Yesterday, Reg•Watch blogged about how Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats are calling for the resignation of the acting-chair of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, Nancy Nord. Without Nord, CPSC would be unable to conduct formal business likely making consumer product problems worse for Americans, at least in the short term.

Calling for Nord's resignation is problematic for another reason too. The Democrats are now shifting attention to a personal political battle and away from steps Congress is taking to improve product safety.

Lost in the battle between Nord and the Democrats is news that the Senate Commerce Committee passed a proactive, bipartisan bill which would make sweeping positive changes at CPSC — the very bill that started the battle in the first place.

Yesterday afternoon, the committee approved with bipartisan support the CPSC Reform Act of 2007 (S. 2045). Among other things, the bill would:

• Dramatically increase the budget and staffing at CPSC;
• Require third-party testing and certification for children's products;
• Ban lead in children's products; and
• Enable CPSC to levy greater fines on delinquent manufacturers.

Until Nord began illogically opposing this legislation and Democrats began calling for her resignation, the debate over improving consumer product safety had been positive and constructive. The CPSC Reform Act of 2007 emerged in that climate.

CPSC officials recognized they could not adequately fulfill their mission with the resources at hand, and Congress recognized it had been somewhat negligent in pursuing policy to improve the situation. Industry groups and manufacturers also joined the call for more resources and regulatory authority at CPSC recognizing everyone benefits when product safety is assured.

Nord and Democrats should get back to a proactive debate if they intend to solve the problems of our product safety regulatory system.

As Reg•Watch blogged this morning, CPSC Commissioner Nancy Nord is lobbying against a CPSC reform bill that would strengthen the agency's authority and increase its budget.

In light of Nord's lobbying, congressional Democrats, including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, are calling for Nord's resignation, according to the Associated Press.

While Nord's resignation may allow Democrats to score some political points, it would actually make the situation worse for American consumers. Without Nord, two of the three commissioner posts at CPSC would be vacant. With only one commissioner, CPSC would not have the voting quorum necessary to conduct formal business. That would mean no mandatory recalls and no new regulations — including a regulation banning lead in toys which would be mandated if Congress passed the CPSC reform legislation in its current form.

The inability to conduct formal business would be particularly frustrating because CPSC just regained its voting quorum on August 3. When the former head of CPSC left in July 2006, under federal law, the agency was able to operate with a temporary quorum for six months. The temporary quorum expired in January. Fortunately, Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) included a provision in an unrelated bill which renewed the six month temporary quorum starting Aug. 3 when the bill was signed into law.

President Bush is certainly to blame for not filling the existing vacancy 13 months after it occurred; but Nord's resignation would only make matters worse. Bush could then go the remainder of his term and never fill the commission with new appointees and render CPSC useless. Based on seven years of anti-regulatory policy, a useless CPSC may be Bush's favorite kind. While Nord's position on the CPSC reform legislation is ridiculous, her ouster would be playing right into Bush's hands.

Reg•Watch Update:"Senate Panel Moves CPSC Reform Act"

The current head of the CPSC is lobbying against legislation that would strengthen her agency, The New York Times reports:

On the eve of an important Senate committee meeting to consider the legislation, Nancy A. Nord, the acting chairwoman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, has asked lawmakers in two letters not to approve the bulk of legislation that would increase the agency's authority, double its budget and sharply increase its dwindling staff.

Ms. Nord opposes provisions that would increase the maximum penalties for safety violations and make it easier for the government to make public reports of faulty products, protect industry whistle-blowers and prosecute executives of companies that willfully violate laws.

Nord's position is peculiar because, in a September Senate hearing, she recognized the depleted resources of CPSC and faulted Congress for neglecting the agency for so long. The Times insinuates Nord may be coordinating her efforts with the White House:

Ms. Nord's opposition to important elements of the legislation is consistent with the broadly deregulatory approach of the Bush administration over the last seven years. In a variety of areas, from antitrust to trucking and worker safety, officials appointed by President Bush have sought to reduce the role of regulation and government in the marketplace.

Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, said that Ms. Nord had not coordinated her effort to kill the legislation with the White House. But he said that the administration shared many of her concerns.

Reg•Watch Update: "Politicking between Democrats and Nord Threatens CPSC"

Yesterday, Reg•Watch blogged about an amendment introduced by Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO) which would cut funding for federal programs deemed "ineffective" by the White House Office of Management and Budget.

Last night, the amendment was defeated in a 68-21 vote. It is heartening to see such a resounding defeat as it will make future attempts to push the provision less likely. Thanks to everyone who contacted their senators.

