WATCHING GOVERNMENT AIMING FOR THE FOOT

For its self-preservation, the Clinton administration is laboring to paint the Republican majority in Congress as antienvironmental.

Granted, Republican leaders want to change some environmental laws, but they can't always get the support they need from their party. And Clinton's strategy is making it harder.

An example is the Environmental Protection Agency funding bill. Republicans attached 17 riders to the bill that would head off specific EPA regulatory actions, including a rider that would block tough toxics emissions rules for refineries.

Last summer the House rejected the riders, then narrowly approved them in a second vote (OGJ, Aug. 7, p. 35).

President Clinton has pledged to veto the bill because of the riders and because it would slash EPA funding in fiscal 1995 to $4.8 billion from $6.6 billion. So the House votes on the riders were largely symbolic.

SECOND TIME AROUND

When the Senate passed its EPA bill without the riders, the issue became even more problematic.

It was raised again Nov. 2 when the House instructed its delegates to the House-Senate conference committee.

More Republicans defected this time, and the riders were rejected 227-194. The conferees are not technically bound by the latest vote, but it will be hard for them to ignore.

Meanwhile, Clinton has kept hammering at the Republican environmental record. In a recent radio address he said, "We don't need more pollution to balance the budget. We don't need dirtier water to close the deficit. If Congress sends me a budget that guts environmental protection, that protects polluters, not the public, l will veto it."

In that same talk, Clinton specifically voiced opposition to drilling on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Coastal Plain, which budget reconciliation bills passed by the House and Senate would permit (OGJ, Nov. 6, p. 31).

MORE CONFUSION

Now, Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), a staunch proponent of ANWR leasing, has cast more confusion on the ANWR issue.

Congress is considering leasing only because it would raise $2.6 billion, which the federal government would split 50-50 with Alaska.

Although Alaska has argued its statehood act entitles it to 90% of the revenues, state officials have agreed to a 50-50 split. As one explained, "Fifty percent of something is better than 90% of nothing."

But the Alaska legislature has not yet passed a law accepting 50% and will continue to press for 90% of non-ANWR federal leasing revenues. So some congressmen are a little edgy about voting for ANWR leasing.

Young, who has never been known for his reticence, recently gave congressmen more reason to be nervous. He told an Alaska radio program the state should agree to 5050 now but sue for 90- 10 later.

The congressman later said he misspoke, and other Alaska politicians scrambled to repair the damage.

A proponent of leasing said, "When I heard what Young had said, I thought, 'That's the fatal shot in the foot for ANWR/If any congressman needed an excuse to vote against us, Young has given it to them."

A congressional staff member said, "The 'greenies' are trying to make a big deal out of this."

The extent of the damage won't be known until House and Senate conferees begin meeting on the legislation.