The House is nearing passing of a bill that would tighten safety standards for miners and expand the enforcement authority of the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), according to CQ Politics.

The bill is a follow up to the MINER Act which passed in 2006 after the Sago and Darby mine disasters. George Miller (D-CA), chairman of the House Education and Labor committee and champion of the bill, believes continuing mine safety problems and collapses like the one in Crandall Canyon Utah last year warrant additional Congressional action.

The White House Office of Management and Budget issued a veto threat of the bill yesterday. OMB says the bill would undermine progress being made in implementing the MINER Act and, in some cases, would actually make mines less safe.

That seems unlikely, especially since the United Mine Workers (the major union for miners) supports the bill.

If the bill also passes the Senate, it is unclear whether Democrats will be able to rally enough votes to override a Bush veto. According to CQ Politics, some House Republicans oppose the bill:

Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon , R-Calif., slammed the bill as "premature at best," adding it "ignores the progress that has been made." He urged adoption of a GOP substitute that would strip the new fines, earlier timelines and stricter safety requirements from the bill.

Judging by that description, the Republican bill must be a few blank sheets of paper.

Update: The House passed the bill in a 214-199 vote.

As Reg•Watch mentioned last week, in 2007, new regulatory policies and the inability of federal agencies to protect the public made headlines more so than at any time in recent memory. Newspapers continually ran stories on White House interference, unsafe imports, and new hazards being ignored by government despite scientific evidence imploring regulation.

In 2007, Americans became trenchantly aware of the positive role government can play and the consequences that can be wrought when regulatory protections break down. But 2007 may have only been the beginning of a new chapter in American domestic policy. Many problems have been identified, but few have been solved. Dangerous imports, workplace hazards and environmental degradation may dominate headlines to an even greater extent in 2008.

But will mounting evidence be enough to tip the scales in favor of regulation in the face of the Bush administration's obstructionist policies? Federal agencies like EPA and OSHA may continue to drag their feet on issues such as diacetyl exposure (which threatens workers and consumers exposed to the artificial butter flavoring in microwave popcorn) and greenhouse gas emissions, and the White House will likely continue to meddle with agency regulations and may find new ways to enact even more damaging systemic changes.

Will a Democratically controlled Congress be able to move with the force necessary to pass new laws that respond to public needs? Despite the increased attention given to resource shortfalls at agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission and FDA, Congress has been unable to approve appropriations bills that would make funding and staffing at those agencies commensurate with regulatory responsibility. Legislative measures, like those to improve import safety or reform our nation's energy policy, are constructive but have gained little traction in a Congress seemingly without a sense of national priorities — a Congress which prefers partisan bickering to positive governing.

Most importantly, will the public continue to look to government to play a positive role in society? If regulatory failures do indeed continue through 2008 and beyond, will the public succeed in imploring government intervention where circumstance has not? If our leaders continue to disregard science, govern on the cheap, and make politics a higher priority than policy, the public must hold those leaders accountable and demand change.

Nancy Nord, head of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, will use the agency's newly-boosted budget to station product inspectors at the nation's busiest ports, according to an article in Congress Daily (via GovExec.com).

CPSC staff at ports will not be authorized to turn away dangerous cargo, but it can advise U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials who have the power to deny unsafe products entry into the country. CPSC employees are posted near ports and sometimes conduct inspections, but they also are assigned other duties. The permanent port staff will have access to information on recalls and high-risk products through a tracking system CPSC is developing, Nord said.

The omnibus spending bill for FY 2008, finalized in Congress in late December, included a $17 million (or about 27 percent) increase for CPSC, the regulatory body in charge of ensuring the safety of toys, clothes, and a host of other consumer products. Congress raised the agency's budget in light of mounting evidence that resource and staffing shortfalls were at least partially responsible for a spate of product recalls announced in 2007. President Bush's budget proposed less than $1 million in increases, a virtual budget cut when considering inflation.

Congress is also looking at long-term resource increases and other reforms which would improve CPSC's responsiveness and effectiveness. In December, the House passed the Consumer Product Safety Modernization Act. Senate progress has been slower. For more, read the Jan. 8 OMB Watch article, "Congress Limps Toward Product Safety Reform".

Here's an OMB Watch update on President Bush's recent changes to the regulatory process and Congress's efforts to stop them:

Congress Fails to Mitigate Executive Order's Damaging Impacts

In January, President Bush made significant changes to the regulatory process by issuing Executive Order 13422. (Click here for background.) Since then, OMB Watch has voiced its opposition to E.O. 13422 for three primary reasons:

• It requires agency regulatory policy officers to be presidential appointees and gives them new power to start and stop regulations.
• It shifts the focus for promulgating regulations from the identification of a problem like threats to public health to the identification of a "specific market failure."
• It allows the White House to exert control over agency guidance documents — subjecting a new class of information to political considerations and possible delay.

On June 28, the House passed the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, FY 2008, and included an amendment which would have prevented the White House from spending money to implement any part of E.O. 13422. Although the bill would not have fully countered the E.O.'s effects, it would have eliminated some White House interference in agencies' work this year. The amendment was offered on the House floor by Reps. Brad Miller (D-NC) and Linda Sanchez (D-CA).

The inclusion of Miller and Sanchez's amendment created a golden opportunity for the Senate to follow suit and pass a defunding provision of its own. OMB Watch asked you to contact your senators and urge them to pass such a provision and send a clear signal to Bush that his attempts to erode our public safety net would not go unnoticed.

And you responded whole-heartedly. More than 2,000 citizens sent emails through our website to their senators. A similar effort by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit group that advocates for scientific integrity in public policy, generated more than 10,000 phone calls.

However, the Senate never debated or voted on their version of the Financial Services appropriations bill. Congress was unable to complete its work on individual appropriations bills and instead, resorted to a consolidated, or omnibus, bill in order to avoid a government shut down.

Unfortunately, when preparing the omnibus bill, the Democratic leadership decided to remove the Miller/Sanchez provision in spite of the thousands of citizens who had called on their representatives to take action. The omnibus appropriations bill cleared both the House and Senate, and is expected to be signed by the president this week.

OMB Watch is disappointed that Congress was unable to combat Bush's efforts to expand White House interference in the regulatory process. On the amendment defunding E.O. 13422 (along with a number of other contentious provisions), the Democratic leadership lacked the broad congressional support necessary to overcome the Bush administration's attacks on the regulatory process.

What's next?
OMB Watch will continue to monitor developments on E.O. 13422 and look for ways to oppose it whenever possible. Your voice will continue to be critical in proving public opposition to Bush's changes and calling on Congress to create a more responsive regulatory system that reflects the positive role government can play in our society. Thank you for your continued support.