September 22, 1970
Page 33089
AMENDMENT NO. 927
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, in behalf of the Senator from Washington (Mr. MAGNUSON), I send to the desk an amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to read the amendment.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 927) is as follows
AMENDMENT No. 927
On page 79, beginning with line 6, strike out all through line 16 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
SEC. 213. (a) For the purpose of this section
(1) "Board" means the Low-Emission Vehicle Certification Board;
(2) "Federal Government" includes the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the Government of the United States, and the government of the District of Columbia;
(3) "motor vehicle" means any vehicle, self-propelled by mechanical or electrical power designed for use in the United States on the highways except any vehicle designed or used for military field training, combat, or tactical purposes;
(4) "low-emission vehicle" means any motor vehicle which produces significantly less pollution than the class or model of vehicle for which the Board may certify it as a suitable substitute; and
(5) "retail price" means (a) the maximum statutory price applicable to any class or model of motor vehicle; or (b) in any case where there is no applicable maximum statutory price, the most recent procurement price paid for any class or model of motor vehicle.
(b) (1) There is established a Low-Emission Vehicle Certification Board to be composed of the Secretary or his designee, the Secretary of Transportation or his designee, the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality or his designee, the Director of the National Highway Safety Bureau in the Department of Transportation, the Administrator of General Services, and two members appointed by the President. The President shall designate one member of the Board as Chairman.
(2) Any member of the Board not employed by the United States may receive compensation at the rate of $125 for each day such member is engaged upon work of the Board. Each member of the Board shall be reimbursed for travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5703) for persons in the Government service employed intermittently.
(3) (A) The Chairman, with the concurrence of the members of the Board, may employ and fix the compensation of such additional personnel as may be necessary to carry out the functions of the Board, but no individual so appointed shall receive compensation in excess of the rate authorized for GS-18 by section 5332 of title 5, United States Code.
(B) The Chairman may fix the time and place of such meetings as may be required.
(C) The Board is granted all other powers necessary for meeting its responsibilities under this section.
(c) The Secretary shall determine which models or classes of motor vehicles qualify as low-emission vehicles in accordance with the provisions of this section.
(d) (1) The Board shall certify any class or model of motor vehicles
(A) for which a certification application has been filed in accordance with paragraph (3) of this subsection;
(B) which is a low-emission vehicle as determined by the Secretary; and
(C) which it determines is suitable for use as a substitute for a class or model of vehicles at that time in use by agencies of the Federal Government.
The Board shall specify with particularity the class or model of vehicles for which the class or model of vehicles described in the application is a suitable substitute. In making the determination under this subsection the Board shall consider the following criteria
(i) the safety of the vehicle;
(ii) its performance characteristics;
(iii) its reliability potential;
(iv) its serviceability;
(v) its fuel availability;
(vi) its noise level; and
(vii) its maintenance costs as compared with the class or model of motor vehicle for which it may be a suitable substitute.
(2) Certification under this section shall be effective for a period of one year from the date of issuance.
(3) (A) Any party seeking to have a class or model of vehicle certified under this section shall file a certification application in accordance with rules established by the Board and published in the Federal Register.
(B) The Board shall publish a notice of each application received in the Federal Register.
(C) The Secretary and the Board shall make determinations for the purpose of this section in accordance with procedures established by the Secretary and the Board, respectively, and published in the Federal Register.
(D) The Secretary and the Board shall conduct whatever investigation is necessary, including actual inspection of the vehicle at a place designated in the certification application rules established under this section.
(E) The Secretary and the Board shall receive and evaluate written comments and documents from interested parties in support of, or in opposition to, certification of the class or model of vehicle under consideration.
(F) Within ninety days after the receipt of a properly filed certification application, the Secretary shall determine whether such class or model of vehicle is a low-emission vehicle, and within one hundred and eighty days of such determination, the Board shall reach a decision by majority vote as to whether such class or model of vehicle, having been determined to be a low-emission vehicle, is a suitable substitute for any class or classes of vehicles presently being purchased by the Federal Government for use by its agencies.
(G) Immediately upon making any such determination or decision, the Secretary and the Board shall each publish in the Federal Register notice of such determination or decision, including reasons therefor and in the case of the Board any dissenting views.
