Democrats Assail EPA Options in Bush Clean Air Plan

In a stormy first hearing before Congress, President Bush’s sweeping clean air proposal met with a barrage of criticism Monday from House Democrats who said it fails to impose the mandatory regulations needed to combat toxic pollutants and urban smog.

“We want to make sure that the new law kicks off a decade of environmental protection and not degradation,” said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles), chairman of the House Energy subcommittee on the environment.

The stinging criticism left Environmental Protection Agency chief William K. Reilly struggling to defend the Administration plan against concerns that it would give the agency the power to choose whether to enforce key elements of the legislation.

“When we ask for discretion, we ask it for reasons that are intended to benefit the environment,” insisted Reilly, visibly wearied after six hours of testimony.

But Waxman, leading an attack that was joined enthusiastically by many of his fellow Democrats, responded: “We don’t want to leave discretion to an Administration that may never get around to doing the job. We want the job done.”

The clash, rooted in a lingering mistrust of the EPA felt by many on Capitol Hill, underscored a dispute that is likely to grow even more contentious as Congress and the White House begin to wrangle in earnest over the shape of the new clean air legislation.

The Administration contends that past clean air efforts failed because cities and industries were held to standards so unreasonable that the government could not in fairness impose mandatory penalties against them. Its proposal permits the EPA to choose whether to impose standards and enforce penalties.

But many congressional Democrats charge that past efforts failed because the government was unwilling to impose the penalties they believe would have forced compliance. They would permit the EPA little latitude, insisting on mandatory standards and penalties.

The contrasting approaches were evident in Monday’s exchanges between Reilly and subcommittee members on the question of what sanctions should be imposed to force smoggy cities such as Los Angeles to comply with the new ozone cleanup schedule.

Reilly defended the provisions of the Administration plan that could allow such schedules to be extended and for cities in violation of the law to go unpunished, but many committee members voiced exasperation.

“Sanctions that are discretionary are not sanctions at all,” Rep. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said. “They might as well disappear into the morning mist.”

The Administration’s supporters on the committee accused the Democrats of seeking to impose environmental standards too costly to win congressional approval.

“I think you ought to be righteously indignant and morally outraged at some of the questions that are being put to you,” said Rep. Norman F. Lent (R-N.Y.), ranking Republican on the House Energy Committee and a co-sponsor of the legislation.

But even committee Chairman John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), who broke ranks with his colleagues to help sponsor the Administration bill, targeted Reilly with scores of questions expressing skepticism about key components of the Administration bill.

Dingell’s concerns and the opposition of his fellow Democrats portend a lengthy legislative battle as the Administration bill begins to work its way through the committee process.

Among the provisions most likely to be targeted by Democrats are a flurry of motor vehicle pollution control measures that the EPA administrator could impose at his discretion. Critics would like to see the provisions made mandatory.

The distinction could come down to the difference between the use of the words “may” and “shall.” Reilly insisted that the distinction was meaningless, saying the EPA would seek to impose all the steps at its disposal.

But Democrats voiced their concern with leaving vital pollution control efforts to the discretion of pro-industry administrators who might head the agency in the future. Some invoked the specter of former EPA chief Anne McGill Burford, who was regarded as a defender of business interests instead of as a vigorous environmental advocate.

“We’re afraid,” Rep. Mickey Leland (D-Tex.) said.