Nanotechnology will be on the table when the House Science Committee holds a hearing Wednesday, “The Future of Manufacturing: What is the Role of the Federal Government in Supporting Innovation by U.S. Manufacturers?” Among those testifying is Mark Tuominen, Ph.D., director of the National Manufacturing Network.

The multiagency federal National Nanotechnology Initiative last month released its 2011 budget proposal. In his introductory letter, Presidential Science and Technology Advisor John Holdren, wrote, “Nanotechnology R&D constitutes a core building block of innovation that will ultimately accelerate job creation and transform many sectors of our economy through commercialization.” Can regulation be far behind?

Federal oversight of nanotechnology-containing consumer products was a topic of discussion at the March 4 hearing on the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s budget before the House Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government.

In her prepared statement, Chairman Inez Tenenbaum noted the CPSC’s FY 2011 budget request called for $2 million to support the federal National Nanotechnology Initiative. She said:

In the last few years, there has been increasing public concern about potential health impacts associated with this technology. Although nanomaterials may have the same chemical composition as non-nanomaterials, at the nanonscale they may demonstrate different physical and chemical properties – and behave diferently in the environment and the human body.

The $2 million proposed will alow the Commission to conduct exposure and risk assessments of nanomaterials, allow for database updates to properly flag reports of nanotechnology incidents with consumer products, and conduct consumer outreach efforts such as public meetings. Perhaps even more importantly, it will allow the Commission to take a very proactive approach to this emerging issue, rather than merely reacting to incident reports after they are received.

In her statement, Commissioner Nancy Nord said, “This is an area where I have an especially strong interest and am pleased to see the agency take a strong role as nanomaterials transition from the research laboratory to the consumer market.”

The technology’s move — already well under way — to the marketplace is certainly welcome. One hopes regulators show restraint as they react so as to not endanger this “core building block of innovation.”

Commissioner Nancy Nord of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) writes at her blog, Conversations with Consumers about draft legislation to fix the excesses of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. From the post, “Does the Fix Need a Fix?”:

On February 5, I wrote here that the Congress was considering making changes to the CPSIA. That’s moved to the next step: the five CPSC Commissioners have now been asked to comment on draft legislation to address the unintended consequences of the CPSIA.  Because it has not yet been introduced, it is not officially available but you can read the draft bill analyzed in several blogs including Learning Resources and Shopfloor.

For almost two years we have been talking about the problems with this well-intended but flawed legislation.  I am so pleased that Congress is now willing to begin the process of fixing some of the problems with this law.  While some proposed language is helpful,  my reading overall is the fixes do not meet the mark with respect to focusing on the real safety risk.

For more on the draft legislation being circulated by Chairman Waxman’s staff of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, see our post Monday, “CPSIA Update: House Energy and Commerce Offers Fix.”

Nord raised the many problems with the CPSIA in her prepared testimony at the CPSC’s budget hearing March 4 before the House Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government. In offering a solid list of recommendations to improve the law, Nord reported:

Small businesses have been especially hurt by the sweep of this law. The agency has not done a full economic impact on the effects of CPSIA on small businesses; however anecdotal information puts the impact in the billions of dollars range. We know that many small businesses have been put out of business or have left the children’s products market.

CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum was the chief witness at the appropriations hearing, and in her statement restricted her comments on the CPSIA to the costs of implementing the law. Some might argue that an appropriations hearing is not the correct venue to raise policy disputes, but then, Congress has been awfully reluctant to address the manifest excesses and economic harm of the law. Best engage the issue when you can. The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act became law on Aug. 14, 2008.

We see that Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE) and Rep. Heath Schuler (D-NC) this month introduced H.R.4767 to exempt ordinary books and paper-based printed material from the CPSIA’s lead limit.

That’s a laudable goal, but the problems are too many and too severe for piecemeal solutions. Best that Congress fix the problems through a solid, far-reaching piece of legislation, which we can call the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act Improvement Act. Or, if clarity helps, the Fixing the Mistakes We Made in 2008 in Passing the CPSIA Act.

The Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010 unveiled this afternoon by Senate Banking Committee Chair Chris Dodd (D-CT) raises more questions and concerns for U.S. manufacturers. For one, manufacturers are disappointed that the new proposal does not make it clear that only businesses that are “predominantly engaged” in financial activities are covered by the overall reform.

Even though the thrust of the reform measure is to restore responsibility and accountability in the nation’s financial system, broadly worded definitions in the bill arguably could pull some non-financial companies into the new regulatory regime. Covered companies are defined as those with “substantial” financial activities and the Federal Reserve Board gets to decide who falls into the definition. Manufacturers that engage in routine financial activities as a small part of their main business, e.g., a global manufacturer that manages a foreign exchange trading operation, an equipment manufacturer that provides financing for customers, are concerned that they could be pulled into the systemic risk regulatory regime, drawing needed capital from their businesses and imposing new administrative burdens.

On the derivatives front, manufacturers were pleased to see that the definition of a “major swap participant” excludes OTC derivatives used to hedge business risk. Unfortunately, because it is not clear that business end-users who do not pose risks to the financial system are excluded from the definition, some manufacturers are concerned they could be considered a major swap participant. Another concern for manufacturers are requirements that they post margin on bilateral, customized derivatives contracts. End-users like manufactures do not pose a threat to financial stability and should be able to continue to access OTC derivatives without tying up valuable working capital.

On a brighter note, there may be more changes on the derivatives provisions during the Committee’s markup session, which could happen as early as next week. In comments this afternoon, Sen. Dodd noted that Sens. Judd Gregg (R-NH) and Jack Reed (D-RI) are working on a revised derivatives section that the committee could vote on next week.

• Text of draft legislation
• Summary of draft legislation (13 pages)

Dorothy Coleman is vice president for tax and domestic economic policy at the National Association of Manufacturers.

Chairman Henry Waxman’s staff on the House Energy and Commerce Committee has released draft legislation meant to correct the multitude of problems in the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA). It includes many of the proposals offered by the National Association of Manufacturers and its member companies and associations.

The discussion draft is here.

The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act became law on Aug. 14, 2008.

The draft proposal is meant to provide the Consumer Product Safety Commission additional authority in the exclusion process, one of the most confounding flaws of the current law. If a product poses no threat whatsoever — think brass and other lead-containing metal parts on kids’ ATVs or in bicycle valves — the CPSC has not been able to provide a common-sense exemption from the CPSIA’s effective ban on sales. This language should also help manufacturers and sellers of children’s books and ball point pens.

Also proposed is exclusion language for inaccessible parts containing phthalates — shielded wiring, for example — exemptions for extremely low-volume manufacturers, and exemptions for thrift stores. The language would apply prospectively the reduction in 2011 to 100ppm for lead content instead of applying it retroactively, as has been current practice.

The draft also proposes to give the CPSC new authority on voluntary recalls, subpoena power and public notification of imminent hazards.

The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act became law on Aug. 14, 2008.

The NAM is collecting comments from members in response to the draft language. Not surprisingly, the most passionate and engaged activists on the issue, Rick Woldenberg of Learning Resources Inc. has commented extensively on the draft language at his blog, “CPSIA - Comments & Observations.” Chairman Waxman has at least acknowledge that the law is flawed, Woldenberg writes, but he sharply criticizes the draft’s omissions and failings. From “CPSIA - The New Waxman Amendment Analyzed,“:

CRITICAL ISSUES are absent and unaddressed in this legislation. Examples:

• Risk Assessment by the CPSC and/or the Commission.
• Changes in age limits for the lead standards and phthalates ban.
• Narrowing of the scope of “Children’s Product” to eliminate many categories of products unthinkingly pulled into this law by its overly broad language.
• True reform to protect small businesses.
• Tracking labels relief.

All valid points.

More from Woldenberg:

• CSPIA - Treatment of Resale Goods under the Waxman Amendment
• CPSIA - Treatment of Section 101(b)(2) in the New Waxman Amendment

The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act became law on Aug. 14, 2008.

UPDATE: Roll Call has a sympathetic article on Chairman Waxman today, “Henry Waxman in His Element.” The story does not mention the CPSIA, which became law on Aug. 14, 2008.

