Yesterday, Reg•Watch blogged about how the White House Office of Management and Budget made significant edits to the congressional testimony of Julie Gerberding, the head of the CDC. Gerberding testified before the Senate on the public health impacts of climate change.

The health and policy blog GoozNews has another take on the issue. The blog points out that the blame lies not only with the White House but with Gerberding herself. Check it out: Gerberding and Her Censors

Yesterday, Julie Gerberding, head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), was supposed to testify in front of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee about the threat global warming poses to public health. Instead, Gerberding spoke in detail of preparedness and health tracking but addressed public health impacts only cursorily.

Gerberding didn't speak of the ways global warming may impact public health because the White House wouldn't let her, as the Associated Press first reported yesterday. While reviewing Gerberding's testimony, the White House Office of Management and Budget cut out seven pages, about half, of the testimony. The removed sections include information on extreme weather events and food and water-borne disease, among other things.

OMB routinely reviews the congressional testimony of executive branch officials. OMB has been reviewing testimony since President Nixon reorganized (and politicized) the office. Although OMB has no explicit legal authority to do so, review and minor edits are commonplace.

Edits to Gerberding's testimony are not minor. In fact, they are appallingly major. Of course, the White House is denying any wrongdoing. According to AP, Press Secretary Dana Perino made this statement: "It was not watered down in terms of its science. It wasn't watered down in terms of the concerns that climate change raises for public health."

That is, quite frankly, a lie. Fortunately, the nonprofit group Climate Science Watch has obtained a copy of the original testimony, so you can compare for yourself.

Climate Science Watch has posted the original draft and the final version submitted to the Senate committee. By comparing the two versions, you can find that with one long highlight and one stroke of the 'Delete" button, OMB removed pages 2-8 in their entirety.

In 1996, Congress passed legislation mandating EPA assess the health impacts of endocrine disruptors — a class of chemicals which affect the way the body regulates mood, growth and development. Until this summer, EPA had made no progress in evaluating the chemicals impacts.

When EPA finally unveiled its endocrine disruptor screening program, which includes risk assessments for evaluating the chemicals, it turned out not to be worth the wait. Critics assailed EPA's program as scientifically flawed and accused the agency of designing experiments to purposefully minimize findings of adverse effects.

Now, the White House Office of Management and Budget is reviewing the structure of the risk assessment and the selection of chemicals that EPA will test.

OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) generally reviews agency proposed and final regulations. However, because of recent changes President Bush made to the regulatory process, OIRA can now review agency "guidance documents." Guidance documents are an ill-defined class of agency information which may include policy interpretations and the research and supporting materials that go into regulation, like EPA's endocrine disruptor screening program.

It is unclear who made the decision to submit the screening program and list of chemicals for review: EPA or OIRA. It may also turn out to be unclear what changes the review ultimately brings. Because of a gross lack of transparency in the OIRA review process, the public is left in the dark.

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.

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.