The Office of Management and Budget unveiled President Obama’s FY 2011 budget request on Monday. Obama has decided to propose a spending freeze for discretionary, non-defense budget items. (See OMB Watch’s statement here.) Because Obama has proposed an overall freeze and not a line-item-by-line-item freeze, spending could be transferred to other areas to reflect administration priorities.

The FY 2011 budget is a mixed bag for regulatory agencies, many of which suffered from near-perennial raids on their coffers when President Bush was in power. In his first budget proposal submitted shortly after he took office, Obama tried to reverse some of the funding trends at regulatory agencies. His FY 2010 proposal was pretty good, but not great. As expected because of the spending freeze, the FY 2011 budget is a bit more subdued. Here is the run down.

Environment

Obama proposed almost $300 million in cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget for FY 2011 after an approximately $2.7 billion increase the year before. Interesting, however, is the “Clean Air and Global Climate Change” line item which gets a healthy boost to $540 million from $502 million. (Climate Science Watch also points out that Obama has proposed a hefty $439 million increase for the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which covers climate issues.)

Food Safety

Obama’s budget would raise the Food and Drug Administration’s budget by about $500 million, including industry-paid licensing and registration fees, a.k.a. user fees. That does not include an additional $289 million in new user fees currently under consideration in Congress, $220 million of which would go towards food safety. As for run-of-the-mill appropriations, Obama’s budget increases the food safety line item to $848 million, from $784 million. Reactions from food safety advocates are mixed.

As for the regulator of all things meat and poultry, the Food Safety and Inspection Service, the Obama budget calls for a modest $18 million, or 1.6 percent, increase, and only 31 additional employees.

Worker Protection

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration would see a 2.5 percent increase under Obama’s proposal. But a look inside the numbers is more telling: The rulemaking division’s budget would rise to $24 million from $20 million – an important increase for an agency with an overwhelming rulemaking agenda. The budget takes away $3 million, or about 4 percent, from compliance assistance programs, which critics say are too lenient and did not deter bad behavior. Unfortunately, the Obama budget actually calls for a 51-person reduction in the OSHA workforce.

The Mine Safety and Health Administration’s budget would go from $356 million to $363 million. On the plus side, the Wage and Hour Division, which enforces minimum wage and child labor laws, among other worker rights issues – would see a $20 million, or 9 percent increase.

Consumer Product Safety

Last, but certainly not least, the Consumer Product Safety Commission. CPSC’s budget woes are probably the most well-chronicled of this lot. CPSC’s budget was halved (after adjusting for inflation) from the mid-1970’s to the 2000’s. Employment levels declined similarly.

But progress has been made in recent years, rising from about $63 million in FY 2007 to $118.2 million this year, plus about $4 million in industry fees. Last year, Obama proposed a minimal increase, which Congress improved upon. This year Obama is proposing a paltry $400,000 increase. For some obligatory perspective, the increase is about one half, of one millionth, of one percent, of the national defense budget. (Six zeros after the decimal, then a five.) The budget does call for an additional 46 employees, presumably because the agency can continue to absorb new hires because of the major funding increases in recent years.

The figures here are mostly taken from OMB budget documents, available here. The budget’s Appendix provides the most detail. Leave questions or discrepancies in the comments.

President Obama finally announced on Monday his nominee for undersecretary of food safety at the USDA, a.k.a. the head of the Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS). The nominee, Elisabeth Hagen, is currently the Chief Medical Officer at the USDA, and before that she was a senior executive at FSIS.

FSIS, the agency in charge of inspecting and ensuring the integrity of meat, poultry, and eggs, has been without a permanent leader since Oct. 2008.

At this point, both industry and consumer groups are supporting the nomination, though it’s in a manner I would describe as tentative. Food Safety News has an article on the nomination in which Tony Corbo from Food & Water Watch has a good quote:

"We like her public health credentials," said Corbo. "The fact that she has already worked at the Food Safety Inspection Service may be a plus since she should know where the deficiencies are within the agency and she will not need a tutorial in meat, poultry and egg products inspection."

"I don't know what kind of political experience she has in dealing with the White House -- in particular the Office of Management and Budget -- and with Congress. This job requires that the incumbent deals with the politics of food safety as well as the science." 