The Congressional health care debate reaches its climacteric week, and The Washington Post op-ed page offers two good columns on the topic.

Robert Samuelson, “Obama’s illusions of cost-control“:

Though it seems compelling, covering the uninsured is not the health-care system’s major problem. The big problem is uncontrolled spending, which prices people out of the market and burdens government budgets. Obama claims his proposal checks spending. Just the opposite. When people get insurance, they use more health services. Spending rises. By the government’s latest forecast, health spending goes from 17 percent of the economy in 2009 to 19 percent in 2019. Health “reform” would probably increase that.

Unless we change the fee-for-service system, costs will remain hard to control because providers are paid more for doing more. Obama might have attempted that by proposing health-care vouchers (limited amounts to be spent on insurance), which would force a restructuring of delivery systems to compete on quality and cost. Doctors, hospitals and drug companies would have to reorganize care. Obama refrained from that fight and instead cast insurance companies as the villains.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), “Rep. Paul Ryan on what real health reform should look like“:

Through any analytical lens, the legislation will not address the central problem of skyrocketing health-care costs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that families’ premiums could rise 10 to 13 percent; private-sector actuarial estimates top these already high numbers. The higher costs are driven by federalizing the regulation of insurance, narrowing consumers’ options and reducing competition among providers. The health-care market would be dominated by government programs and the largest insurance companies, operating as de facto government utilities.

Rather than tackle the drivers of health inflation, the legislation chases the ever-increasing premiums with huge new subsidies. Already, Washington has no idea how to pay for the unfunded promises in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security — and creating this new entitlement would accelerate our path to fiscal ruin.

The National Association of Manufacturers is a member of the Start Over! business coalition, which outlined its principles and priorities for health care reform in a Feb. 22 letter to President Obama. Cost control and global competitiveness figured prominently:

Central to the discussion among summit attendees must be how reform ideas affect the ability of
our nation’s economy to recover and businesses to create jobs. Even in ideal economic times
imposing costly regulations and taxes on business is a bad idea. A competitive global
environment and an already burdensome tax and regulatory structure offer enough challenges for
businesses of all sizes to invest and create jobs. We should be looking for ways to streamline
and modernize these structures, rather than layering additional costs on job creators. Moreover,
the dismal state of our nation’s fiscal house requires that proposals be weighed against the threat
that large-scale spending poses to long-term economic stability and competitiveness.

As noted at Shopfloor yesterday, many labor groups are pressuring President Obama to seat Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) via a recess appointment, despite objections from the Senate. Some have questioned the validity of the Board’s current quorum and have argued that with only two members the Board is crippled. However, if the Senate truly feels that the Board needs an unquestionable quorum to be successful, Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY), who serves at the Ranking Member on the Senate HELP Committee, lays out an easier option: Confirm the two pending nominees.

From a Feb. 9 floor statement:

I wish to point out that there is another way. There at three current vacancies at the National Labor Relations Board, and the HELP Committee has unanimously approved the President’s other two nominees. If the Senate wanted to confirm two new members to the Board, it could have easily done so today. [February 9, 2010] In fact, it could have done so last year. One of these nominees, Mark Pearce [a Democrat], is a labor-side attorney who has spent his career representing labor unions. The other is a Republican nominee with management-side experience in addition to tenures on the staff of the National Labor Relations Board and in the Senate as my labor policy director, Brian Hayes. Yet these nominees did not inspire objections from HELP members on either side of the aisle.

It is disingenuous to suggest that the only way that the Board can function properly is through the controversial action of a recess appointment. If the Senate wants to ensure the effective operation of the NLRB, Senator should move to confirm the other two nominees now awaiting confirmation.

Lisa Jackson, Environmental Protection Agency administrator, speaking at the National Press Club Monday criticized citizens who disagree with the power grab(s) being undertaken by the agency to regulate greenhouse gases. Jackson sends an army of straw-men arguments marching into a very important debate about science, our economy, and the authority of an executive branch agency to set policy.

