten years. But serving as chair of this important Commission is a 
very different role. As such, I strongly urge my colleagues on the 
Senate Commerce Committee to oppose Ms. Gall's nomination as Chairwoman 
of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. To put it simply, there is 
nothing less than children's lives at stake.

                          ____________________