(e) (1) Certified low-emission vehicles shall be acquired by purchase by the Federal Government for use by the Federal Government in lieu of other vehicles if the Administrator of General Services determines that such certified vehicles have procurement costs which are no more than 150 per centum of the retail price of the least expensive class or model of motor vehicle for which they are certified substitutes.
(2) In order to encourage innovative development of inherently low-polluting propulsion technology, the Board may, at its discretion, raise the premium set forth in paragraph (1) of this subsection to 200 per centum of the retail price of any class or model of motor vehicle for which a certified low-emission vehicle is a certified substitute, if the Board determines that the certified low-emission vehicle is powered by an innovative, inherently low-polluting propulsion system.
(3) Data relied upon by the Board and the Secretary in determining that a vehicle is a certified low-emission vehicle shall be incorporated in any contract for the procurement of such vehicle.
(f) The procuring agency shall be required to purchase available certified low-emission vehicles which are eligible for purchase to the extent they are available before purchasing any other vehicles for which any low-emission vehicle is a certified substitute. In making purchasing selections between competing eligible certified low-emission vehicles, the procuring agency shall give priority to (1) any class or model which does not require extensive periodic maintenance to retain its low-polluting qualities or which does not require the use of fuels which are more expensive than those of the classes or models of vehicles for which it is a certified substitute; and (2) passenger vehicles other than buses.
(g) For the purpose of procuring certified low-emission vehicles any statutory price limitations shall be waived.
(h) The Secretary shall, from time to time as the Board deems appropriate, test the emissions from certified low-emission vehicles purchased by the Federal Government. If at any time he finds that the emission rates exceed the rates on which certification under this section was based, the Secretary shall notify the Board. Thereupon the Board shall give the supplier of such vehicles written notice of this finding, issue public notice of it, and give the supplier an opportunity to make necessary repairs, adjustments, or replacements. If no such repairs, adjustments,
or replacements are made within a period to be set by the Board, the Board may order the supplier to show cause why the vehicle involved should be eligible for recertification.
(1) There is authorized to be appropriated annually not to exceed $50,000,000 for paying additional amounts for motor vehicles pursuant to, and for carrying out the provisions of, this section.
(j) The Board shall promulgate the procedures required to implement this section within ninety days after the effective date of this section.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. Who yields time?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
This amendment has been offered by the distinguished Senator from Montana in behalf of the Senator from Washington (Mr. MAGNUSON). It is an amendment that I am prepared to take, but I should like to read this description of it which was prepared by the Senator from Washington (Mr. MAGNUSON).
As most of the Senate is aware, the Senator from Washington necessarily could not be present during the Senate's consideration of this bill because of an illness in his family. His statement is as follows:
STATEMENT BY SENATOR MAGNUSON
This amendment is designed to create a comprehensive Federal low-emission vehicle procurement program which would stimulate the development, production, and distribution of motor vehicles which emit few or no pollutants. The procurement program would stimulate low-emission vehicle production and distribution by creating immediately a guaranteed market which would pay certain fixed premiums for low-polluting vehicles and provide controlled conditions for field testing new concepts in automotive propulsion.
This amendment is substantially identical to my bill, S. 3072, which this body passed without a dissenting vote on March 26, 1970, but which the House has not acted upon. It would establish a Low-Emission Vehicle Certification Board composed of the Secretary of Transportation, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, the Director of the National Highway Safety Bureau, the Administrator of General Services, and two Presidential designees. This Board would receive applications from developers of low-emission vehicles and determine if those vehicles were suitable substitutes for existing vehicles in use by agencies of the Federal Government.
To obtain certification for a vehicle, a developer would make application to the Certification Board in a manner prescribed by the Board. Upon receipt of this application the Board would ask the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to determine whether the vehicle embodies a significant advance in pollution emission control technology. If the Secretary so finds, then the Board would determine whether or not the vehicle was suitable for use as a substitute for any class or model of vehicles then in use by the Federal agencies. In making such determinations the Board would consider such factors as the safety of the vehicle, its performance characteristics, its reliability, potential, its serviceability, its noise level, and its maintenance characteristics.
