Here's another heads up....Clinton piles on "rules".....
opyright © 2000 The Seattle Times Company
Nation & World : Sunday, November 26,
2000
Clinton administration to pour forth
many new regulations
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON - The Clinton administration
is striving to pour
forth regulations on the environment,
labor, health care and other
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,
the mere prospect of a Republican
administration headed by
George W. Bush is making the Democrats
who are now in control
more determined to leave a lasting
imprint on public policy.
Here are some of the more controversial
regulations that the
Clinton administration is likely to put
into effect before Jan. 20:
** A 95 percent 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 Arctic Wildlife
Range as a national
monument, which would make oil drilling
in the area virtually
impossible. Environmentalists want it,
but Alaska's congressional
delegation is staunchly opposed.
** In determining federal contracts, the
blacklisting 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.
Congressional Republicans, despite
controlling the House and the
Senate both this year and next, 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.
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.
Some of Clinton's midnight rules,
although 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.
"This dramatically reduces the hassle
factor for states and for
low-income families... ," 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 percent would
devastate the nation's transportation
system and slash diesel output
by 20 percent to 30 percent, 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." |
