Yesterday, the House Science and Technology Committee subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight held a long-awaited second hearing on President Bush's recent changes to the regulatory process. Much of the hearing focused on the role of the Regulatory Policy Officer (RPO) — a position with newly enhanced responsibilities.

The changes state "no rulemaking shall commence" without the approval of the RPO. Steve Aitken, former acting administrator of the White House's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, told the panel that the Clinton administration had issued a dictate forbidding agencies to "issue" rulemakings without similar approval. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) latched on to this as reason to drop the whole case against the Bush administration.

Reg•Watch has checked its dictionary, and apparently "issue" and "commence" are two different verbs with two different meanings. Exactly when a rulemaking commences is unclear.

This kind of confusion begs the question: What transparency measures will be included in this process? Committee Chairman Brad Miller (D-NC) expressed legitimate concern that RPOs "can smother regulatory efforts in the crib before an agency can even begin considering a regulatory action."

In the hearing, OMB Watch Executive Director Gary Bass recommended several improvements in transparency. Though OMB Watch fully opposes the changes embodied in the new E.O. and Good Guidance Practices Bulletin, if they are to exist the American people should be allowed to see into the process. At the very most, Congress should act to nullify these changes. At the very least, it should shine more sunlight on the regulatory process.

As Reg•Watch blogged yesterday, the House Science and Technology Committee subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight will hold a hearing on President Bush's changes to the regulatory process. OMB Watch Executive Director Gary Bass will be testifying. Watch the hearing live starting at 10:00 a.m.

Today's New York Times features an in-depth expose of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The article highlights a variety of OSHA failings. The problem lies not in what OSHA does, but in what it does not do:

Since George W. Bush became president, OSHA has issued the fewest significant standards in its history, public health experts say. It has imposed only one major safety rule. The only significant health standard it issued was ordered by a federal court.

The part of OSHA charged with new regulations is the Safety and Health Standards program. President Bush's FY 2008 proposed budget requests $17 million (including salaries) for this program, a mere 3.5% of OSHA's total budget. The budget requests about twice that amount ($32 million) for safety and health statistics.

Nonetheless, $17 million is a pretty big chunk of change. Moreover, the Safety and Health Standards program employs 83 people but estimates it will promulgate only three standards in FY 2008. Your tax dollars at work.

On Thursday at 10:00 a.m., a House panel will examine President Bush's recent changes to the regulatory process. Gary Bass, Executive Director of OMB Watch, is scheduled to testify.

The panel (the House Science and Technology Committee subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight) has looked at Bush's amendments to the regulatory process before, but this hearing will focus on the Regulatory Policy Officer (RPO) — a presidentially appointed regulatory taskmaster housed in each federal agency. Here are the basic facts on the RPO:

• President Clinton's Executive Order 12866 created the RPO position to "foster the development of effective, innovative, and least burdensome regulations."
• Bush's amendments to E.O. 12866 have required agencies to designate a presidential appointee to be its RPO
• Bush's amendments also increased the authority of the RPO by stating "no rulemaking shall commence … without the approval of the agency's Regulatory Policy Officer."

OMB Watch has expressed several concerns related to the RPO changes. Requiring RPOs to be presidential appointees allows the White House to exert greater influence in the day-to-day operations of federal agencies. Whereas some agencies formerly used experts on particular issues to manage regulatory proceedings, political motives will now set the tone.

Furthermore, agencies must designate a current presidential appointee, but the individual is not subject to Senate approval for the new position. This is tantamount to promoting an undersecretary to a cabinet-level secretary without Senate confirmation. Bass's testimony will focus on the transparency of regulatory decision making. Under the old system, White House regulatory directives were sent to agencies by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. These directives are publicly available on the White House website. Now, because the RPO must approve commencement of regulations, the political chokehold is in the agencies. It is conceivable a regulation could be completely stifled by the RPO without announcement or public input. The public needs greater clarification on just what these changes mean for the basic democratic right of access to information.

Both chambers of Congress will examine workplace safety this week. The Bush administration's Occupational Health and Safety Administration has been woeful in promulgating new regulations, but Democrats are beginning to ramp up their oversight efforts. Read a preview of this week's hearings from The Pump Handle blog.

Last week, the National Institutes of Health officially ended its relationship with Sciences International, a private consulting firm. As OMB Watch has reported, SI had essentially been managing an NIH group studying reproductive health. The consultant's research and summaries of a particular chemical, bisphenol A, exhibited industry bias. Subsequently, SI became the focal point of a controversy over scientific contractors and conflicts of interest.

Now, NIH will review all the work SI performed related to bisphenol A (The Washington Post reports ). This is a welcome step by NIH. Without such oversight, SI would have been able to affect scientific decisions through previously prepared documents despite having been fired.

Yesterday, the Senate Appropriation Committee held a hearing to examine the budget of the White House Office of Management and Budget (not the federal budget, but the budget of OMB itself). During the hearing, Subcommittee Chairman and Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) questioned OMB Director Rob Portman on a number of issues. These included the recess appointment of Susan Dudley to be the administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) at OMB, and the installation of Regulatory Policy Officers (RPOs) in federal agencies as required by recent White House changes to the regulatory process.

Durbin addressed OIRA at large, calling its work "Freakonomics to the 10th power." He then pointed out some of Dudley's anti-regulatory positions and asked Portman to identify the need for presidentially appointed regulatory foot-soldiers — the RPOs — to invade each agency. Durbin said the White House appeared to be "attempting to take away the regulatory authority of agencies."

Unfortunately (but not surprisingly), Portman evaded questioning. He gave a roundabout answer on Dudley, and did not appear to be familiar with her record. By the time Portman was done avoiding the Dudley issue, everyone had forgotten about the RPO question, and it was never answered. Almost three months after the amendments to the regulatory process, no senior administration official has answered any questions or said anything meaningful about the changes.

Susan Dudley's recess appointment is the subject of editorials in this morning's Washington Post, New York Times and Wall Street Journal. Let's compare and contrast.

Read the rest of this entry

Posted by Matt Madia, 10:54:30 AM

Thursday, April 05, 2007

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

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

OMB Manipulated Climate Science, Report Says

Miners Detail MSHA's Failings in Emotional Testimony

FDA Issues New Conflict of Interest Guidelines

Monday, April 02, 2007