To: guru@emfguru.com
FEDERAL PAGE/The Administration
Regulatory Nominee Assailed in Report
Consumer Group Alleges Corporate Ties
_____From the Web_____
• 'Public Citizen's' Report on Graham (pdf)
E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Version
Subscribe to The Post
By Cindy Skrzycki
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 14, 2001; Page E01
Even before his confirmation hearing as chief regulatory overseer for the Bush
administration is scheduled, Harvard professor John D. Graham is being attacked
as corporate America's back door to the White House.
Graham's nomination as head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
at the Office of Management and Budget may sound like a bureaucratic dead end.
But the office is the nerve center for reviewing and approving -- or killing --
all major federal regulations, which can affect the lives of millions of
Americans.
That's what has Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group, so upset. It issued a
130-page report Monday slamming Graham and the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis,
which he founded in 1989.
It denounced the corporate funding of the center and accused Graham of using his
affiliation with Harvard, where he is a professor of policy and decision
sciences, "to lend a scientific veneer to corporate efforts to roll back safety
and environmental standards, and to push for a top-down reorganization of the
country's basic regulatory scheme."
The scathing report has mobilized Graham's supporters, who said he is respected
in his field of regulatory analysis. More than 50 economists signed a letter
saying, "It is very regrettable that some interest groups that disagree with
John's views . . . have chosen to impugn his integrity by implying that his
views are for sale rather than confronting the merits of his arguments."
Graham, 44, declined comment yesterday, citing his pending confirmation hearing.
Trained in economics and public policy, Graham uses "comparative risk analysis"
to balance the need for regulation against the risk of the event actually
happening, or comparing it with another situation that might cause more harm.
Lisa Heinzerling, who teaches environmental law and policy at Georgetown
University, said Graham "says that the risks of dying posed by exposure to
dioxin are one in 100, which is comparable to the risk of dying in an auto, so
we shouldn't be too worried about it. So, it's often just an excuse for not
regulating."
Graham supporters don't agree.
"There isn't a person better qualified for the job. He is the premier scholar in
the field of cost-benefit and risk analysis," said Robert Litan, co-director of
the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies.
"The public interest community has long been hostile to cost-benefit analysis. I
guess the opposition doesn't surprise me. But he is not the John Ashcroft of
regulatory policy. He is a balanced, very well-known and highly regarded expert
in this field regardless of where he has gotten money before."
Sally Katzen, who held the top regulatory job at the Office of Management and
Budget in the Clinton administration, said that although some people may not
agree with Graham's philosophy of relative risk, "He's very proficient in the
field of regulatory analysis."
The Public Citizen report expressed concern that Graham's dependence on
corporate funding will influence his decisions at OMB.
The Web site for Graham's Center for Risk Analysis lists its donors, though
there is no information on how much they gave. They include corporations, trade
associations and the government. Among them are Merck & Co., Monsanto Co.,
International Paper Co., Kraft Foods Inc., Coca-Cola Co., Dow Chemical Co., the
American Chemistry Council and the American Automobile Manufacturers
Association.
Although the center does not routinely disclose its budget, a source close to
the organization said it was $3 million last year. Of that amount, 40 percent
was donated by private sources and was unrestricted; 30 percent came from
government; 20 percent from private donors for specific projects; and 10 percent
from Harvard.
The Public Citizen report charges that research Graham did for AT&T Wireless
Communications was biased because it did not advocate a ban on cell-phone use in
vehicles. A spokesman for the center said it was widely disclosed that AT&T paid
$300,000 for the study and it was peer-reviewed by a dozen scientists.
Public Citizen also said Graham was closely aligned with the tobacco industry
and solicited funds from it. The center asked Philip Morris Cos. for a $25,000
contribution and got $10,000, a source familiar with its funding said.
A source close to Graham said he is steeling himself to work with the people who
criticize him when he comes to Washington. He is "a smart, articulate and
informed person who knows a good regulation from a bad one," the source said.
Staff writer Ellen Nakashima contributed to this report.
© 2001 The Washington Post Company
SEARCH
News
Post Archives
Advanced Search
Politics Where
You Live
Enter state abbrev.
or ZIP code
Home | Register Web Search:
--------------1DC7FB800FA14FE9068BAD81
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
............From EMF-L........
Jan, thanks forthis!!! NO DOUBT ABOUT IT -- Graham is a regular
Moulder or Repacholi when it comes to his ties (and record) with
industry...... Not the kind of "pro-public interest" appointment
that
Bush promised during his campaign.......guru......
