The House Energy and Commerce Committee has finished round one of its comprehensive energy legislation efforts. Unlike the Senate, the House version does not include an increase in CAFE standards, the national program for vehicle fuel efficiency.

Republicans pushed for improved CAFE standards, but Democrats defeated their efforts. Leading the charge was auto industry lobbyist veteran Michigan Democrat, Congressman John Dingell.

According to Reuters, in its current form the bill would:

require clothes washing machines, dishwashers, refrigerators and freezers to use less energy, and require more efficient light bulbs.

The bill would also provide government funding to develop plug-in electric vehicles and promote alternative fuels like ethanol.

Reg•Watch does not mean to discredit these valuable energy efficiency measures, but seriously? This is what we have waited six months for?

Speaker Pelosi promised this July 4 would be America's energy independence day. That clearly won't happen. Last November's sweeping Democratic victory is turning into a sweeping bore.

Pelosi claims to support the Senate's CAFE increase, and wants to see work on the legislation complete in both chambers by September. But this isn't good enough. The Senate's version contains a provision which would introduce cost-benefit analysis into the CAFE program for the first time. The provision could allow future administrations to block fuel efficiency increases by citing the cost to the auto industry.

If Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats want to make good on their campaign promises, they should pass strong CAFE legislation which recognizes the benefits of a cleaner environment, improved public health, and national security instead of the costs to Detroit.

Yesterday, the House passed an appropriations bill which would fund the Consumer Product Safety Commission at a level $3.6 million above President Bush's request, according to the National Journal (subscription required).

In February, Reg•Watch derided President Bush for proposing cuts in the budget of the independent agency which regulates and forces recalls of common household items such as toys, clothes and electronics. Bush's budget request would result in the lowest staffing levels in agency history.

The Senate should follow suit in restoring CPSC's budget and allowing the agency to fully carry out its duties.

On Jan. 3, EPA published a proposed rule potentially allowing "major source" air pollutant emitters to be downgraded to "area source" emitters. Major sources are subject to maximum achievable control technology (MACT), which often results in a significant reduction in air pollution. Area sources are not subject to the MACT standard.

Under the current rules, major sources retain that designation permanently — a policy EPA refers to as "once-in, always-in." The proposed rule would repeal the current policy.

Environmentalists have criticized the rule for being too lenient on big polluters. Yesterday, the House took action. The bill appropriating funds to EPA includes language which would forbid EPA from using money to implement the rule, according to BNA news service (subscription). The bill passed the House and will soon be reconciled with the Senate version.

The bill will likely be vetoed by President Bush for exceeding his budget request. Regardless, this is an interesting case example of Congress's ability to use its power of the purse to counter the administration's deregulatory actions. It's a strategy Democrats should continue to examine during the remainder of Bush's second term.

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

EPA Announces Proposed Smog Standard

House Legislation Would Force Regulatory Review

House Bills Address Mining Health and Safety Shortfalls

Last week, the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved a bill to reform certain drug regulation practices at FDA and renew the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA). The full Senate approved a similar bill in May. (For a detailed analysis of the Senate version, click here.

The Pharmalot blog has a good summary of some of the drug safety provisions in the House bill which go beyond what the Senate approved.

The user fee program, the other half of the bill, is a double-edged sword. While it is an important source of funding for the agency, it comes with strings attached and allows drug companies to call the shots during the approval process.

A provision in the House bill demonstrates this dichotomy. The bill would reduce the amount of fees paid by industry if federal appropriations increase. This is encouraging, because many public health and safety advocates believe the federal government, not the drug industry, should be responsible for ensuring FDA has enough resources to perform its regulatory duties.

However, there is a danger this may lead to lower funding for FDA in the long-run. If this appropriations process turns into a zero-sum game where both sides are jockeying to see who can pay less, it would ultimately force FDA to do its job for less money.

FDA is already under-funded. The House should take this provision but also force a steady rise in the drug safety budget. That would allow appropriators and the drug industry to haggle over their respective responsibility in a more productive way. It would be in industry's best interest to lobby for increased funding. Republicans would be in favor of giving industry a break, and Democrats (if they understood the problems with user fees, which they appear not to) could get behind no-strings-attached funding and a bigger role for government.

You have likely read in your morning paper that late yesterday the Senate passed major energy legislation. News reports tout the accomplishments of Democrats in fending off industry influence and mandating an increase in CAFE standards — the national program regulating passenger vehicle fuel efficiency.

