OMB Watch was formed in 1983 to lift the veil of secrecy shrouding the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which oversees regulation, the budget, information collection and dissemination, proposed legislation, testimony by agencies, and much more. By then, it was quite apparent that OMB's actions were having an enormous impact on agency operations and the pursuit of social justice.
In an effort well outside the scope of its traditional activities, the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) is reviewing an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report on children’s health before publication -- the first time, to our knowledge, OIRA has ever involved itself in the shaping of a scientific study.
Under executive order, agencies must submit major regulatory proposals to OIRA for review. Reports and studies, however, that involve questions of science -- and do not involve a policy decision -- have always been left to the agencies, which have the technical expertise that OIRA lacks. Not surprisingly, high-level EPA officials questioned the White House about the appropriateness of OIRA’s review, according to an article in the August 20 issue of the Risk Policy Report, a publication of Inside Washington.
EPA was nearing publication when OIRA requested to review the report -- America's Children & the Environment: Measures of Contaminants, Body Burdens and Illnesses -- which updates a 2001 report on indicators linked to environmental hazards for children, including asthma, lead levels, and cancer.
Unfortunately, OIRA’s review is probably not an aberration, but a sign of things to come. From the beginning, OIRA Administrator John Graham has signaled his intent to enter the scientific arena. Among other things, he has advised agencies on how to conduct scientific risk assessment, initiated a first-of-its-kind “partnership” with EPA to actually develop -- not just review -- a non-road diesel standard, and added four scientists to OIRA’s team of economists and policy analysts, the first scientists to ever work for OIRA.
More recently, Graham pushed two industry-friendly toxicologists -- Dennis Paustenbach and Roger McClellan -- to serve on the advisory committee to the Center for Disease Control’s National Center for Environmental Health, according to the August 30 issue of Science Magazine, when the administration put 11 new members on the 16-person panel -- a move environmental health advocates charge stacks the deck in industry’s favor. Paustenbach, who conducts paid risk assessment for industry, testified on behalf of Pacific Gas & Electric, which was ultimately found guilty of poisoning drinking water, in the trial that made Erin Brockovich famous. McClellan is the former director of the Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology.
It’s clear why Graham would want to involve himself in questions of science. A report or study on health or environmental problems can often create pressure for regulation. For instance, a recent EPA report acknowledging that global warming is caused by human activity created a minor storm and raised politically embarrassing questions about the administration’s plan, or lack thereof, to deal with climate change.
The problem for the administration is that it’s steadfastly and ideologically opposed to strong health and environmental protections; it’s not interested in evidence that runs counter to this position. If the administration can shape a report’s findings before it’s made public, it can head off calls for stronger regulation and protect its political soft spot.
source: http://www.ombwatch.org/article/view/1061/1/150 18sep02
|
If you have come to this page from an outside location click here to get back to mindfully.org |