U.S. PIRG Urges The Senate To Oppose Dr. John Graham As Head Of The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
June 13, 2001
The U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG), as association of state-based organizations that are active in over 40 states, urges that you oppose the nomination of Dr. John Graham to the Office of Management and Budgets Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), and that you support closer scrutiny of his suitability to lead OIRA. As Administrator of OIRA, Dr. Graham could use a closed-door process to stop much-needed protections prior to any public debate, and to construct regulatory procedures that would weaken consumer, environmental or public health protections contemplated by any federal agency.
Dr. Graham has a long history of espousing highly controversial and academically suspect positions against protections for consumers, public health, and the environment. He also has a history of taking money from corporations with a financial interest in the topics on which he writes and speaks. Unfortunately, this pattern of soliciting money from polluting corporations, taking controversial positions that are favorable to his benefactors, and failing to fully disclose conflict of interests calls into question his fitness to be the Administrator of OIRA.
Dr. Grahams positions are based on theories of risk assessment that fall far outside of the mainstream, and in fact, are contrary to positions taken by esteemed academics and scientists. Widespread opposition to Dr. Grahams nomination from well-respected professionals is indicative of his unbalanced approach. Indeed, eleven professors from Harvard (where Dr. Graham is employed) and 53 other academics from law, medicine, economics, business, public health, political science, psychology, ethics and the environmental sciences drafted letters of opposition to Dr. Grahams nomination. These experts all concluded that Dr. Graham is the wrong person to supervise the nations system of regulatory safeguards.
Overwhelming opposition to Dr. Graham reflects deep concern regarding his pattern of pushing controversial and unsupported theories, combined with his failure to disclose financial conflicts of interests. In constructing his positions on regulatory affairs, Dr. Graham has employed dubious methodologies and assumptions, utilized inflated costs estimates, and failed to fully consider the benefits of safeguards to public health, consumers and the environment. Dr. Graham has used these tools when dealing with the media to distort issues related to well-established dangers, including cancer-causing chemicals (such as benzene), the clean up of toxic waste sites (including Love Canal), and the dangers of pesticides in food. In each instance, Mr. Grahams public statements failed to include an admission that he was being paid by corporate interests with a financial stake in rulemaking related to those topics.
Widespread opposition to Dr. Graham is buttressed by the unquestioned need for a balanced leader at OIRA. This office is the gatekeeper of OMBs regulatory review process, and dictates the creation and use of analytical methodologies that other agencies must employ when developing protections for public health, consumers, and the environment. In his role as gatekeeper, Dr. Graham will have the ability to stop much-needed protections before they ever see the light of day. In his role as director of analysis, he will be able to manipulate agency rulemakingswithout Congressional approval or adequate public discussionby issuing new OMB policies that force other agencies to conform to his narrow and highly controversial philosophy. This could result in a weakening of current protections, and a failure to create adequate future safeguards.
OIRA needs a fair and balanced individual at its helm. A review of Dr. Grahams record demonstrates an unmistakable pattern of placing the profits of polluters, over protections for public health, the environment, and consumers. In the interests of balance and accountability, we urge you to oppose Dr. Grahams nomination, and to support on-going Congressional efforts to carefully scrutinize his record.
U.S. Public Interest Research Group
Back to Graham Page
Back to Public Citizen's John Graham ReportBack to Federal Regulations: Health, Safety & Environmental Protections
Back to Congress Watch Homepage
Back to Public Citizen Homepage