House Upholds EPA’s Powers in a Surprise Vote : Congress: Narrow defeat of bill to rein in agency is unexpected victory for environmentalists. Some concede measure ‘may have gone too far,’ revised proposal possible.

WASHINGTON — Environmentalists scored a rare and unexpected victory Friday in the conservative-dominated Congress as the House voted narrowly to uphold the power of the Environmental Protection Agency to enforce many major anti-pollution regulations.

The House voted, 212 to 206, to kill a far-reaching effort to rein in EPA power after a confrontation that laid bare deep divisions between the moderate and conservative wings of the GOP. Fifty-one Republicans, most of them moderates, voted to uphold the EPA’s regulatory power, dealing a surprising defeat to conservative Republicans who have dominated the House on most issues this year.

House Republican leaders are likely to force another vote on the EPA provisions early next week and hope to change enough votes to prevail. They also said that the outcome of this issue was not a final verdict on their broader commitment to roll back government regulations.

But some conceded that the defeat was a sign that they had overreached in the politically popular area of environmental protection.

“The bill may have gone too far,” said Rep. John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), who said that GOP leaders may propose a more limited regulatory rollback when they revisit the issue next week.

Failure to find an acceptable compromise could threaten passage of the entire appropriations bill, which is a major part of the GOP effort to scale back the size and scope of government.

The effort to curtail EPA powers was contained in 17 provisions that would have prevented the EPA from enforcing regulations affecting wetlands protection, auto emission inspections, drinking water standards and other provisions of anti-pollution law. Defeat of the provisions was hailed by environmentalists, who have fought many losing battles in the House this year.

“This victory makes it clear that the special interest forces have underestimated the political strength behind environmental and health protection laws in our country,” said Greg Wetstone, legislative director of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The vote came during debate on an appropriations bill that would cut the budget of the Department of Housing and Urban Development by one-fifth and slash the EPA budget by one-third. Those cuts are so deep, EPA supporters warned, that--even if the regulatory restrictions are ultimately defeated--the agency will be crippled.

*

“It’s clear they won’t be able to adequately enforce the law with that budget,” said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles).

Vice President Al Gore said the bill would be a candidate for a presidential veto, even with the 17 provisions stripped from it. “This particular appropriations bill was already so bad for the environment that even this vote doesn’t come close to rehabilitating it to the point where it could be signed,” he said.

The EPA vote was just the first of what may be a series of tests of the ability of GOP leaders to hold their party together on votes over crucial spending bills.

Republican leaders have been trying to appease moderates, who have threatened to oppose another major social spending bill next week because of anti-abortion provisions. GOP leaders also have been trying to dissuade Rep. Gary Franks (R-Conn.) from plans to offer a divisive amendment to the defense appropriations bill that would undercut government affirmative action policies.

At issue in Friday’s debate was an ambitious menu of anti-EPA provisions tacked onto the housing and environment appropriations bill.

For example, the provisions would prohibit the EPA from using funds to carry out an existing program designed to limit water pollution from city stormwater and sewage systems. Other riders would have blocked enforcement of wetlands protections, relaxed certain requirements for auto emissions testing and extended a ban on regulations that set standards for arsenic and radon in drinking water.

Many of the provisions were similar to those in a bill that the House passed earlier this year to limit the scope of the Clean Water Act. That bill has bogged down in the Senate, where environmentalists have some powerful Republican allies and House Republicans said that they included some of the EPA regulatory restrictions in the current legislation to turn up pressure on the Senate to act.

During debate, proponents of the restrictions said that EPA regulations are typical of the kind of regulatory excess Republicans should be committed to ending.

‘The EPA, the Gestapo of government, pure and simply has been one of the major clawhooks that the government has maintained on the backs of our constituents,” said House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.).

But critics said that the EPA restrictions represent an assault on the safety of the nation’s air and water. Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.) called the provisions a “wish list of corporate polluters.”

They also complained that the EPA provisions were escaping the public scrutiny they deserve because they have been slipped into a far-reaching appropriations bill that is supposed to limit itself to money matters.

“Appropriations bills are a backdoor tactic that is chosen when the direct, healthy, open approach is likely to fail,” said Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.).