Today President Obama signed an Executive Order requiring agencies to ask the public for “regulations in need of retrospective review” and semi-annually report to the public and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) on the status of retrospective review efforts. The order also directs agencies, when conducting retrospective reviews, to give priority to initiatives that will significantly reduce costs and burdens imposed on the public. Agencies are also directed to consider the cumulative effects of their regulations and give priority to those reforms that “would make significant progress in reducing those burdens….”

The Executive Order, a follow-up to an earlier order on retrospective review, is aimed at actually reducing the public burden imposed by existing regulations. Manufacturers are encouraged by the requirements placed upon agencies for public participation and for prioritizing review initiatives.

Involving OIRA, the federal government’s regulatory gatekeeper, in the retrospective review process is important. OIRA can hold agencies accountable and help ensure agency efforts result in real reductions of costs and burdens imposed on regulated entities.

The Executive Order’s issuance coincides with the release of a new report on retrospective review by the Council of Economic Advisers. The Council asserts that, with the Executive Order, “the process of retrospective review should become a standard part of the assessment of federal regulations.” (continue reading…)

Today President Obama issued an Executive Order to promote international regulatory cooperation and encourage federal agencies to find ways to reduce regulatory inconsistencies with our trading partners. The President’s directive is an encouraging step because regulatory hurdles affecting cross-border trade of goods reduce our global competitiveness and harm manufactures. By reducing these international regulatory burdens, manufacturers in the U.S. will have improved access to foreign markets – a key to the health of our economy.

The Executive Order requires a regulatory working group – chaired by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), the federal government’s regulatory gatekeeper – to identify international regulatory cooperation opportunities and develop and issue guidelines that will improve the global regulatory climate for U.S. exporters. The order also requires regulatory agencies to consider the international impact of their rule makings. International cooperation can be invaluable in reducing the regulatory challenges confronting U.S. firms.

With 95 percent of the world’s consumers living outside of the United States, international trade is essential for job creation. Reducing the regulatory barriers with our trading partners will help make trade with manufacturers in the U.S. more competitive and open up even more markets to manufacturers.

Erik Glavich is director of legal and regulatory policy, National Association of Manufacturers.

Today the National Association of Manufacturers joined 153 other organizations in a letter supporting H.R. 2008, the “Keeping Politics Out of Federal Contracting Act of 2011.”  The legislation would preclude the White House from forcing federal agencies to require entities to disclose their political spending – as well as that of their officers and directors – as a condition of participating in the federal procurement process.

The letter was sent to Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Ranking Member Elijah Cummings (D-MD) of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which is scheduled to consider H.R. 2008 tomorrow.

The bill is in response to an April 2011 draft Executive Order that would require disclosures of political contributions by select parties as a condition for bidding on federal contracts. The draft order is an attack on the First Amendment and suffers from severe legal and policy defects that would, if signed, immediately damage the federal contracting process.

From the letter:

The legislation reaffirms the principle, currently embodied in federal procurement laws, that the Executive Branch has an obligation to procure goods and services based on the best value for the American taxpayer, and not on political considerations. It also reaffirms the principle that the Administration cannot enact through executive fiat legislation that Congress has considered and explicitly rejected.

The NAM thanks Rep. Issa for his leadership on this issue and urges members of the Committee on Oversight and Government to approve H.R. 2008.

Erik Glavich is director of legal and regulatory policy, National Association of Manufacturers.

Rep. Ben Quayle (R-AZ) introduced the Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act of 2012 (FACT Act, H.R. 4369). With Representatives Jim Matheson (D-UT) and Dennis Ross (R-FL) as original cosponsors, the FACT Act is bipartisan legislation that will help combat fraud and abuse that plagues the asbestos trust system.

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) appreciates Rep. Quayle’s leadership on this important issue. With roughly 60 asbestos trust funds and nearly $40 billion in assets, opportunistic individuals are able to file claims for the same claimant with numerous trusts, seeking multiple payouts. Without proper oversight and checks on the system, increasing fraud and abuse will harm the truly needy and diminish asbestos trust fund resources.

The FACT Act would provide much needed transparency by requiring trusts to quarterly disclose information on their claim payments and to cooperate in requests for information on claims. Different trusts could compare claims and prevent fraudulent or duplicate filings.

By ensuring that trust fund resources are dedicated to legitimate claims, Rep. Quayle’s legislation would ensure that the system functions as Congress intended. The FACT Act also would protect a claimant’s sensitive personal information. It deters fraud and abuse without impacting legitimate claims.