Any vehicle determined by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to be a low-emission vehicle and certified by the Board to be a suitable substitute is then eligible for purchase at a premium of 150 percent of the retail procurement cost of the least expensive class or model of comparable vehicles. At its discretion the Board may increase that premium to 200 percent if the vehicle being purchased embodies an innovative propulsion system which is "inherently low-polluting" – one not depending upon some complicated add-on device to make it smogless.
To the extent that such low-emission vehicles are available, at prices within the premium ceiling, the Administrator of General Services is required to purchase them.
I urge my colleagues to again endorse this Federal procurement proposal. In the first place, this amendment will enable the automobile industry to begin at once to test new propulsion systems under controlled conditions to insure their satisfactory performance in the general consumer market by 1975 or 1976. Secondly, the premium payments will help defer some of the prototype development costs. Thirdly, the bill will make feasible independent innovative development of low-emission vehicles so that all paths to low-emission vehicle development can be explored and the 1975 legislative mandates can be met through the best technologies presently available to this Nation.
There is a final need for this legislation. The Federal Government, particularly as it places greater and greater demands on the private sector not to pollute, has a strong obligation not to disrupt the environment when conducting its own activities. Therefore, the reduction in pollution from governmental vehicles; even apart from the considerations previously mentioned, establish a need for this amendment now.
The legislation represented by this amendment has already been enacted by the Senate once this year, Mr. President. I was privileged to be a cosponsor of it with the distinguished Senator from Washington. We held joint hearings – the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on Public Works. So I recommend that the Senate adopt the amendment.
Mr. BOGGS. I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. President, in view of the statement offered by the manager of the bill, the Senator from Maine, and the fact that the Senate has previously acted on this matter, I have no objection to accepting the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Do Senators yield back their time?
Mr. GRIFFIN. It is the identical bill that was passed?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, it is. There are a few technical amendments, I might say.
Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time on the amendment has been yielded back. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, the distinguished senior Senator from California (Mr. MURPHY) who, up until this Congress, was a member of the Senate Public Works Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, and who has always been a strong advocate of legislation to fight pollution, is necessarily absent today. The Senator cosponsored the bill which is before us today, and he has prepared a statement in support of the measure.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have Senator MURPHY'S statement printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, Senator MURPHY'S statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
SENATOR MURPHY STRONGLY SUPPORTS BILL DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE CLEAN AIR BY 1975
Mr. President, as a cosponsor, I strongly support S. 4358. This measure is tough, timely and desperately needed.
I want to congratulate Senator Muskie and the ranking Republican member, Senator Boggs, and the members of the Subcommittee and full Committee of the Public Works Committee for bringing this effective measure to the Senate floor. Up until this Congress, I was a member of the Public Works Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution. In this capacity I helped to shape and strongly supported all the air pollution legislation enacted since 1967. My interest in the problem since leaving the Committee has continued undiminished. I know of the careful and thorough manner with which the Committee considers legislation; I know of the cooperative and bipartisan spirit that operates in the Committee for the benefit of the nation. This has produced again a unanimous recommendation to the Senate on a bill for the benefit of the entire nation.
There was a time when smog was considered a unique type of scientific curiosity resulting from the unusual photochemical reactions which occurred in Los Angeles. I have had the pleasure of crossing this vast and great country many times in recent years. I have seen the pollution problem grow until, today, it is nationwide. Dr. John R. Goldsmith of the Cal. Department of Public Health has declared "there is no more clean air in the United States . . . " In California, where the concern over the pollution problem is probably the greatest in the country, we have experienced a similar spread of pollution.
In San Gabriel and San Fernando Valleys, which neighbor Los Angeles, smog is frequently heavier than in Los Angeles itself.
Sacramento Valley which already has a smog problem, may face pollution greater than Los Angeles within the next decade or two according to a University of California agriculture engineer.
Fresno citizens 25 years ago were able to see the Sierra Nevada Mountains in the distance. Today these mountains can only be seen in the morning.
Smog in the Los Angeles basin has resulted in a slow decline of citrus groves south of the city and trees have been damaged in the San Bernardino National Forest 50 miles away.
No longer do we hear isolated voices of concern in California; the citizens of California are almost one voice crying out in rising crescendo against the attack on the state's beauty and against the impairment of the quality of life.