As you might expect, we’re running into the same old tired arguments.

Once again industry and lobbyists are trying to convince us that changes will be absolutely impossible. Once again alarmists are claiming this will be the death knell of our economy. Once again they are telling us we have to choose: Economy? Or environment?

Most drastically, we are seeing efforts to further delay EPA action to reduce greenhouse gases.

This is happening despite the overwhelming science on the dangers of climate change…despite the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision that EPA must use the Clean Air Act to reduce the proven threat of greenhouse gases…and despite the fact that leaving this problem for our children to solve is an act of breathtaking negligence.

Yeah, breathtaking. We get it.

Let’s take a look at Jackson’s claims.

1. “Once again industry and lobbyists are trying to convince us that changes will be absolutely impossible.” Really? Who’s arguing that? Here is a paragraph from the National Association of Manufacturers’ policy on climate change:

The NAM understands the fundamental importance of protecting the environment. Our member companies are committed to greater environmental sustainability, including energy efficiency and conservation and reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with global climate change. We know we cannot solve the climate change issue alone. The U.S. Congress must engage in a thorough and transparent deliberative process for establishing federal climate change policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while maintaining a competitive level playing field for U.S. companies in the global marketplace.

The policy then lists a set of principles for federal action on climate, stating that policies must be equitable and economywide in scope, include all sectors and recognize the different competitive environments and abilities of sectors. The EPA does not have the authority to accomplish this balancing under the Clean Air Act.

2. “Once again alarmists are claiming this will be the death knell of our economy. Once again they are telling us we have to choose: Economy? Or environment?” Ah, alarmists. Because with unemployment near 10 percent amid inconsistent signs of a recovery, and the United States competing in a global economy, anyone who expresses concerns about a vast new regulatory regime imposing new costs on the energy sector, manufacturers, and transportation is an “alarmist.” Here is a link to a study conducted for the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Council for Capital Formation on the effects of the Waxman-Markey legislation, including a loss of $2 trillion to $3 trillion in economic growth and two million jobs over the 18 years of the bill.

3. “Most drastically, we are seeing efforts to further delay EPA action to reduce greenhouse gases.” Thank goodness for these “most drastic” efforts, also known as legislation. You see, it’s not only industry and lobbyists and citizens who are exercising their First Amendment rights in calling for a delay in the EPA’s unprecedented power grab. It’s Senators, like Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). And Representatives like Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO), Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN) and Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO).

4. “This is happening despite the overwhelming science on the dangers of climate change.” That’s a point of some contention, isn’t it? We see scandal after scandal undermining the credibility of the most prominent scientific polemicists on climate change. (From Iain Murray at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, “Climategate: This Time It’s NASA,” and “The Real Climate Confusion.”)

5. “despite the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision that EPA must use the Clean Air Act to reduce the proven threat of greenhouse gases…” Advocates  often simplify the court’s decision in Massachusett v. EPA as ordering the agency to regulate greenhouse gases. It’s not that direct. The court ruled that the EPA did have the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases and is required by the Act to base the decision on a consideration of “whether greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change.” In any case, that’s a statutory authority that Congress, as the policymaking branch of government, can remove or modify as it wishes.

6. “and despite the fact that leaving this problem for our children to solve is an act of breathtaking negligence.” Unlike, say, the federal debt? In any case, Administrator Jackson is using the tired political tactic of invoking “the children,” in this case on behalf of a false choice. Opposing the Obama  EPA’s power grab, arguing against the agency’s attempt remake and burden the U.S. economy over the wishes of the public and policymakers does not mean “leaving this problem for our children to solve.” It means accurately identifying the problem, relying on our elected policymakers to address the issue through the political process, avoiding Pyrrhic victories that burn down our economy, and using the best of technological advances to improve efficiency and energy conservation.

What’s breathtaking about that?

John B. Judis, a senior editor with The New Republic, pressures President Obama to make a recess appointment of SEIU and AFL-CIO counsel Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board, casting the argument in political terms as “Obama’s Hinge Moment.” First published in the magazine, Judis’ piece was reposted at NPR’s site today.