A subcommittee of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing last week on the current state of Superfund, the federal government's toxic waste clean-up program.

Senators and witnesses discussed how the Superfund program has fallen into disrepair under the Bush administration. One major problem has been a lack of adequate funding. In her opening statement, subcommittee chairman Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) said, "The administration has tied itself into knots defending the absurd position that more money would not help all that much. And they have been extremely secretive about this project, keeping information from the public, and stonewalling this committee."

Rena Steinzor, Professor at the University of Maryland School of Law and scholar at the Center for Progressive Reform, testified about the funding shortfalls and the unfortunate consequences: "In constant dollars, revenue appropriated for the Superfund program now stand at levels 40 percent lower than the amounts Congress specified when it last reauthorized the program in 1986."

Steinzor argues the program's budget has been cut even though many Superfund sites pose a serious threat to communities. She points out, as is too often true with environmental impacts, Superfund neglect disproportionately effect poor and minority populations:

Many of these communities are low income and comprised of people of color. Of the 50 sites we studied, 60 percent were located in neighborhoods where households reported median incomes in the range of $40,000 and some 26 percent were in the midst of populations comprised of 40 percent or more racial or ethnic minorities.

Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO) has introduced an amendment to the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill (H.R. 3043) that would threaten the budgets of important federal programs. The amendment would tie a program's budget to the White House Office of Management and Budget's Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) — a flawed measure of a program's effectiveness and efficiency.

Allard's amendment would make PART ratings a trigger for budget cuts. If a program is rated "ineffective" by OMB assessors, the budget of that program would be automatically cut by 10 percent.

Imagine the possibilities. If the White House opposed a certain program — even if that program was an exemplar of government virtue and efficiency — OMB could deem the program "ineffective," leading to across the board budget cuts.

This is far from a conspiracy theory. OMB often doles out "ineffective" ratings on flimsy pretenses. Consider EPA's Air Quality Grants and Permitting Program which "support[s] the prevention and control of air pollution at the state and local level" by issuing pollution management permits and research and development grants.

OMB has deemed the program ineffective because it does not currently have efficiency measures in place and because "It is not clear that the current grant allocation methods for program implementation funding or for air pollution monitoring efforts are adequate." (Who among us does not fear the horrors of unclear grant allocation methods...)

Allard's amendment is bad policy that will likely yield bad results. The Senate may consider the amendment as it debates the appropriations bill today and tomorrow. Allard's amendment may come up for debate as soon as this afternoon. You can tell your senator to oppose Allard's amendment by calling or emailing. (Senate switchboard: 202-224-3121)

Be sure to check out the latest issue of our biweekly newsletter, The Watcher. Regulatory policy articles this time:

Bush Administration Delays Import Safety Changes While Congress Debates Solutions

States Sue Bush Administration over New Children's Health Insurance Requirements

House Energy and Commerce Committee Proposes Climate Change Legislation Framework

Yesterday, 22 members of the House of Representatives wrote to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson urging him to tighten the national standard for ozone, a.k.a. smog. In June, EPA proposed a range of 0.070 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm for the new standard. The current standard is 0.084 ppm.

While any standard within EPA's proposed range would be an improvement, it may not be good enough. As the congressmen point out:

The EPA's panel of expert science advisors, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), unanimously found that the smog standard "needs to be substantially reduced to protect human health, particularly in sensitive subpopulations." . . . CASAC called for [a] standard of .060 to .070 ppm. Experts on lung health, including the American Thoracic Society and the American Lung Association, are calling for a standard of .060 ppm given the strength of the scientific evidence.

The congressmen's point is important because the Clean Air Act requires EPA to periodically revise the standard in order to protect public health and to make decisions that "reflect the latest scientific knowledge." The bipartisan group (16 Democrats and six Republicans) concludes by asking Johnson to adopt a standard within CASAC's recommended range.

Unfortunately, the congressmen miss another key aspect of the Clean Air Act. The Act prohibits EPA from considering monetary costs or benefits when setting the standard. EPA must set the standard solely based on public health considerations. Later, when EPA provides the regulated community with guidance on how to use pollution reduction methods to meet the standard, economics are considered.

Nonetheless, the letter makes an economic argument: "It is interesting to note that studies have shown that there are large economic benefits to lowering the air pollution burden on public health and the environment."

Even when a tighter ozone standard would be an economic boon, EPA cannot consider the monetary benefits. An economically beneficial regulation may be good policy, but it is inappropriate to argue the point here, based on the language in the Clean Air Act. The debate over EPA's revision to the ozone standard must be one of science and public health, not economics.