However, a damaging provision in the bill has remained under the radar. The Senate bill would require federal regulators to abide by a cost-benefit analysis before promulgating new fuel efficiency regulations. This is a substantial departure from the decades old CAFE program which, while outdated by current standards, recognized the crucial benefits of fuel efficiency regardless of costs.

OMB Watch reported on this issue in May. Find out more about the Senate's cost-benefit provision and the arguments against it:

Cost-Benefit Provision Latches onto Fuel Economy Standard

Last week, Reg•Watch blogged about a House bill which would force the Occupational Health and Safety Administration to set a standard for workers exposed to diacetyl. Diacetyl is a component of the artificial butter flavoring found in microwave popcorn. Exposure can cause a lung disease called bronchiolitis obliterans which reduces quality of life and causes premature mortality. Unfortunately, the disease has acquired the moniker "popcorn workers lung."

Today, the House Education and Labor Committee reported the bill to the House floor. Kudos to lead sponsor Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) and the committee for taking decisive action on this issue. (Thanks to the Pump Handle blog for pointing this out.)

Recently, Reg•Watch has been critical of Congressional Democrats' disorganization on passing comprehensive energy legislation.

But now, it appears as though the voices of sanity of prevailed in the House of Representatives. According to numerous reports (like this one from Reuters), Reps. John Dingell (D-MI) and Rick Boucher (D-VA) are abandoning several ill-conceived provisions which they were pushing from their positions on the House committee crafting the legislation. The two lawmakers revised the language under pressure from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who wants a bill by the July 4 recess.

Language which would have prevented individual states from implementing their own vehicle emissions programs is among the dropped provisions. That provision had drawn the ire of environmentalists, federalism watchdogs, and some House Democrats.

Dingell and Boucher's committee hopes to report the bill to the House floor by the end of next week.

The Department of Homeland Security recently issued interim regulations on chemical plant security which prevent states from adopting standards stricter than those prescribed by DHS. Yesterday, the Senate Appropriations Committee unanimously passed the appropriations bill for DHS. The bill includes language which would restore the states' rights.

The efforts of the Appropriations Committee follow up on a failed attempt in May to address the issue during the Senate vote on the Iraq supplemental. That attempt was beaten back by the National Manufacturers Association.

As our friends at the OMB Watch Budget Blog pointed out earlier this week, President Bush threatened to veto the House DHS appropriations bill — $36.3 billion — for being "irresponsible and excessive." The president's request is $34.2 billion.

The Senate bill proposes funding of $37.6 billion which will likely draw a similar veto threat. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is unsure if he will bring the bill to the floor, according to BNA news service (subscription).

Regardless of what happens with all this appropriations wrangling, Congress needs to restore the rights of the states to promulgate chemical security standards as they see fit in order to protect the public.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has been abysmal in promulgating standards during the Bush administration. One of the regulatory casualties of OSHA's inaction is delayed action on diacetyl exposure. Diacetyl is a component of the artificial butter flavoring found in microwave popcorn. Exposure can cause a lung disease called bronchiolitis obliterans which reduces quality of life and causes premature mortality. Unfortunately, the disease has acquired the moniker "popcorn workers lung."

Growing tired of OSHA's delay, Congress is taking action. Democrats on the House Education and Labor Committee have introduced a bill which would require OSHA to set an exposure standard within 90 days of the bill becoming law.

The Pump Handle blog has further detailed the issue. Check it out here.

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

Democratic Disarray on Greenhouse Gases May Let Bush off the Hook

White House Meets with Industry on Smog Standard

Long-delayed EPA Risk Assessment of Endocrine Disruptors Exhibits Flaws

This morning, Reg•Watch blogged about a proposal from leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee which would prevent vehicle greenhouse gas emissions regulation.

A BNA news service (subscription) article today proves Democrats are in disarray on what to do about greenhouse gas regulation. Some Committee Democrats are trying to derail the aforementioned proposal. The proposal also runs counter to the agenda of House Speaker Pelosi and will likely result in infighting by Democrats on the House floor.

Separately, some Democrats are critical of Pelosi's July deadline for energy legislation, according to the article. Both Democrats and Republicans would like to have more time.

There is no excuse for needing more time to develop ideas to solve our nation's energy crisis. A legislative solution was one of the Democrats' campaign promises last November. Democrats should have been working on concrete proposals long before their sweeping election victory. (It's not as if this is a new problem.) A myriad of bills have already been proposed. It's time to start working.