California has pioneered the nation's battle against pollution. The Los Angeles County Air Pollution District probably has the toughest air pollution laws in the country against pollution from stationary sources. California has also been the bellwether in the nation's battle against pollution from the automobile. I might say that I am pleased that the "Murphy Amendment" which was added to the Air Quality Act of 1967, after a difficult fight, is preserved and is found in Section 210(b) of this measure. This amendment grants to California the right to set automobile emission standards higher than the nation. California has taken advantage of the amendment and has enacted legislation at the state level giving California the strongest antipollution laws with respect to automobile emissions in the country. Notwithstanding, these strict controls, the automobile remains the principal polluter in California. This is a particular concern for California which already has more cars per capita than any other state.
In addition, California is adding to its present number at a rate faster than any other state. If present trends continue, it has been projected that 42 million Californians will be operating 23 million vehicles by the year 2000. These 23 million vehicles will consume 25 billion gallons of gas or three times the present consumption. We are running as fast as we can, but our efforts have only given us a "dangerous status quo."
Air pollution has an adverse effect on both man and his environment. Over 200 million tons of contaminates are emptied annually into America's skies. Pollution soils our clothes and our homes. It causes economic dangers to our agricultural products. As the number one agriculture state in the nation, this obviously is a major concern to California. A recently concluded eight-year study by the Air Resources Center at the University of California at Riverside showed smog was causing economic damage to citrus crops. The study found air pollution cutting the yield per tree by as much as half and reducing the cost value by $33 million. This same study found the greatest economic loss from smog to ornamental plants and shrubs of homeowners.
This damage was estimated to be a staggering $125 to $144 million each year. Air pollution also limits visibility. The beauty of California is blurred. Air transportation is made more hazardous.
For example, as a result of Los Angeles smog, visibility frequently is lower than three miles. The July, 1970, air pollution alert on the East Coast nearly obscured visibility in some areas.
While this damage to our eyes, our sensitivities, and our pocketbooks are important, the most important effect of air pollution is the danger it poses to the nation's health. There had been several disaster warnings about the air pollution crisis. These occurred in 1930 in Meuse Valley of Belgium, in Donora, Pennsylvania in 1948, in London in 1952 and again in 1962, and in New York in 1953, 1963 and 1966. The news reports on Japanese efforts to control air pollution, particularly in Tokyo, and the reports considered at international conferences in recent years on the subject of pollution show pollution to be a worldwide problem. According to a Washington Post article of July 27, 1970, the Japanese characterize their air pollution problem as exposing citizens to the greatest danger of their lives. There probably have been other crises in smaller, less conspicuous locations, where the conditions were not recognized for what they were or where the situation was not reported. The major air pollution disasters were important in that they presented dramatic evidence of the deleterious effects of air pollution.
Most health workers in the field of respiratory diseases now agree that air pollution is capable of producing serious health effects. Rene Dubos pointed out in his book, "Man, Medicine and Environment": "Chronic respiratory disease is now the leading cause of disability among adults in all the industrialized parts of northern Europe and is becoming increasingly prevalent in the United States . . . Like chronic bronchitis, cancer, and many other types of pathological manifestations, the multifarious effects of environmental pollutants may not be detected until several decades after the initial exposure."
In Hospital Practice, May, 1970, John Goldsmith discusses community surveys in Los Angeles and Pasadena which show that air pollution has a significant effect in aggravating the condition of asthmatics. Other epidemiological studies report that relatively little air pollution aggravates chronic bronchitis. Controlled clinical studies in Los Angeles showed that patients with bronchitis or moderately advanced emphysema are seriously affected by Los Angeles type
smog. Goldsmith also states that the available evidence suggests that air pollution may actually be a causative agent in emphysema. Emphysema is now the fastest growing cause of death in the United States, doubling every five years since World War II.
Dr. John W. Jutila, a microbiologist at the Montana State University, is reported as saying that:
"Environmental micro insults accumulate to become life threatening to more and more individuals. Acceleration of the aging process and the onset of cancer are among the threats posed by a fouled environment." In an extensive review by Stephen Ayres and Meta Buehler in Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, May-June, 1970, the authors summarize their results by saying: "An impressive body of scientific information points to the inescapable conclusion that the levels of pollutant contamination existing today in many American cities are sufficient to produce profound health consequences."
