The Bush administration engaged in a broad, multi-agency effort to lobby congressmen and governors to urge them to oppose a California plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, according to a recent investigation.

In December 2005, California petitioned EPA to let the state develop its own program and standards for regulating greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. Under the Clean Air Act, the federal government holds the express right to regulate emissions but may grant waivers to states, which it often does. If EPA grants California's waiver request, 11 other states could follow suit.

In June, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson wrote California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger stating EPA would make its decision by the end of 2007. That's two full years after the initial request.

Why so long? Since the Supreme Court decided in April greenhouse gases may be subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act, there is no basis for denying California's petition. Therefore, for an administration which holds environmental regulation in contempt, the only remaining choice is endless delay.

But apparently Johnson's obstinacy was not enough for the Bush administration. An investigation by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has revealed a coordinated effort to prevent California from pursuing its state regulations. The effort includes Johnson, Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters, and James Connaughton, the Chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) has written to Connaughton. The letter explains the full details of the campaign. Here are some highlights:

Mr. Gros, who was the Deputy Chief of Staff in the Transportation Department, provided details about how the lobbying campaign was conducted. He explained that five Department staffers contacted between 20 and 25 members of Congress. He also said that Secretary Peters personally called between two and four governors.

And this gem:

The lobbying campaign was coordinated with the auto industry. On June 5, the Auto Alliance provided a list of automotive facilities organized by congressional district to the Department. According to Mr. Gros, the Department then used this document to create a target list of members of Congress to lobby.

Waxman's committee should be commended for its investigation. It couldn't have been easy because, as always, senior administration officials suffer from selective memory loss:

[Council on Environmental Quality] Chief of Staff, Mr. Hall, was asked about the White House role when the Committee staff interviewed him. He did not confirm or deny White House involvement. He said he could not remember specifics. At least twenty times during the interview, he responded to questions about his knowledge of the lobbying campaign with variations of "I don't recall."

Reg•Watch Update: "More on the California Waiver Controversy"

In June, OMB Watch reported on EPA's new risk assessment program for endocrine disruptors. An endocrine disruptor is any substance which alters the function of the endocrine system. The endocrine system regulates certain mood, growth and development functions including hormonal and thyroid functions.

Scientists are still uncertain as to the types of substances which may be endocrine disruptors and the levels of exposure that may jeopardize public health. Scientists suspect endocrine disruptors to be commonly found in a number of consumer products including pesticides, cosmetics and finished plastics.

In 1996, Congress passed the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), which requires EPA to screen the effects of pesticides on the human endocrine system. Since then, EPA has done…well…nothing.

Congress is pressing EPA on the issue. Today, seven representatives wrote to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson expressing their displeasure with the inexplicable delay:

Over the past ten years, EPA has not completed a single step of this multi-stage process. This summer, the agency finally published its first draft list of chemicals to be screened by pesticide manufacturers for endocrine disrupting properties. This initial list of 73 chemicals is only a small fraction of the universe of 1,700 chemicals that the agency has identified for screening under the FQPA mandate, and a minute percentage of the 75,000 chemicals currently listed on the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Chemical Substance Inventory. EPA apparently has no internal deadline for identifying subsequent sets of chemicals for testing, and no plan whatsoever for ensuring that all chemicals of potential concern will be tested.

Yesterday, a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee unanimously approved a bill (H.R. 3564) which would reauthorize the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) through FY 2011. Congress initially formed ACUS in the 1960's, but vanquished it in the mid 1990's as part of the Newt Gingrich-led effort to reduce government. Reps. Chris Cannon (R-UT) and Linda Sanchez (D-CA) are pushing the bill.

ACUS was a panel of administrative law experts. (Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer have both served at ACUS.) ACUS studied the federal rulemaking process and other operations of federal agencies. The panel took long-term views and made recommendations on improved performance.

Improvements identified by ACUS can allow agencies to be more responsive to public need and can save taxpayers money through increased efficiency. According to the National Journal (subscription), "Sanchez said the bill was 'an extremely nominal investment [that] will unquestionably rebound in billions [of dollars] in savings in taxpayer dollars.' "

Technically, ACUS already exists. 2004 legislation reauthorized the panel. Unfortunately, since then, Congress has not funded it, making it impossible for ACUS to have employees, office space, pens, binder clips, etc...