By now, almost everyone realizes greenhouse gases pose a threat to society. To address the problem, America needs a strong statutory framework within which regulation can occur. The 110th Congress should provide one.

The Bush administration probably wouldn't spend so much time obfuscating greenhouse gas regulation if it knew Congressional Democrats were just as willing to do the job.

Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) is pushing legislation which would forbid states from regulating greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. The proposal would, as The Washington Post put it today, "kneecap" the effort of 12 states to institute their own program. Under the Clean Air Act, those states need EPA to grant them a waiver in order to begin regulating. The proposal removes EPA's authority to grant those waivers.

The proposal would effectively overturn a Supreme Court decision which found greenhouse gas emissions could be regulated under the Clean Air Act. Reactionary legislation to overturn Supreme Court decisions is probably not what the founding fathers had in mind. Nonetheless, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-MI) is sticking up for Boucher's proposal. Dingell claims the Court decision is causing "wonderful confusion." The only thing confusing is the actions of Boucher and Dingell.

To counter, 11 committee Democrats sent a letter to Dingell and Boucher expressing their "serious concern" about the proposed legislation, according to a BNA news service article (subscription).

It is unclear what kind of legislation will emerge from the committee, but the situation will only worsen as time passes. Boucher and Dingell have given EPA an advantage: the agency can continue to stall on the waiver request knowing law may eventually prohibit EPA from granting it. Then EPA can say, "Sorry states, Congress says we can't grant your waiver."

Won't Democrats look foolish then? The House needs to drop this crazy proposal and let the states do their thing.

Reg•Watch Update: Democrats Failing on CO2 Regulation: Part 2

Back in February and March, Reg•Watch blogged about President Bush's proposed budget which called for cuts in EPA funding. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson has been submissive in allowing the White House to hack away at his agency's resources.

Naturally, budget cuts at EPA undermine the agency's ability to promulgate regulations to protect the environment. Bush proposed cuts the past few years, and Republican congresses were complicit in reducing the agency's resources.

This year, Democrats are bucking the trend and standing up for environmental protection. As Congressional Quarterly (subscription) reports today, a House Appropriations subcommittee approved a bigger budget:

Rejecting the president's call for further cuts this year, Democrats proposed a 4.5 percent increase over fiscal 2007 in discretionary spending for the EPA, the Interior Department, the Agriculture Department's Forest Service and several cultural agencies. The Appropriations Committee approved the bill by voice vote, despite Republican complaints that such funding increases are fiscally irresponsible.

"I do not know of one increase in the package which cannot be fully justified based on need or on ability to spend the money wisely," said Norm Dicks, D-Wash., chairman of the Interior-Environment Subcommittee.

The Washington Post recaps yesterday's House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on the safety of the diabetes drug Avandia manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline. According to the article, a New England Journal of Medicine analysis "concluded that Avandia increases the risk of heart attack by 43 percent." However, FDA is "still analyzing conflicting data" about the drug's effects.

There may not be consensus on the exact side effects of Avandia, but one thing is for sure: Avandia has been on the market for years and no one — not FDA, GlaxoSmithKline, Congress, or the public — is confident of its safety.

Such obvious lapses beg a solution. The FDA reform bill passed by the Senate last month would expand FDA's ability to force drug makers to conduct prompt post-market safety studies. Some aspects of the bill (expanding the agency's user-fee program) are problematic, but this provision is a must pass.

Similar drug safety problems are bound to occur in the future. But there is no excuse for being unsure of a drug's side effects for so long. Drug makers and the FDA should stop trying to cover their mistakes. The American people are smarter than they think. Knowledge breeds confidence. FDA should be in the business of providing the public with knowledge.

The Blog for Clean Air has discovered draft legislation by Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) which would prevent states from developing greenhouse gas emission regulations. California and other states are waiting for word from EPA on whether they may institute their own tailpipe emissions programs. Boucher's legislation would stop states' efforts dead in their tracks.

The Clean Air Act includes language specifically forbidding states from pursuing emissions regulations for motor vehicles but does provide a caveat allowing EPA to grant waivers.

Boucher's legislation would not eliminate waivers, but it would amend the Clean Air Act to read as follows:

No such waiver shall be granted if the [EPA] Administrator finds that such State standards are designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

By now, those of us with common sense are used to seeing greenhouse gas regulation halted by way of delay and scientific manipulation. But to halt regulation through statute in such an explicit way is shocking.