The first annual report of the Council of Environmental Quality states:
"It is well established that air pollution contributes to the incidence of such chronic diseases as emphysema, bronchitis and other respiratory ailments. Polluted air is also linked to higher mortality rates and other causes including cancer, arteriosclerotic heart disease."
The incidence of chronic disease has increased rapidly during the past century. Although it is difficult to determine the cause of chronic diseases, there is enough evidence to make one thing certain – air pollution is not doing any of us any good. So the direct proof of cause and effect relationship between air pollution and health still is and should be the subject of research and discussion in medical research. One is reminded of the controversy which still drags on about cause-effect relationships between smoking and cancer. Disagreements still continue and people are still suffering ill health. Although the evidence and statistics I have cited are convincing and point out the urgency for new and tough action, I believe the report which was carried in Today's Health for this month which included the following quotation even more cogently depicts the need for action
"Just recently there was an article in the newspaper about grade school children in the area south of Chicago's Loop drawing pictures in art classes. In the last three years the sun no longer appears. Before, there was always a bright smiling sun in the sky. No longer. The sun is gone. There is no sun in the pictures now. Children in the schools now accept this, and it's very, very frightening.”
They accept pollution as a natural part of their environment. “Whatever happened to clean air?”
I am not willing to accept pollution as a natural part of my environment. I want to help put the "sun" back into the pictures of those grade school children in Chicago. I support this measure and consider the elimination of air pollution as one of the nation's priority problems not only in terms of the obvious and immediate benefits in the form of improved health, but also in terms of indirect benefits which will accrue through improved plant growth and the aesthetic benefits associated with our environment.
I am under no illusions that the cleaning up to America's air will be cheap, but in considering the cost, we must also consider the cost of inaction. Recent articles point both costs out. The U.S. News and World Report in its August 17 issue estimated the cost to be over $13 billion over the next five years. However, this same report describes damages from polluted air to be over $65 billion over the same period, and this does not include damage to health.
Lester B. Lave and Eugene P. Seskin pointed out in their recent analysis of the cost effects of air pollution on human health in Science, August 21, 1970:
"The evidence is extremely good for some diseases (such as bronchitis and lung cancer) and only suggestive for others (such as cardiovascular diseases and non-respiratory tract cancers) . . . We therefore make the assumption that there would be a 25 to 50 per cent reduction in morbidity and mortality due to bronchitis if air pollution in the major urban areas were abated by about 50 per cent . . . Approximately 25 per cent of mortality from lung cancer can be saved by a 50 per cent reduction in air pollution . . . It seems likely that 25 per cent of all morbidity and mortality due to respiratory disease could be saved by a 50 per cent abatement in air pollution levels . . . There is evidence that over 20 per cent of cardiovascular mortality could be saved if air pollution were reduced by 50 per cent . . We have estimates that 15 per cent of the cost of cancer would be saved by a 50 per cent reduction in air pollution . . . We estimate the total annual cost that would be saved by a 50 per cent reduction in air pollution levels in major urban areas, in terms of decreased morbidity and mortality, to be $2080 million . . . Psychological and aesthetic effect of air pollution on vegetation, cleanliness, and the deterioration of materials have not been included in these estimates."
Mr. President, the bill before the Senate today builds on the experience and lessons gained under the present air pollution legislation, as well as the mounting and increased awareness of health dangers associated with the pollution problem. As the committee report observes, the problem of air pollution "is more severe, more persuasive, and growing at a more rapid rate than was generally believed."
I would like to discuss some of the features of the bill that is before the Senate today. (I) The bill provides that by model year 1975 an almost pollution-free automobile must be achieved. 1975 cars must at a minimum reduce pollution by at least ninety per cent from the 1970 standards.
While industry has expressed concern that they will not be able to meet these standards, the health and safety of our people requires that they do so and I feel they can. They have risen to similar challenges in the past and have met standards set in California, which initially they felt could not be met. Industry must do so again. Motor vehicles account for 42 per cent of the five major pollutants in the nation. In California, the car is our principal pollution problem. Pollution equipment under the bill would be required to have a fifty-thousand mile warranty. The bill continues the federal preemption of emission standard setting authority for automobiles, which means this states are not permitted to establish their own standards. The "Murphy Amendment," however, added to the 1967 Air Quality Act is preserved intact. Thus, California will continue to be able to establish standards more stringent than the federal standards. The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare is also authorized to certify used car control devices.