The FACT Act is a commonsense reform of the system that would protect the individuals for whom the trusts were established. Manufacturers support the FACT Act and urge Congress to pass the bill.

Erik Glavich is director of legal and regulatory policy, National Association of Manufacturers.

On Saturday the Senate approved the conference report for H.R. 2055, the final fiscal year 2012 spending measure that will fund the federal government through September 2012. The President is set to sign the bill any time before the expiration on December 23 of a six-day continuing resolution that both houses passed so that necessary steps could be taken to implement the $1 trillion omnibus.

One important provision in the spending measure that has been overlooked is language that prohibits the Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children (IWG) from completing the draft report that proposed alarming guidelines for food marketing unless the IWG “complies with Executive Order 13563.” The executive order affirms the principles of sound regulations and reads:

Our regulatory system must protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation.  It must be based on the best available science.

In its proposal for sweeping guidelines for food marketing, the IWG fails to provide evidence that their recommendations would reduce childhood obesity by any measure. Furthermore, the IWG does not account for the impact of the proposed guidelines, failing to address expected costs or benefits.

According to the President’s edict, the U.S. regulatory system “must take into account benefits and costs, both quantitative and qualitative.” Moreover, the proposed nutrition guidelines conflict with standards set by other federal food programs including USDA’s Women, Infants, and Children program. The President’s executive order explicitly promotes greater coordination across agencies.

The NAM is committed to ensuring the IWG complies with the letter and intent of the legislative language included in H.R. 2055.

The food, beverage and consumer packaged goods industry in the United States employs 14 million workers, generates sales of $2.1 trillion annually and contributes $1 trillion in added value to the economy every year. The IWG’s proposal would hinder economic growth and cost jobs at a time when the economy can least afford it.

Manufacturers applaud the actions of Congress and urge the IWG to comply with the spirit of the law.

Erik Glavich is director of legal and regulatory policy, National Association of Manufacturers.

The Kauffman Foundation released data that start up firms are creating and sustaining fewer jobs than in recent history.  This is not good news for increasing job growth in this recovery. 

To help focus on this challenge the Foundation also recently unveiled a proposal to promote new business and job growth. Among the recommendations are a sunset provision for major rules that “would regularly cleanse the books of inefficient and costly rules and, thus, barriers to business formation and growth for all businesses, including startups.” 

Congress should heed this report and focus part of its job creation agenda on regulatory reform including proposals to sunset existing regulations.  Clearing out the regulatory thicket that has grown over time will help to reduce the cumulative burden of regulation and make room for new ideas and modern technology.

Erik Glavich is director of legal and regulatory policy, National Association of Manufacturers.  

Earlier this week we told you about the letters expressing increasing concern from members of Congress about the new Interagency Working Group (IWG) guidelines for food marketing to children.  This week two additional letters have been sent to the IWG agencies from freshman Republicans and moderate Democrats, respectively, outlining their concerns.

• July 27: 65 freshman Republicans urge the IWG agencies to consider withdrawing the proposed guidelines.  The letter highlights how healthy foods such as 2% milk, soups, cereals and breads could not be marketed to children based on the IWG proposal.  The Representatives urge the IWG to complete a study as Congress directed. They write: “Absent such a study, it would be irresponsible to continue promoting the Interagency Working Group’s principles without sufficient research and analysis.”
• July 26: 34 moderate Democrats sent a letter to IWG agency heads expressing concern over the data used in the group’s analysis. The Reps. write:  “[W]e believe that additional information is needed on the economic costs and benefits in order to make a proper assessment of this proposal.”

Monday six Democratic Senators sent a letter to the agencies comprising the Interagency Working Group (IWG) expressing concern over the group’s proposed guidelines for marketing food to children. The letter was sent to the heads of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Department of Agriculture (USDA), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

The letter was signed by Sens. Debbie Stabenow (MI, Chairwoman of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry), Max Baucus (MT, Chairman of the Committee on Finance), Bob Casey (PA, Chairman of the Joint Economic Committee), Kristen Gillibrand (NY), Amy Klobuchar (MN) and Michael Bennet (CO). The Senators question the following specific elements of the IWG’s proposal:

• The analysis used in determining how the guidelines conflict with other nutrition programs operated by the FDA and USDA;
• The broad definition of “marketing” and how it can prohibit the sponsorships of programs that greatly benefit children;
• The analysis used in determining the positive and negative impacts of the guidelines on various agricultural commodities; and
• The consideration given by the IWG of an industry self-regulation program that has dramatically decreased the marketing of unhealthy products to children.

