By William Neikirk
Nancy Nord, embattled head of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, came up with an unusual defense today for accepting free trips from the industry she regulates.
Her agency's budget is so limited, she said, that she'd rather take free travel and spend the rest of enforcement or research.
"Faced with limited enforcement dollars, I would much rather spend $900 in a laboratory than on an airline or hotel," she told a panel of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Besides, she said, the practice of accepting free trips from industry has been an agency practice for more than 20 years and there was nothing inherently wrong with it--a statement that caused some members of the panel to bristle.
But, she said, if Congress approved a budget that enabled members of her agency to travel, she would happily give up accepting free trips.
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) asked Nord how her constituents in Illinois might react if she took free travel from those supporting a particular piece of legislation.
"Hypothetical," responded Nord, refusing to answer it.
Nord admitted to taking three trips financed by the toy industry costing thousands of dollars. Disclosure of the trips by the Washington Post last week prompted calls that she resign. One of these was House Speaker Nancy Peolosi (D-Calif.).
Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) said Nord's defense doesn't "pass the small test." Members of Congress once took free trips but that practice has been abandoned with changing times and changing ethics rules.
Many government agencies--including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Food and Drug Administration--do not allow industry-aid travel by their employees, Degette said.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
"and the big sacks of cash industry gives me means I won't have to ask for a raise. See, it's all good."
Posted by: Nancy Nord | November 6, 2007 3:57 PM
Wait a minute!!
Her budget is stretched - but when the Democrats wanted to increase her budget, she said no - that would encourage more complaints to the commission.
These guys really miss Karl Rove - the spinmeister would have taken care of her.
Posted by: BobinATL | November 6, 2007 4:05 PM
Driveby media people use embattled to denote criticism from liberal Democrats in Nord's case loud mouth Nancy Pelosi who just trashes Bushies for a hobby.
Nancy is not very smart as the Armenian bill or the trip to Syria shows. Nancy is an out of control freelance canon always acting like a Princess. Nord is doing a good job.
Democrats want all Republicans out of government because it goes along with political correctness run amok we don't want to see anybody but liberals or we'll just cry. Jerry White, Springfield, IL
Posted by: Jerry White | November 6, 2007 4:25 PM
As a former Director of Consumer Relations, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Nancy Nord is probably on a first name basis with many of the former clients she travels with. Her purpose in her current position is to protect these former and future clients from law suits over their harmful products. There is no concern for the public in her department.
Posted by: c. perry | November 6, 2007 4:31 PM
LADY NORD, HEY, MY NAME IS NOT BRENT WILKES, AND I DIDN'T GET 400,000 FROM DICK CHENEY TO REMODEL MY OFFICE.
IT'S JUST NOT FAIR!
SHE SHOULD GO TO JAIL, OR BETTER YET, SHE SHOULD HAVE TO HOLD A TONKA TRUCK FROM CHINA FOR A WEEK UNTIL THE PAINT INTERS HER BODY AND SHE TURNS GREEN AND THEN FORGETS THE CONSTITUTION AND HAVE A VALID REASON FOR IT.
NOW SANTA AND HIS LITTLE ELVES WILL HAVE TO GO HORSE RACING INSTEAD OF DELIVERING MUCH NEEDED TOYS.
I HEAR GI JOE TOYS ARE TAINTED TOO!
Posted by: Roger Morris | November 6, 2007 4:49 PM
It doesn't pass the ethics test either.
Posted by: lochnessmonster | November 6, 2007 5:10 PM
I'm so tired of this political grandstanding and bashing. Who is Congress to make these wild accusations when they do the exact thing on a much grander scale? Why isn't the media actually researching stories properly to get the full story instead of posting sound bites?
What's not being reported is the objective of the trips themselves. These are not trips to go play golf or get spa treatments from the industries. The trips are for the CPSC officials to present/teach the requirements for products to comply with the law. The entire purpose is actually to promote the CPSC agenda and US requirements, not to relax and have fun. The industry funds it because it costs money and the CPSC would not be able to fly everywhere to give presentations on their budget.
I really wish the news agencies would get off their collective butts and research stories instead of collecting sound bites from politicians trying to discredit people who disagree with their private or political agendas!
Don
Posted by: Don Moffett | November 8, 2007 7:57 AM
Two opposing views.
So, why do they sound so similar?
[CPSC commissioner's] purpose in her current position is to protect these former and future clients from law suits over their harmful products. (c.perry)
"The trips are for the CPSC officials to present/teach the requirements for products to comply with the law. The entire purpose is actually to promote the CPSC agenda and US requirements..." (Don Moffett)
Posted by: tnachtrab | November 9, 2007 12:43 PM