[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13627-13628]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     NOMINATION OF MICHAEL BAROODY

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, the White House has just 
announced the President has withdrawn the nomination of Michael Baroody 
to be the Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. I think 
this is a wise move on the part of the White House because of the 
perceived conflict of interest of Mr. Baroody--an employee of the 
National Association of Manufacturers being nominated to be the 
Chairman of the very regulatory agency that governs the regulation and 
the safety of the very products of the industry from which he comes.
  It would be like, in my former life as the elected insurance 
commissioner, if in a State where the Governor appointed the insurance 
commissioner, a regulator, the Governor would pick an executive of an 
insurance company to regulate the very industry he came from as the 
insurance commissioner.
  By the way, that happens with tremendous frequency in the 50 States, 
that they appoint the insurance commissioner, and they are usually 
there for less than a year. Then the revolving door turns again, and 
they go right back into the very industry from which they came and of 
which they had just been the regulator.
  Putting someone from the National Association of Manufacturers at the 
head of the Consumer Product Safety Commission is a similar kind of 
potential conflict of interest.
  I will give you another example. My former colleague and friend in 
the House, Billy Tauzin--a distinguished public servant, Congressman 
formerly from Louisiana--now is the head of Pharmaceutical Research and 
Manufacturers of America. This would be like the White House appointing 
Billy Tauzin--the very head of an association in the industry--to 
regulate that industry by making him head of the Food and Drug 
Administration, the regulatory body that would regulate the 
pharmaceutical industry.
  Of course, I do not think the White House would even think of doing 
such a thing.
  Well, a similar kind of conflict of interest arose. But a more 
serious note even arose than the potential conflict when it became 
apparent there was a severance package that had been created for Mr. 
Baroody while he was still in the employ of the National Association of 
Manufacturers that was for $150,000; and subsequently we learned of an 
additional amendment to that severance package, after it was announced

[[Page 13628]]

he was nominated to be Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission.
  Mr. Baroody came in and we had a discussion about this issue. He had 
his own explanation. I do not take anything from that explanation. So, 
naturally, the next request that I made was that I think the Commerce 
Committee ought to see the documents of the $150,000 severance package 
and its amendments, its subsequent modification.
  Mr. Baroody said he would consider that request. Of course, the clock 
was ticking because there was going to be a hearing in front of the 
Commerce Committee tomorrow on his nomination. But, in the meantime, 
the White House has just announced it is having the President withdraw 
the nomination.
  I will conclude by saying we have a saying down in the South in 
regard to avoiding a conflict of interest. It is like putting a fox in 
charge of the hen house, the very hen house with the hens you want to 
protect. It is an apparent conflict of interest. I think the White 
House was well served to withdraw the nomination.

                          ____________________