The bigger-than-life presence of Jim Brady at last week’s press briefing was unexpected but oh so welcomed, this enduring symbol of the triumph of the human spirit over adversity.
Why was he here? The briefing was coordinated by House telecom subcommittee Chairman Billy Tauzin (R-La.), CTIA, the ComCare Alliance and others to unveil legislation to improve wireless E911 with fees paid by carriers to site antennas on federal land.
Surely the bill’s proponents were not trying to suggest that E911 would have spared Brady his unfair and unnecessary life-time sentence to a wheelchair. Brady, in fact, was there to offer support for the E911 bill on behalf of the Brain Injury Association.
The former Reagan press secretary was with his boss on that mad March Monday nearly two decades ago. Brady’s unwelcomed life turn has less to do with E911 than with the relative ease with which folks like John Hinckley got access to firearms in those days.
Thus, the tragic irony of it all: The author of this industry bill with heavy public-safety emphasis voted against 16 of 18 handgun control bills between 1986 and 1996, according to Handgun Control Inc.
Today, the Bear, as Jim Brady is affectionately known, and wife Sarah, are forcing the NRA to take cover.
The Brady’s brave crusade points up another reality: There is often a great gulf that exists between theoretical and ideological considerations that shape public policy and the real world. One day Brady spoke for a man who would have nothing to do with gun control, and the next day he was the NRA’s biggest and most powerful foe. There are other far less poignant examples in Capitol Hill lore of policy making disconnects that could fill the Library of Congress.
Tauzin believes he avoids the disconnect in arguing that money spent to bolster wireless E911 can save lives today. Contrast that, he says, with throwing millions of dollars at much more speculative endeavors, like cell phone-cancer research. Perhaps.
But was it right to blow off Rep. Ed Markey’s request that some siting revenue go for cancer research under FDA purview? Contrary to Tauzin’s view, FDA scientists strongly believe more biological research is needed.
Should not the nearly 60 million mobile phone subscribers have firm assurances from the U.S. government that their life-saving pocket phones are not life-threatening as well-especially in light of the cellular industry’s failure to demystify the issue through carrier- and manufacturer-funded research that barely exists after five years.
What made Tauzin say the cellular industry spent $25 million on cell phone-cancer research and found nothing? What did he mean by `nothing,’ cancer or WTR?
