WATCHING GOVERNMENT ELEVATING EPA TO CABINET STATUS

Ten months ago, environmentalists' fervent desire to elevate the Environmental Protection Agency to cabinet level and rename it the Department of Environmental Protection seemed like a shoo-in.

The new Clinton administration was firmly in favor of the idea with none of the reservations the Bush team had.

But in its journey through Congress, the legislation has suffered a number of bumps, jolts, and delays.

The Senate passed a bill last May, but leaders of the House of Representatives postponed a final vote on their bill until early next year.

Proponents say elevating EPA would place the agency on a par with other major cabinet functions and with similar departments in foreign governments. As a courtesy, President Clinton now treats EPA Administrator Carol Browner just like a cabinet officer.

BILLS' PROVISIONS

The Senate and House bills would elevate EPA and create within it a Bureau of Environmental Statistics to compile information on environmental conditions similar to the Energy Information Administration in the Department of Energy

The bills also would create an office of environmental justice to ensure that minority groups and the poor are not subjected to more pollution than other societal divisions.

The House bill would place new restrictions on EPA's awarding contracts on its functions. A House energy and commerce subcommittee has criticized EPA for contracting too frequently and managing the work too laxly.

The Senate bill only bans EPA from using private contractors for "inherently governmental" functions like financial oversight.

The House bill would establish a chief financial officer in EPA, improve public access to environmental information, and improve scientific peer review of EPA proposals. It would create a new office of environmental risk to advise the secretary on which problems to tackle first.

But the major difference in the House and Senate bills is that the latter would require EPA to conduct cost/benefit analyses before issuing new regulations.

The Senate voted 79-15 to accept an amendment by Sen. Bennett Johnston (D-La.) requiring the cost/benefit provision.

Johnston said, "We have seen instance after instance where unreasonable regulations have been adopted, costing taxpayers millions of dollars, which this kind of analysis would have avoided."

SUPPORT, DELAY

When it appeared the House was on the verge of a vote, Clinton sent every House member a letter urging support for the bill.

But as the vote approached, Republicans' opposition increased after they were denied the opportunity to offer an amendment on the floor for a cost/benefit provision.

Finally, House leaders postponed action on the bill rather than risk defeat.

The delay is unlikely to lessen the clamor for some cost/benefit rationality at EPA, which private industry argues is long overdue.