The nomination was officially sent to the Senate yesterday. Now it’s time for the Senate to get on the stick. The Agriculture Committee should schedule a hearing and a vote post haste, and the full Senate should vote on Hagen as soon as possible.

Yesterday, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and a whopping 39 co-sponsors introduced a resolution that would disapprove the Environmental Protection Agency’s endangerment finding for greenhouse gas emissions.

The resolution was introduced in accordance with the Congressional Review Act (CRA), a 1996 law that gives Congress an opportunity to veto agency regulations. The CRA gives these resolutions special status in the Senate, placing restrictions on committee consideration and limiting floor debate, thereby prohibiting filibusters. (See this post for more on the CRA process.)

Two critical things had to happen for the resolution to enjoy special privileges. First, it needed to be introduced within 60 days (excluding days Congress is in recess) after it was published in the Federal Register. Second, it needs to use the boilerplate language specified in the CRA:

'That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the XX relating to XX, and such rule shall have no force or effect.' (The blank spaces being appropriately filled in). 

Murkowski followed both instructions precisely. (Congressional Quarterly has a draft version of the resolution here.)

It’s important to keep in mind that EPA’s endangerment finding is not regulation per se. It does not impose new requirements on polluters or consumers. Yes, it sets off a legal trigger under the Clean Air Act that obliges EPA to regulate vehicle and industrial emissions in the future (proposals the agency is working on), but the actual endangerment finding simply represents EPA’s thinking on greenhouse gases’ impact on health and the environment. From the finding:

The Administrator finds that six greenhouse gases taken in combination endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations. The Administrator also finds that the combined emissions of these greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas air pollution that endangers public health and welfare under [the Clean Air Act]. 

If these 40 senators really oppose EPA regulation, as they claim, why not wait until EPA actually regulates. By coming out in opposition to the endangerment finding, the senators are essentially telling EPA – and the majority of Americans – that they are wrong: greenhouse gases are not a problem for human health or the environment.

Those of us who do worry about the impact of greenhouse gases can take solace in the fact that the Murkowski resolution will never survive. It may very well pass the Senate; but even if it does somehow make it through the House, President Obama will surely veto it.

On Friday, the Food and Drug Administration made its long-awaited announcement on the safety of bisphenol-A, a chemical ingredient in hard plastics, food can liners, and other common products. The verdict? “[R]ecent studies provide reason for some concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland of fetuses, infants and children. FDA also recognizes substantial uncertainties with respect to the overall interpretation of these studies and their potential implications for human health effects of BPA exposure.”

While it’s good to hear FDA finally admit that BPA could be a health threat, its plan going forward lacks the aggressiveness many were expecting. Instead of announcing a regulatory path to limit consumer exposure to BPA, FDA reiterated warnings that parents throw away their children’s hard plastic baby bottles or cups if they are scratched and that that consumers avoid putting hot liquids in BPA containers.

Urvashi Rangan of Consumers Union hit the nail on the head when he called FDA’s message “confusing.” How can the agency say that something as seemingly-benign as a scratched bottle poses a potential threat, but not take precautionary steps? Food Safety News reports:

Dr. Rangan believes there is ample evidence for the government to regulate the chemical in food containers. "FDA's admission of concern with BPA is an encouraging change in its position and we hope it will lead to concrete protection for consumers. However, we are concerned that the new advice on reducing exposure puts the onus on consumers to protect themselves until such a ban is put in place." 

Consumers have lived too long under a cloud of uncertainty: while the federal government has sat on the sidelines, state and local governments have taken action, and manufacturers and retailers have taken BPA-laden products off store shelves.

At the same time, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has an interesting story that evokes some sympathy for the FDA. Apparently, officials at the agency feel hamstrung by their own regulatory framework:

FDA officials - including Sharfstein; Lynn Goldmann, a consultant to the FDA; and Jesse Goodman, the FDA's acting chief scientist - told the Journal Sentinel they were frustrated by the antiquated framework of the FDA's regulatory process.

Officials say they would like chemical manufacturers to report information about the chemical to them, including how much BPA they produce and where and how it is used.

But because BPA was classified years ago as an indirect food additive, it is not subject to the kind of scrutiny that other chemicals are. Without critical data about BPA, it is impossible to regulate the chemical, officials said. 

Sharfstein told the paper, "We may have to go after legislation to change it.”