(2) The bill provides for regulations of fuels and additives.
(3) The bill establishes national ambient air quality standards with specific timetables that must be met. This provision would help to guarantee for all of our citizens cleaner air in the future.
(4) The bill establishes air quality goals.
(5) The bill requires that new industry built in the nation must achieve standards of performance based on the latest available control technology.
(6) The legislation prohibits any emission of pollution deemed extremely hazardous to health.
(7) The bill authorizes national emission standards for selected pollutants. This provides authority to control pollution not covered by the ambient air standards or by hazardous substance emission controls.
(8) The bill requires federal facilities to clean up. I have felt for some time that the federal government should set an example for the nation. Yet, I have discovered that the federal government often not only is not a model, but actually is a major polluter in some areas. This has to stop. President Nixon has issued an executive order requiring federal facilities to clean up, and these steps are overdue and indeed welcome.
(9) The bill authorizes increased research relating to fuels and vehicles.
(10) The bill authorizes research concerning the health effects of air pollution. Recently the Senate adopted a Smith-Murphy amendment to the Regional Medical bill, calling for a report by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare on the health consequences of pollution. Certainly, we need to know more about this aspect of the problem.
(11) The bill authorizes the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to abate any pollution that presents an imminent and substantial danger to health.
(12) The bill prohibits the federal government from entering contracts with any company under an abatement order or found to have knowingly violated air quality laws.
(13) The bill provides for necessary penalties and controls to make certain that the standards, goals, and intent of the bill is carried out.
(14) The bill establishes an Office of Noise Abatement and Control in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Although it is clearly understood that if the Environmental Protection Agency as proposed by the President is established, this noise pollution function would also be transferred.
Earlier I predicted that the 70's would become known as the Decade of Environment. It is not coming any too soon. The President, as his first official act of 1970 signed into law the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, establishing a three-member White House Council on Environmental Quality. In April, S. 7, the Water Quality Improvement Act, which I cosponsored was enacted. In addition, the President has proposed the creation of a new Environmental Protection Agency to coordinate, centralize and accelerate the Nation's pollution fight. This was particularly pleasing to me because I had earlier cosponsored with Senator Scott S. 3388, a bill proposing a similar national agency. I have written the President urging that this agency be located in California. I ask unanimous consent that my press release on this subject be included into my remarks. The Senate on September 1 passed the Environmental Quality Education Act which I supported to establish education programs to encourage and enhance environmental quality. The bill the Senate is considering today will probably rank as the most significant antipollution legislation passed by the Congress.
So, Mr. President, the air pollution problem is far more today than a scientific curiosity or a favorite topic for jokes. It is a national disgrace and a menace to the health and welfare of our people. We have already reached that point in our lives when vast national regions are being affected by enormous contaminated air masses. In 1966 I warned the Senate Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution that "time is running out." I said: "In my judgment the pollution problem is one of the most serious domestic problems facing our country today. While serious, it is not yet critical. The time is not on our side. It is running out. The delay will not only be costly in terms of dollars, but even more important, will be the possible detriment to human health and the interference with the general well-being of our society."
Mr. President, time now has run out. It is, as President Nixon has declared, "now or never" in our battle against pollution. We have reached that point and that time in our history when we must call a halt to the fouling of our environment. We must provide our citizens with the quality of air that they rightly demand and deserve. S. 4358 should do the job.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The bill is open to further amendment.
AMENDMENT NO. 930
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 930.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk proceeded to read the amendment.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered; and, without objection, the amendment will be printed in the RECORD.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 63, beginning on line 23, strike out all through line 4 on page 64, and insert in lieu thereof the following: "and shall be so warranted for the lifetime of such vehicle or engine. Fifty thousand miles shall be taken as the basis for the lifetime of a vehicle or engine under this section. As a condition to the obligation of manufacturers to correct defects in design, manufacture, or assembly, manufacturers may require the ultimate purchaser and subsequent purchasers of such vehicle or engines".
On page 64, line 12, strike out the words "adjustment, operation".
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, amendment No. 930 is an amendment proposed by myself and Mr. BAKER and Mr. GURNEY. It arose out of the discussion in the committee, and I shall explain briefly its purpose. I am not going to ask for a vote, but I do think some record of the issues should go into this debate.