-------- Original Message --------
| Subject: |
Regulatory Nominee Assailed in Report (washingtonpost.com) |
| Date: |
Wed, 14 Mar 2001 16:12:49 -0800 |
| From: |
JNewton at EMRNetwork <JNewton@emrnetwork.org> |
| To: |
guru@emfguru.com |
FEDERAL
PAGE/The
Administration
Regulatory
Nominee Assailed in Report
Consumer Group Alleges Corporate Ties
_____From
the Web_____
•
'Public
Citizen's' Report on Graham (pdf)
E-Mail
This Article
Printer-Friendly
Version
Subscribe
to The Post
By Cindy Skrzycki
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 14, 2001; Page E01
Even before his confirmation hearing as chief regulatory overseer for
the Bush administration is scheduled, Harvard professor John D. Graham
is being attacked as corporate America's back door to the White House.
Graham's nomination as head of the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget may sound like a bureaucratic
dead end. But the office is the nerve center for reviewing and approving
-- or killing -- all major federal regulations, which can affect the lives
of millions of Americans.
That's what has Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group, so upset.
It issued a 130-page report Monday slamming Graham and the Harvard Center
for Risk Analysis, which he founded in 1989.
It denounced the corporate funding of the center and accused Graham
of using his affiliation with Harvard, where he is a professor of policy
and decision sciences, "to lend a scientific veneer to corporate efforts
to roll back safety and environmental standards, and to push for a top-down
reorganization of the country's basic regulatory scheme."
The scathing report has mobilized Graham's supporters, who said he is
respected in his field of regulatory analysis. More than 50 economists
signed a letter saying, "It is very regrettable that some interest groups
that disagree with John's views . . . have chosen to impugn his integrity
by implying that his views are for sale rather than confronting the merits
of his arguments."
Graham, 44, declined comment yesterday, citing his pending confirmation
hearing.
Trained in economics and public policy, Graham uses "comparative risk
analysis" to balance the need for regulation against the risk of the event
actually happening, or comparing it with another situation that might cause
more harm.
Lisa Heinzerling, who teaches environmental law and policy at Georgetown
University, said Graham "says that the risks of dying posed by exposure
to dioxin are one in 100, which is comparable to the risk of dying in an
auto, so we shouldn't be too worried about it. So, it's often just an excuse
for not regulating."
Graham supporters don't agree.
"There isn't a person better qualified for the job. He is the premier
scholar in the field of cost-benefit and risk analysis," said Robert Litan,
co-director of the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies.
"The public interest community has long been hostile to cost-benefit
analysis. I guess the opposition doesn't surprise me. But he is not the
John Ashcroft of regulatory policy. He is a balanced, very well-known and
highly regarded expert in this field regardless of where he has gotten
money before."
Sally Katzen, who held the top regulatory job at the Office of Management
and Budget in the Clinton administration, said that although some people
may not agree with Graham's philosophy of relative risk, "He's very proficient
in the field of regulatory analysis."
The Public Citizen report expressed concern that Graham's dependence
on corporate funding will influence his decisions at OMB.
The Web site for Graham's Center for Risk Analysis lists its donors,
though there is no information on how much they gave. They include corporations,
trade associations and the government. Among them are Merck & Co.,
Monsanto Co., International Paper Co., Kraft Foods Inc., Coca-Cola Co.,
Dow Chemical Co., the American Chemistry Council and the American Automobile
Manufacturers Association.
Although the center does not routinely disclose its budget, a source
close to the organization said it was $3 million last year. Of that amount,
40 percent was donated by private sources and was unrestricted; 30 percent
came from government; 20 percent from private donors for specific projects;
and 10 percent from Harvard.
The Public Citizen report charges that research Graham did for AT&T
Wireless Communications was biased because it did not advocate a ban on
cell-phone use in vehicles. A spokesman for the center said it was widely
disclosed that AT&T paid $300,000 for the study and it was peer-reviewed
by a dozen scientists.
Public Citizen also said Graham was closely aligned with the tobacco
industry and solicited funds from it. The center asked Philip Morris Cos.
for a $25,000 contribution and got $10,000, a source familiar with its
funding said.
A source close to Graham said he is steeling himself to work with the
people who criticize him when he comes to Washington. He is "a smart, articulate
and informed person who knows a good regulation from a bad one," the source
said.
Staff writer Ellen Nakashima contributed to this report.
© 2001 The Washington Post Company
SEARCH
News
Post Archives
Advanced
Search
Politics Where
You Live
Enter state
abbrev.
or ZIP
code
Home
|
Register
Web Search:
--------------1DC7FB800FA14FE9068BAD81--
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com