Sanchez and Cannon hope to get ACUS up and running in a hurry. They will attempt to add a $1 million start-up appropriation to the FY 2008 (which begins Oct. 1) Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill. That bill has already passed the House, but not the Senate. Sanchez says she hopes to add the minor provision when the two chambers form a conference to reconcile the two bills, according to BNA news service (subscription).

The full Judiciary Committee will consider the bill in the near future. No word yet on a Senate version.

In today's Washington Post, columnist Dana Milbank reports on yesterday's Senate hearing on toy safety and the Consumer Product Safety Commission's role in assuring it. The hearing, held by an appropriations subcommittee responsible for approving CPSC's budget, featured testimony from Nancy Nord, acting chairman of the commission.

CPSC has been under increasing scrutiny for failing to protect American children from the dangers of lead paint in toys — by no means a newly discovered threat. While most of the tainted products have come from China, the string of recalls has left many Americans wondering why our strong regulatory system is being circumvented by shoddy foreign manufacturing.

Milbank characterizes Nord as evasive and smug and the panel's senators as confounded by the idea our federal regulatory protectors could operate with such complete and utter ineffectiveness.

Of course, as Durbin recognized in the hearing, the agency is not wholly to blame for its troubles. Congress and the White House have slowly let the agency fall into a state of disrepair. Milbank includes a summary of some startling statistics:

Among the nuggets served up at yesterday's hearing: The CPSC's staff, once 978, is down to 401; its budget is half of what it was three decades ago, in inflation-adjusted terms; its toy-testing department consists of one man, Bob, who drops toys on the floor in his office; and its toy-testing lab is an overloaded workbench in its outmoded headquarters.

Another panel of witnesses included Mattel chairman Robert Eckert. Some of Eckert's recent comments in the wake of massive recalls of Mattel products indicate he does not believe federal consumer product laws apply to his company. (See the Sept. 5 post, "Is Barbie above the Law?")

Refreshingly, Eckert was contrite for the dangers posed by Mattel's now-recalled products and expressed full-throated support for a strong and well-resourced CPSC. Unfortunately, none of the Senators pressed Eckert on his comments. It is still unclear if Mattel violated federal law by failing to report potential product defects in a timely manner.

Sens. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Patty Murray (D-WA) have written to the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) expressing their concern over diacetyl exposure and asking the agencies to take action. (More from the Pump Handle blog here.)

The federal government, the popcorn industry and public and occupational health advocates have known for some time that exposure to diacetyl — a chemical used to give microwave popcorn its buttery flavor — can cause severe lung problems for workers in the popcorn manufacturing industry.

Recent evidence shows the presence of diacetyl in microwave popcorn may also pose a danger to consumers. The news has thrust the issue back into the national spotlight. No word yet on how FDA and CDC might respond to the Senators' letters.

Congress might also consider prodding the Environmental Protection Agency on its response to the potential danger to consumers. As OMB Watch has reported, in 2003, EPA began studying the risks and completed a report last year. EPA has released the report to the popcorn industry but has refused to give access to the public.

The popcorn industry has begun to take voluntary steps to eliminate the use of diacetyl and should be commended. However, that is no reason for EPA to withhold crucial public health information from concerned Americans. Federal officials should be in the business of fostering knowledge, not hiding the facts.

The Government Accountability Office — the research arm of Congress — released a report today on the federal government's responsiveness to climate change. Specifically, the report focuses on how officials who manage federal land and resources have planned for the effects of climate change.

The report recognizes the danger extreme weather, rising sea level, and biological instability pose to our nation's waters, lands, and coastal areas. Yet, according to the report, the Bush administration isn't taking the danger seriously:

In particular, [the Bureau of Land Management], [Forest Service], [Fish and Wildlife Service], [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration], and [National Park Service] have not made climate change a priority, and the agencies' strategic plans do not specifically address climate change.

Another striking conclusion of the report is the broad information gaps federal resource managers face when grappling with the effects of climate change:

Resource managers do not have sufficient site-specific information to plan for and manage the effects of climate change on the federal resources they manage. In particular, the managers lack computational models for local projections of expected changes and detailed inventories and monitoring systems for an adequate baseline understanding of existing local species. Without such information, managers are limited to reacting to already-observed climate change effects on their units, which makes it difficult to plan for future changes.