The Issue Often Measured in Votes-Per-Gallon : Politics: Virtually everyone favors fuel economy and a clean environment. But other factors weigh heavily on legislators.

By ROBERT A. ROSENBLATT

March 25, 1991 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITER

WASHINGTON — His brow furrowed, Sen. Bob Packwood (R-Ore.) said: “I vote three-quarters yes and one-quarter no.”

Laughter erupted in the Senate hearing room last week. “I’ll count that as a yes vote,” Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.) replied.

Packwood’s uncertainty--his attempt to lean in two directions at once during a crucial vote--reflected the ambivalence of many lawmakers as they grapple with the always contentious issue of fuel economy standards for automobiles.

With the nudge from Hollings, Packwood was on the winning side of a 14-5 committee vote calling for each car maker to improve the fuel economy of its fleet 20% by 1996 and 40% by 2001, compared with the performance of its 1988 cars. Given the existing national average of 27.5 m.p.g., those standards would translate into an average of 34 m.p.g. in five years and 40 m.p.g. in a decade.

Everybody favors clean air, reduced auto pollution and a pristine environment. But those goals get tangled in a thicket of worries over jobs, foreign competition and safety. Congress has been fighting over tightened mileage rules since the original fuel economy law was approved in 1975.

What makes this year different, supporters of better mileage contend, is the Persian Gulf War.

“The tremendous victory in the Persian Gulf by our troops won us security for the present,” said Sen. Richard H. Bryan (D-Nev.), prime sponsor in the Senate of tougher fuel standards. “A strong energy policy, with automobile fuel economy as the cornerstone, will secure us the future.”

But the debate on his legislation is filled with the hemming and hawing of the past.

“This must be the most reluctant committee ever,” said Sen. Larry Pressler (R-S.D.), after hearing a parade of his colleagues voice hesitation before casting their votes at last week’s committee hearing.

Packwood, for example, said he was enthusiastic about the prospects for saving energy and cutting pollution by tightening fuel standards. Supporters say the current Senate bill would save 2.5 million barrels of oil daily by the year 2005.

But the Oregon senator also expresses concern about protecting the 10,000 jobs in Portland linked to the city’s role as a major hub for car imports. He worries that the bill’s requirement that each car maker improve its mileage by a fixed percentage is unfair to Asian auto manufacturers, whose cars already get an average of three miles a gallon more than domestic vehicles.

Still, his reluctant “aye” counted the same as an enthusiastic one. And advocates of the bill hope they can corral enough such supporters to gain victory on the twin issues of clean air and lessened reliance on foreign oil. Environmental advocates are putting their considerable political clout behind the legislation, as are those who want to turn postwar momentum toward the forging of a new national energy strategy.

“Without doubt, this is the most important energy conservation proposal in the course of this Congress,” said Sen. Slade Gorton (R-Wash.), the leading Republican sponsor of the mileage-standards bill.

The legislation faces determined opposition from the Bush Administration, along with a sophisticated lobbying campaign by auto makers and a diverse coalition of their allies.

Two Cabinet officers--Energy Secretary James D. Watkins and Transportation Secretary Samuel K. Skinner--have said they will ask the President to veto the bill if it gets through Congress. They argue vociferously against it on economic, safety and technological grounds.

Neither the Administration nor the auto industry shows any inclination to compromise with Bryan. “We’re on record as saying we favor increased fuel efficiency, but Mr. Bryan is too extreme,” said Ford spokesman Bill Day.

Other opponents: the Farm Bureau Federation, the Cattlemen’s Assn., the independent electrical contractors and the professional rodeo association, all worried that pickup trucks designed to meet new standards would be underpowered to do heavy work.

Robert L. Turner, sheriff of Autuga County, Ala., and vice president of the National Sheriff’s Assn., said the law would reduce police cars to the size of Honda Civics and Ford Escorts.

On safety, Turner said: “I have seen firsthand the difference between accident victims driving small cars and those driving larger cars. This difference is staggering, and it is often times the difference between life and death.”

With these rhetorical banners unfurled--claims of clean air and security on one side, images of jobless auto workers and deadly accidents on the other--the battle over fuel economy standards will be fought to the political death on the Senate floor.