This letter is the latest example of the bipartisan opposition in the Senate and House to the regulatory overreach of the IWG’s proposed guidelines. Other members of Congress have sent the following letters outlining their concerns:

•  July 21: A bipartisan group of 24 members of the Congressional Dairy Farmers Caucus sent a letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack expressing concern that many dairy products are considered “unhealthy” according to the IWG’s guidelines. The letter also asks the Secretary to urge the IWG to reconsider the proposal until a comprehensive study on the potential impact on dairy consumption and advocates a proposal consistent with other guidelines established by USDA.
• July 18: A bipartisan group of 15 Pennsylvania Representatives sent a letter to the IWG agencies urging them to withdraw the guidelines, citing the impact it will have on the state’s confectionery industry, which provides over 21,000 jobs in Pennsylvania alone.
• July 15: 19 Republican Senators sent a letter to the IWG agencies with questions on the data used by the IWG, the analysis used in developing the guidelines and the impact of the guidelines.
• June 29: Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-NC) sent a letter to the IWG agencies urging the IWG to complete a study as directed by Congress.

This shows there is a bipartisan concern on Capitol Hill about the IWG’s guidelines and that the IWG’s regulatory overreach is bad policy.

Erik Glavich is director of legal and regulatory policy, National Association of Manufacturers.

Earlier this week the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) joined by 152 business associations sent a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius, Department of Agriculture Secretary Vilsack and Federal Trade Commission Director Leibowitz highlighting the concerns with the Preliminary Proposed Nutrition Principles for Food Marketed to Children by the Interagency Working Group (IWG). 

Excerpt from the letter:  

While we all share the Administration’s goal of ending childhood obesity within a generation, the Administration should carefully assess the progress made by our industries and provide peer reviewed evidence that proposed marketing restrictions would contribute to long-term changes in diets. We urge you to withdraw the Preliminary Proposed Nutrition Principles for Food Marketed to Children.

Yesterday the Council of Better Business Bureaus announced a new agreement on child-direct food advertising. These news criteria were designed by the Children’s Food and Beverage Council for the Better Business Bureaus by working closely with top food industry scientists and nutritionists in an effort to improve child-direct food advertising. 

From the BBB press release:

“These uniform nutrition criteria represent another huge step forward, further strengthening voluntary efforts to improve child-directed advertising. Now foods from different companies, such as cereals or canned pastas, will meet the same nutrition criteria, rather than similar but slightly different company-specific criteria. The new criteria are comprehensive, establishing limits for calories, saturated fat, trans fat, sodium and total sugars as well as requirements for nutrition components to encourage,” said Elaine Kolish, Vice President and Director of the CFBAI.

The result of a year-long effort to further improve the nutrition composition of foods advertised to children, the new CFBAI criteria take into account food science, U.S. dietary guidelines, and the real-world difficulties of changing recipes of well-known foods. The new CFBAI uniform criteria fill gaps in the system of company-specific standards. They also recognize the inherent differences in food categories and their role in the diet, and set calorie and nutrient requirements that are appropriate for ten categories. Under the new CFBAI criteria, different foods such as cereals, peanut butter and dairy products have different nutrition criteria that are appropriate to each category.

 Erik Glavich is director of legal and regulatory policy, National Association of Manufacturers.

On Monday, President Obama ordered independent regulatory agencies to promote the goals of Executive Order 13563 related to cost-benefit analysis issued in January. That order suggests that independent agencies should consider conducting retrospective review of existing regulations.

Independent Agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) have now been given a strong nudge to conduct retrospective analyses of their regulations to determine whether any should be modified or repealed. The NAM applauds this action and urges independent agencies to engage in meaningful regulatory review that yields a thoughtful cleanup of outdated and unnecessarily burdensome regulation.

The President’s Order is heavily qualified by phrases seeking to make sure that the Administration not be accused of exceeding its authority over independent agencies. We believe the President has far greater authority than has been asserted. In the absence of stronger direction from the President, Congress must make clear the President’s authority in this regard.

The President’s Office of Management & Budget (OMB) already has been given authority by Congress to review the paperwork burden imposed by independent regulatory agencies. Congress should give the President the same authority to review regulations and the burdens they impose. This would promote greater uniformity in our regulatory system and improve our economy by imposing the same kind of broader thinking already applied to the regulations of agencies in the rest of the Executive Branch.

Erik Glavich is director of legal and regulatory policy, National Association of Manufacturers.