WASHINGTON -- Republicans plan to begin today redeeming their pledge to sharply curtail the power of the federal bureaucracy as the House opens debate on a measure that would put thousands of federal health, safety and environmental regulations in limbo.
"Many of us believe the time has come when we have to stop the bureaucratic micromanagement of every aspect of commerce in this country," said Rep. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., a Republican freshman from Baltimore County who campaigned on a promise to curb regulatory excess.
Today's business, a bill that would freeze until the end of this year nearly all federal regulations issued since Nov. 20, is the first of several anti-regulatory measures headed for the House floor that could reverse decades of efforts to protect Americans and natural resources.
Wetlands preservation, gasoline quality standards, product safety rules, drug testing, smoking bans and labor rights are among the areas that could be affected.
"It's a recipe for chaos," said Sen. John H. Chafee, a Rhode Island Republican who departs from the party leadership because he sponsored many of the environmental laws that may be substantially dismantled. "Are some federal regulations in need of reform? Sure. But taking a meat ax approach doesn't make much sense."
GOP efforts to roll back regulation, a mission of Senate as well as House Republican leaders, have also become a flash point with President Clinton. At a meeting with House Democrats in the Capitol yesterday, he cited the moratorium on new federal rules as an example of an "extremism" that he will oppose.
A day earlier, speaking to federal agency officials, Mr. Clinton hinted at a possible veto: "I am convinced a moratorium would hurt the broad interests of the American people. A moratorium is not acceptable."
The president has undertaken a more modest effort to reduce government red tape by ordering his department heads to search their books for unnecessary or burdensome requirements and report to him by June 1.
"That's like telling the kid with his hand in the cookie jar not to take so many cookies," said Indiana Rep. David McIntosh, a Republican freshman who was put in charge of the anti-regulation effort because he worked on the issue as an aide to then-Vice President Dan Quayle.
House Speaker Newt Gingrich said yesterday that Republicans had asked the president to work with them on regulatory reform, but had been disappointed by the response. "I think it would be nice for the president to take a constructive role instead of just taking potshots," said the Georgia Republican.
The regulatory moratorium that House leaders expect to pass tomorrow was designed to freeze Mr. Clinton's executive rule-making power until new guidelines for adopting such rules are enacted by the Republican-controlled Congress.
The new guidelines were listed as an element in the House Republicans' "Contract with America," the campaign document that helped the GOP win control of the House. The guidelines would require an extensive impact evaluation of all new rules and prohibits those whose cost cannot be justified by their benefit. Legislation detailing that process is due on the House floor next week.
Critics have said the evaluation process would be so cumbersome that it could effectively choke off federal rule-making.
Possibly more controversial is a second GOP bill that calls for property owners to be compensated when the value of their land declines because of federal restrictions.
Among the major programs affected would be the federal campaign to clean-up and protect the Chesapeake Bay by restricting development in tidal wetlands. Under the GOP proposal, landowners could petition the federal government for compensation if property values drop by as little as 10 percent because of such restrictions.
Fifteen moderate Republicans including Marylanders Constance A. Morella of Montgomery County and Wayne T. Gilchrest of the Eastern Shore sent a letter to House leaders protesting the property rights measure.
They warned that in an effort to keep the cost of such compensation down, federal agencies would simply choose not to implement regulations that would affect property values.
"People should be paid for their property, but you can't just do it in a way that would have a chilling effect on environmental protections," said Mrs. Morella. She and some 40 other GOP moderates met with Mr. Gingrich yesterday to press their desire for changes in the bill.