Henry Waxman (D-CA), Chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, subpoenaed the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requesting all documents related to its role in EPA's recent revision to the national air quality standard for ozone, or smog. In that rule, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson tightened the standard but did not go as far as its staff and scientific advisors had recommended. Waxman is targeting OMB because some documents already available to the public show that the White House, not Johnson, was responsible for the decision to set a standard inconsistent with the body of scientific evidence. (See this OMB Watch statement for more on the White House's interference in the rule.) Waxman's subpoena isn't likely to turn up much information, and not just because the White House has about as much respect for congressional subpoenas as it does for letters from Publishers' Clearinghouse. The evidence of OMB interference is already in the rulemaking record, and all the players' positions are pretty well staked out: EPA's staff and advisors wanted a tighter standard that what was ultimately settled on; Industry lobbyists, President Bush, and Susan Dudley (head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs) wanted EPA to set an unjustifiable, weak standard; and EPA Administrator Johnson wants to cater to the White House's every demand. Some rigorous questioning might turn up more information or at least force White House officials to answer for their sins. For example, why does the White House believe the views of a handful of industry lobbyists are more important than the well-being of millions of Americans — particularly children, the elderly, asthmatics, and those at risk for heart disease? More pointedly, did OMB know, or care, that their interference would subject the new rule to legal challenges? Do Bush and Dudley have any respect for the Clean Air Act, or do they merely view it as an obstacle thrown in their path upon them by pesky congresses past? (Waxman has announced his intention to hold a hearing on this issue.) The White House foisted its own opinion on EPA, ignored the scientific evidence in support of a tighter standard for ozone, and, because Dudley and Bush are typically sympathetic of the views of industry lobbyists, may have urged EPA to consider compliance costs. With that evidence, even Lionel Hutz could make a case that the new standard is in violation of the Clean Air Act. Of course, the White House would probably pay no concern to a legal challenge to the rule. The new standard will make some progress in the area of reducing ozone exposure, and polluters will incur compliance costs to meet the rule's requirements. Since litigation can mire regulations for years, Bush may be able to secure a legacy of regulatory delay even after his time in office has expired. Now there's a scary thought.