Clinton Readies an Avalanche of Regulations

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.