As of July 24, agencies are to be in full compliance with President Bush's recent changes to the regulatory process. But the American people remain in the dark in knowing how these changes will influence the way our government operates. A new analysis by OMB Watch reiterates our concerns with the changes, identifies the many questions that remain, and describes Congress's efforts to mitigate their impact through oversight hearings and proposed legislation.

Read the analysis: E.O. 13422: Unanswered and Unaccountable

In 2007 alone, Chinese imports have been responsible for a nation-wide tire recall, a ban on five types of seafood containing potentially toxic additives, toys manufactured with lead-based paint, contaminated pet-food, and various other defective goods. In response to these concerns the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation held an unofficial meeting today to shed light on why government agencies have been so slow to combat product safety violations.

The panels, consisting of representatives from various federal agencies including CPSC and FDA and numerous health and consumer safety groups like Center for Science in the Public Interest, said that agencies couldn't keep up with the rising rate of imported Chinese goods partially because decades-old laws and statutes govern the regulation of imports. Those imports have quadrupled since 1997.

Chinese manufacturers face loose, often non-existent government oversight. Most do not recognize food and safety standards in the U.S., and they improperly label many of their goods which makes the producer difficult to trace. To make matters worse, importers face weak reprimand from the FDA and CPSC, who lack statutory power to initiate mandatory recalls or levy civil penalties.

Panelists discussed solutions such as newly proposed legislation (the Children's Product Safety Act), increased appropriations for the FDA and CPSC to help these agencies monitor and enforce current and new regulations, and new labeling standards. The CPSC announced a four-step initiative that included holding safety summits and seminars with Chinese manufacturers and modernizing the Consumer Product Safety Act of 1973.

Perhaps most importantly, both sides agree that the issue is pressing and demands a progressive bi-partisan approach to fixing the various regulatory inadequacies meant to safeguard ourselves and our children from harm.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has requested a Government Accountability Office report on the regulatory process.

Waxman would like GAO to focus on the analytical and review requirements which often delay rulemakings. Waxman has specifically asked GAO to report on the panoply of analyses agencies must perform for every rule they consider, how these analyses are delaying rules, agencies' relationship with the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and the transparency of the White House review process.

A final report is a long way off. But considering the scope of Waxman's request, this report could prove to be a comprehensive and immensely valuable. Hopefully, the report will describe why the federal regulatory system is so broken and why agencies often seem to respond to political considerations rather than public need.

Read Chairman Waxman's letter to GAO

In December 2005, California petitioned EPA to allow the state to develop its own vehicle emissions regulations. Since then, EPA has obstinately refused to decide either way. Only recently did Administrator Stephen Johnson set a timetable, promising action by the end of the year.

In April, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger wrote to Johnson threatening to sue EPA if a decision was not made by October. But California Senator Barbara Boxer is attempting to force the issue even sooner. A bill proposed by Boxer would require EPA to decide on the petition within 30 days of the bill being signed into law.

Boxer's bill would also prevent delay from occurring in the future. The bill would give EPA a 180 day window to decide on future requests.

Six months still seems like a long time, but when compared to the two-year saga California's current request has been subject to, it's pretty good policy.

The Senate is considering an important provision that would stop the latest White House interference in the regulatory process. President Bush's efforts to undermine the ability of federal agencies to protect the public will take effect July 24 unless Congress acts to stop him.

Take Action! Tell your senators to support this provision.

Bush is attempting to make broad alterations to the regulatory process. In January, he issued Executive Order 13422, and the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued its final good guidance bulletin. Together, these executive decrees would make sweeping changes without the approval of Congress, dramatically politicize the rulemaking process, and further muddy the waters of the federal regulatory system. (Click here for a full explanation.)

But Congress can stop these dangerous changes from taking place. The Senate is considering a provision that would prohibit the White House from using appropriated funds to implement the executive order and good guidance bulletin. The "defunding" provision would be included in the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill. The House has already approved similar legislation.

The bill is still moving through the Senate Appropriations Committee and will reach the Senate floor very soon. Contact your senators now to tell them to support defunding Bush's regulatory takeover.

Tell your senators to support the defunding provision that would stop White House interference in the regulatory process.

Today, a subcommittee of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is holding a hearing on EPA's recent proposal to revise the national ozone standard. EPA has proposed tightening the standard, but not to the extent recommended by its own staff scientists and advisors.

As Reg•Watch has pointed out, the White House has its fingerprints on this weak proposal. The White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) held three meetings on the rule, two of which were packed with industry reps. The first meeting also featured a representative from Vice President Cheney's office. An official from the VP's office has been present in only five of the last 482 regulatory review meetings.

Something else was peculiar about that first meeting: there was no representative from EPA. Executive Order 12866, which governs the regulatory review process, requires an official from the relevant agency be invited to each meeting. OIRA is supposed to disclose why that official did not or could not attend. In this case, OIRA hasn't.

Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) questioned EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson on this peculiarity. Johnson said, "I don't know why we were or were not invited," and, "I don't recall being aware of that particular meeting." He also did not recall being briefed on the substance of the meeting afterwards.

Boxer pressed Johnson and asked him to provide answers as to whether EPA has any knowledge of this meeting. Johnson said he would "to the extent possible" and then alluded to invoking executive privilege (the excuse du jour in the administration.)

Executive privilege does not apply to communications between offices like EPA and OIRA. Boxer's questioning raises excellent points about an issue which receives little attention. Reg•Watch hopes Boxer continues to press Johnson in order to shed light on this dark spot in the rulemaking process.

Today, The Washington Post published a good article by David Brown which discusses Congress's recent efforts to renew the Prescription Drug User Fee Act and to reform drug safety at FDA.

The must-pass legislation will improve FDA's ability to conduct post-market surveillance. While FDA needs more authority in this area, the article rightly points out post-market surveillance is "the regulatory equivalent of chasing the horses after they are out of the barn."

The article also gets to one of the real concerns about the idea of user fees: drug makers are funding the regulation of their own products. The process has let Congress off the hook in funding an essential function of government. In predicting the impact of the legislation, the article states:

it seems likely that heavy reliance on user fees — rather than appropriations by Congress &mdash will continue to be a key feature of pharmaceutical regulation.

Last week, the House passed the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill (HR 2829). The bill contains an amendment which would forbid the White House from expending any funds in implementing President Bush's recent changes to the regulatory process.

The amendment, offered by Reps. Brad Miller (D-NC) and Linda Sanchez (D-CA) states, "None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to implement Executive Order 13422." E.O. 13422 amended E.O. 12866 which governs the White House regulatory review process.

The appropriations bill funds the entire Executive Office of the President. Therefore, this amendment would stop the White House Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) from expending any money in carrying out the E.O. Most notably, OIRA would not be allowed to review agency guidance documents.

OMB Watch has criticized E.O. 13422 for stealing power away from agency experts and further politicizing the regulatory process. (Read more here.) House members did the right thing by voting to stop the White House's attempt to consolidate even more power within its walls.

House Balks at Bush Order on Regulations [AP via Washington Post]