2 Top Democrats Argue Cost, Benefit of Clean Air Plan

Two top congressional Democrats differed sharply Sunday on the costs and the likely benefits of President Bush’s proposed clean air legislation, foreshadowing the pending fight on the package on Capitol Hill.

Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.) said the tougher air pollution standards will mean smaller, slower and more expensive automobiles for Americans and will cost jobs in heavy industry through higher costs.

But Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D-Me.) countered that the benefits of the cleaner air, though harder to calculate in dollars, are nevertheless substantial. Cleaner air will save lives as well as save money in health care, he said.

Dingell, who represents the Detroit area, has been a powerful foe of tough clean air proposals in the past. “I think you can be absolutely certain that you’re going to come up from this . . . with automobiles that will not move as well, will not be as large, will not be as economically and socially acceptable to the American public as that which we have today,” he said on ABC’s “This Week With David Brinkley.”

Danger to Jobs Asserted

For heavy industry in the Midwest, Dingell said, the Bush package would require “enormous investments” in new scrubbing and air quality equipment and could “cost a lot of jobs.”

But he did not close the door to eventually supporting the White House plan.

“I propose to try and cooperate with the Administration. It’s my hope that we can get legislation by the end of the summer or early in the fall,” Dingell said.

Bush’s proposal calls for producing cars that burn methanol or other clean fuels for use in the nation’s smoggiest cities, halving emissions of sulfur dioxide by power plants and industries by the year 2000 and cutting up to 90% of the toxic compounds spewed into the air by factories.

Competing proposals are also pending in Congress, but leading lawmakers see a strong likelihood that some significant clean air measure will emerge from the legislative process.

Mitchell, whose home state of Maine has suffered forest and lake damage from acid rain pollution produced in the Midwest, said health organizations estimate that bad air costs $40 billion a year in health care costs and lost productivity. But legislators cannot put a price tag on many of the benefits of cleaner air.

Intangible ‘Real Values’

“What’s the value of a human life? What is the value of your child’s health? What is the value of a clean body of water?” Mitchell, also appearing on the Brinkley show, asked. “All of these are intangible, but they’re real values that have to be considered in the debate.”

Administration officials have estimated that the Bush plan would cost industry and consumers up to $19 billion a year when fully implemented.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator William K. Reilly, another guest on the show, defended Bush’s proposal for a shift to alternative clean-burning fuels for automobiles.

“The President I don’t think cares whether people burn ethanol or methanol, compressed natural gas or Chanel No. 5, so long as we get these pollution reductions,” Reilly said.

Cars using both gasoline and clean fuel can reduce their smog-producing pollution by a third, he said, and those using only an alcohol fuel can reduce it by 80%.

Among the cities with the worst air pollution, including Los Angeles and San Diego, the move to alternative fuels is still just one proposed option, Reilly said. “If these communities choose to get their reductions in another way, if they can determine and show us to our satisfaction that they can do that, they’re free to opt out of the program,” the EPA chief said.