Throughout the past several years, attempts to roll back regulatory safeguards and delay new rulemaking have been common. 2006 proved to be no different, and several important issues garnered attention. Among these were sunset commission legislation, the nomination of Susan Dudley, and proposals to further complicate the regulatory process.

In Congress
When the do-nothing Congress did act on regulatory policy issues in 2006, it continued the trend that it followed in recent years: favoring industry-backed proposals on environmental, public health and safety rollbacks. Highlights included:

• Sunset Commission Legislation - Industry efforts to put safety, health and environmental regulations on the chopping block resulted in two major House bills which would have established sunset commissions. Under this legislation, independent commissions of unelected officials would decide which federal programs and agencies live and die and which get changed. Commission recommendations would then get fast-track authority through Congress without opportunity for public input or modification. Opposition from many quarters -veterans, state and local groups, and OMB Watch and our partners - helped prevent Congress from acting on these bills in September when votes were scheduled.
• Paperwork Reduction Act Reauthorization - Efforts to begin the reauthorization of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) featured anti-regulatory approaches favored by industry. The House committee with oversight focused on tools used in the regulatory process to delay or stop regulations, such as emphasizing cost-benefit analyses over other requirements, and setting automatic expiration dates on any ten-year old regulations unless they can be justified again through the regulatory process. Although reauthorization never fully got going, it is likely to be part of the congressional agenda in 2007.
• Susan Dudley Confirmation Hearing - The Senate held a confirmation hearing in November on Susan Dudley to be the next administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Dudley bobbed and weaved around tough questions posed by Senators. However, her rich trail of articles and speeches demonstrated an anti-regulatory zealotry possibly unmatched in OIRA nominees. Yet evasiveness in answering questions at the hearing left a disquieting unease with Democrats and possibly some Republicans on the oversight committee. The result was that the oversight committee did not even vote on moving Dudley’s nomination to the Senate floor, leaving open the prospect of a Bush recess appointment that would circumvent Congress.

In the White House
Most attacks on the regulatory process came from the Bush White House, with strong industry backing. John Graham, the previous administrator of OIRA, resigned in February, leaving an unmatched anti-regulatory legacy. Bush then nominated Dudley to replace Graham.

Another White House initiative launched by OMB was a Risk Assessment Bulletin, released for comment in January 2006. It proposes to change regulatory analyses within agencies, which would result in real danger to public safeguards. Risk assessments would become so burdened with activities outside the normal assessment processes that agencies would be paralyzed by analyzing information on the universe of potential risks. The Bulletin was even criticized by agencies that have had their own rollback agendas. For example, EPA argued that the populations normally considered in these assessments would change from the usual focus on those most vulnerable to a more generalized sample. These changes would be in direct conflict with laws governing clean air, safe drinking water, and pesticides, for example, which explicitly require the agencies to consider the harm imposed on susceptible populations, including the elderly and children. Release of the final Bulletin has been delayed as a result of public comments but is supposed to be released before the end of 2006.

Around the same time that OMB was releasing the Risk Assessment Bulletin, it was also collecting comments on its Proposed Bulletin on Good Guidance Practices. This proposal set new requirements that include lengthy high-level review by senior agency staff of any guidance document deemed "significant." Agencies would also be required to get OMB's approval for what has traditionally been an agency function. The result would be more delays in agencies' ability to protect the public. Further action on the proposed bulletin has been on hold since Graham left OIRA, but it is likely to be on the White House agenda for 2007.

Attacks on public health and safety haven’t focused solely on analytic tools. For example, similar attacks on food safety regulations occurred within the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In April, Center for Science in the Public Interest, OMB Watch and Consumer Federation of America issued a report and press release pointing to the special interest lobbying aimed at these two agencies and OMB in the midst of an outbreak of mad cow disease. The lobbying halted reforms such as a nationwide animal identification system and FDA’s regulations regarding animal feed ingredients. The report, Cow Sense: The Bush Administration’s Broken Record on Mad Cow Disease, identified ten closed-door meetings among OMB staff, the meat and feed industries, and the number of senior level USDA officials who were former industry insiders. The national ID system was to be fully implemented by 2009, but USDA in November backed away from a specific deadline.

The 110th Congress
The leaders of the next Congress say they intend to re-establish the oversight role missing for years under one-party control of the Presidency and Congress. Some new committee chairs are masters of oversight. Others have already started to fight back against Bush appointees and have outlined agendas to address formerly forbidden issues.

The Democrats have their work cut out for them, however. It's doubtful the White House will abandon its attempts to alter the regulatory process by initiating proposals to delay, dismantle and paralyze public protections. Although the mid-term elections might slow executive actions in the regulatory area, the public interest community should also watch for actions designed to entrench this administration's philosophy of governance.