Judis’ argument is political, as he waves away business’ objections to Becker’s nomination, claiming “Becker dealt satisfactorily with the principal charge against him — that he would use the NLRB to administratively enact the Employee Free Choice Act.” Maybe, if you’re satisfied by “No, I wouldn’t,” as sufficient, his earlier writings to the contrary.

Judis:

At the end of this month, Obama will have a chance to prove these critics wrong. It would certainly be the politically smart thing to do. Labor remains essential to the Democratic coalition, and, given that Obama cannot offer unions what they really want–the Employee Free Choice Act–he can at least mollify them with this. More than a shrewd political move, however, filling the vacancies on the NLRB is the right thing to do. It is a small agency but an important one. And, as long as it remains crippled, one of the core philosophical commitments of the Democratic Party–the idea that workers ought to have some counterweight to the overwhelming power of big business–goes unfulfilled.

Other than politics, there’s nothing stopping Senate confirmation of the other two nominees, Buffalo labor lawyer Mark Pearce and former Senate staffer Brian Hayes. President Obama could also easily nominate another Democrat to fill the swing position on the NLRB.

So the issue here isn’t the effective operation of the National Labor Relations Board, it’s the “mollifying” of organized labor.

A Department of Labor event March 9, 2010, “OSHA Recordkeeping MSD Proposal Public Hearing“:

Description: The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is hosting a public hearing on a proposal to revise its Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and Reporting regulation by restoring a column on the OSHA Form 300 to better identify work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs).

The event starts at 9 a.m. at the Department of Labor building.

Remarks by David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, on Feb. 3 at a meeting of ORC Worldwide:

First: OSHA has proposed revising its recordkeeping regulation to restore the column for musculoskeletal disorders (MSD’s) on the OSHA 300 Log that employers use to record workplace injuries and illnesses. The proposed rule would require employers to check the MSD column if the case is recordable under the regulation’s general requirements and the case meets the definition of an MSD. It appears from press reports that our announcement of this effort may have confused some observers. So, let me be clear: This is not a prelude to a broader ergonomics standard. OSHA is simply restoring the musculoskeletal disorders column to the OSHA 300 log as the recordkeeping standard, issued in 2001, originally intended.

MSD’s continue to be a major problem for American workers. They’re real and they’re hurting a lot of people. OSHA believes that putting the MSD column back on the log will improve the Nation’s occupational injury and illness statistics as well as provide useful information that workers and employers can use to better identify musculoskeletal disorders in their workplaces. However, at this time, OSHA has no plans for regulatory activity.

We note the “at this time,” a oft-used rhetorical hedge.

Sen. Orrin Hatch held a conference call with bloggers at noon today to talk about health care legislation and offer his critique of the possibility of Senate Democrats using reconciliation to push through a bill despite the public’s overwhelming opposition. (See the Senator’s Washington Post op-ed, “Reconciliation on health care would be an assault to the democratic process.”)

We took the opportunity to ask for the Senator’s thoughts on the possibility of President Obama making a recess appointment of Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board. On Feb. 9th, the Senate failed to invoke cloture on Becker’s nomination by a bipartisan vote of 52-33.

Sen. Hatch:

When you have a clear cut vote like that, the President shouldn’t do it, should not recess appoint him. If he does …

The man is off the wall. He’s very smart, I mean, I don’t mean to demean him. He’s a smart man. In fact that’s one of the problems. He will do any thing to help the SEIU and the AFL-CIO. Anything!

And that includes doing by regulation at the NLRB that which you could never get through legislation, and once they do that, I think it would be not only unconstitutional, but, you know, illegal, but it would take years all the way through the Supreme Court to change it. And that’s what they’re up to.

I can’t believe the president would put Becker up there, knowing how very …That was even a bipartisan vote against Becker, by the way, and I’d be very surprised if he did that.

Now, I don’t dislike the man personally. I dislike his views. He’s a smart guy, there’s no question about it. But he is an ideologue, there’s no question about that. He’s going to do whatever those big unions want. And, you know, they want power, more than anything else, and that’s what they’re going to give him if he’s recess appointed.

The audio is here.