Clinton Readies an Avalanche of Regulations
Policy: Transitions spur a flurry of last-minute actions. The push
this year is on the environment, labor, health care.

By ROBERT A. ROSENBLATT, ELIZABETH SHOGREN, Times Staff Writers


WASHINGTON--The Clinton administration is striving mightily
to pour forth regulations on the environment, labor, health care and
other controversial topics before Jan. 20 brings a new occupant to
the White House.
The end of every presidential term brings a flurry of last-minute
activities, and a transition from one party to the other generally
triggers a blizzard of what has become known as "midnight
regulations." After this year's close and bitterly contested election,
whose winner still has not been determined, the mere prospect of a
Republican administration headed by George W. Bush is making
the Democrats who are now in control all the more determined to
leave a lasting imprint on public policy.
Here are some of the more controversial regulations that the
administration is likely to put into effect before Jan. 20:
* A 95% reduction in the amount of sulfur in diesel fuel, which
powers the trucks that transport most of the goods Americans
consume. Advocates hail it as the biggest pollution cleanup since
lead was removed from gasoline. Business opponents blast it as the
equivalent of a hefty new tax that would cripple diesel fuel
production and send prices soaring.
* Tighter privacy standards for electronic medical records.
Individuals want to keep their records confidential and to be able to
sue if their privacy is violated. Employers and health plans say they
need the information to improve health care delivery.
* Designation of the Alaskan Wildlife Range as a national
monument, which would make oil drilling in the area virtually off
limits. Environmentalists want it, but Alaska's congressional
delegation is staunchly opposed.
* The blacklisting from federal contracts of companies accused
of violating federal labor, environmental and health laws. Labor
unions call this a long-overdue reform. Business complains that the
threat of losing eligibility to bid for contracts can encourage business
rivals or union organizers to lodge false and frivolous complaints.
The Jimmy Carter administration became renowned for stuffing
the Federal Register with 23,000 pages of regulations during the
three months before Ronald Reagan took office in 1981. The
Mercatus Institute, a research organization at George Mason
University, estimates that the Clinton administration is on course to
fill 29,000 pages.

'Rules, Rules, Rules,' Complain Republicans
And congressional Republicans, despite controlling both the
House and the Senate, are powerless to stop the rules, which have
the force of law. The constitutional separation of powers between
the branches of government leaves Congress responsible for
passing laws but gives the executive branch exclusive authority to
adopt the regulations it deems necessary to administer them.
That has left some Republican lawmakers fuming.
"The Clinton administration's approach to government can be
summed up in three words: rules, rules, rules," said Rep. J.C. Watts
Jr. of Oklahoma, chairman of the House Republican Conference.
"This administration's primary goal is to increase bureaucracy
and the size of government until it invades every cubicle and every
workplace in America. These last-ditch efforts are the last gasps of
an administration bent on increasing the size and scope of
government at every level."
And if Bush becomes president, he will not be able to simply
cancel the rules left behind by Clinton. Federal rules may take effect
only after a formal process: hearings, comments by interested
parties, a proposed rule, more comments and a final rule. The law
protects that process.
The new administration could order new rule-making processes
that could lead to modification or perhaps repeal of the old rules.
But that might take months or even years.
The power of the presidency and the limits of Congress were
vividly illustrated earlier this month when the administration said it
would restrict commercial logging and road building in national
forests. There was little congressional Republicans could do except
fulminate.
Sen. Frank H. Murkowski (R-Alaska) called the
administration's plan, which would severely restrict timber harvests
in the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, an "outrageous exercise
of arbitrary decision-making."
Murkowski and three other Republican lawmakers--Sen. Larry
E. Craig of Idaho and Reps. Don Young of Alaska and Helen
Chenoweth-Hage of Idaho--sent a letter last week to the General
Accounting Office, an investigatory arm of Congress, calling for a
review of the new forest rules "under the provisions of the newly
enacted Truth in Regulating Act."
A Craig spokesman said the senator would pursue legislation to
block the policies. But he will face an uphill struggle, given the slim
GOP majority in Congress.
When Republicans took control of Congress in the 1994
elections, one of their first accomplishments was passage of a law
allowing Congress to overturn regulations. It has not used the law,
however, because Clinton would certainly veto anything it passed.
"If Gore doesn't win, Clinton will jam a lot of sloppy work into
the federal register," said Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Newport
Beach).
If Clinton issues a mass of midnight regulations offensive to the
GOP majority, Cox said, the new Congress might decide next year
to reject them as a package. "Our greatest concern is an avalanche
of regulations at the last minute."
Bush, as president, would certainly sign the
Republican-sponsored legislation rejecting rules considered onerous
by the party.
But it might be tough to get agreement on which rules are
offensive, because of the paper-thin GOP majority in the House and
the dead-even division in the Senate (50-50 if Democrat Maria
Cantwell's lead holds up in Washington state).
An environmental regulation, for example, might not stir as much
opposition as a rule dealing with labor standards. Majorities would
be constantly shifting and disappearing.
"Each one of these [regulations] will be a battle, each one is a
controversial issue," said Randel Johnson, vice president for labor
and employee benefits at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Bush
"has run on a platform of moderation, so we should not assume he
will flat-out agree to repeal this or that regulation. A Bush White
House will be more sympathetic to business, more than a Gore
White House, but no one is taking anything for certain."

No Opposition to Food Stamp Changes
Some of Clinton's midnight rules, though wide-ranging in scope,
have aroused little controversy. Already announced without
significant opposition were shifts in the food stamp program that
Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman called "the most significant in
25 years." The changes allow states to reduce bureaucratic
obstacles to being on the food stamp rolls, making it easier for the
poor to receive food stamps.
Families seeking to continue in the program will now be required
to go through the detailed re-enrollment process twice a year
instead of every three months. Families who are leaving welfare for
work will be allowed to use food stamps for three months during
the transition.
The department loosened the rule that disqualified a family for
food stamps if it owned a car of any kind. Now families may still get
food stamps if they own a car worth less than $1,500 or one that a
teenager uses to get to work or school.
"This dramatically reduces the hassle factor for states and for
low-income families by allowing them to stay on the program for
more than three months at a time," said Stacy Dean, an analyst at
the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
In a booming economy with a big federal budget surplus, an
expansion of the food stamp program isn't drawing any political fire.
The most intense arguments over regulation come when influential
groups are pitted against each other.
The administration, under pressure from organized labor,
recently issued its final rule for dealing with repetitive motion injuries
that would give affected workers regular breaks. Business groups,
realizing they had little chance of overturning the rule by an act of
Congress, instead took the administration to court.
While opponents regard the rule as a last-minute sop to labor,
the unions call it long overdue. "This has been in the works for 10
years, and the business community has tried a different angle every
time--they just want to block it at whatever cost," said Denise
Mitchell, a spokeswoman for the AFL-CIO.
The same kind of intensity marks the debate over environmental
rules. The proposal to cut sulfur in diesel fuel by 95% would
devastate the nation's transportation system and slash diesel output
by 20% to 30%, said Bill Kovacs, vice president for environment,
technology and regulatory affairs at the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce.
"This is our No. 1 issue," he said.
It's also No. 1 at the Natural Resources Defense Council, which
contends that exposure to truck and bus exhaust fumes can cause
asthma and cancer. "In terms of public health benefits," said Richard
Kessel, the group's senior attorney, "there is nothing on the
regulatory agenda that comes even close."
* * *
Times staff writers Alissa J. Rubin and Richard Simon
contributed to this story.
SOURCE:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/20001126/t000113578.html 

APFN