The bill provides for a comprehensive warranty by the manufacturer running in favor of any purchaser or subsequent purchaser. The warranty, as I see it, is a warranty that the design and the manufacture of the system and parts in the car which were designed to control pollutants will be effective in favor of any initial purchaser or subsequent purchaser. In addition there is language in the bill which extends the warranty to include "performance". It would seem to me that such warranty would not only guarantee the design and equipment of the car itself but also would guarantee operation by the owner of every car, in effect, perhaps a hundred million car owners in this country.
I must say, however, that in the discussion, the Senator from Maine answered such issues quite persuasively. Inasmuch as I am not an automobile engineer or technician in any way, I can just say that I would not be in a position to rebut those arguments without more information and without more help from other members of the committee who understand engineering.
I think there is a problem with this section, and I have only raised it as an issue but I do not think it should be determined on the floor of the Senate. I do not know whether the problem is as great as I thought it was in the first instance. I bring it up so that in conference we could have a full discussion.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. COOPER. I yield.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I agree with the Senator that there are serious problems in regard to the warranty provisions.
Page 82 of the bill, section 215, provides that warranty provisions shall be effective 90 days after the enactment of this section.
Keep in mind that testing procedure to determine in the field whether or not the extent to which an automobile exhaust is polluting the air have not yet been developed. Keep in mind that it has been admitted on the floor of the Senate over and over again that the technology to make it possible to comply with the standards written into this bill is not in existence today. The hope is that it will be developed. But the warranty goes into effect 90 days after the bill is enacted.
I wonder whether the Senator from Maine could explain how it is that a warranty would go into effect 90 days after enactment in this particular situation.
Mr. MUSKIE. I say to the Senator that since the emission standards were set by the Secretary under the 1965 law, automobiles presumably should have been meeting the standards. The fact is that they have not.
For example, according to testimony of the National Air Pollution Control Administration – I read from the report: The more complete data confirmed that slightly more than one-half of the cars tested failed to meet either the hydrocarbon or the carbon monoxide standard. For one model, more than 80 percent of the cars tested failed one or more tests. Due to the small number of cars, these emission data were not extrapolated to 50,000 miles. However, on the basis of the California data, one would expect that the emissions would tend to increase to some extent with increased mileage accumulation.
So the record is that, although the industry has been able to get certification of the new cars and has sold them – and has sold them under the assurance that they were meeting the standards – the fact is that the cars are not meeting the standards.
So what we are concerned about is not only the tests or the standards that the cars meet while they are in the factory, but also whether or not they continue to meet these standards afterward.
We are asking the consumers of America to pay an extra cost, which undoubtedly will be imposed upon these cars, for cleaner cars. The only way we can assure them that they are getting what they are paying for is to impose upon the manufacturer a responsibility and an obligation to build into these cars a durability quality that will permit the cars to meet the performance standards required.
We think that the warranty is essential. The used car population of this country now numbers more than 100 million and is increasing at the rate of a million and a half, discounting those taken off the road. If we are to clean up the used car population of this country, we have to require that new cars meet not only the standards on the production line but also the standards in performance. Unless they do, the whole exercise is useless, so far as I am concerned.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Of course, the goals and objectives are very desirable; I'm sure we are all for them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. GRIFFIN. I yield myself time on the bill.
The question is, How realistic and how practical is the proposed legislation? Until now, warranties that have been required, as I understand it, have related to workmanship and material in the automobile as it came off the assembly line. Now, under this bill, we would extend the warranty far beyond that. We would say that not only does the material and workmanship have to meet certain standards when it comes off the assembly line, but also that it must still perform in accordance with those standards 50,000 miles later.
Now, the fact is that testing procedures with regard to exhaust emission to establish whether a car, in the field, 10,000 miles later, or 50,000 miles later, is still performing are not available. Is that not correct, I would ask the Senator from Maine?
Mr. MUSKIE. May I say to the Senator that in the bill as presented to the committee, we had a provision that the warranty should not be required until the Secretary was satisfied that the testing procedures were available. It was at the request of the industry that that was changed to 90 days after enactment. I suggested a few moments ago to the Senator that I would be happy to revert to the committee language if that would meet his problem, but he was not interested. We are interested in relating the warranty and its application to the availability of the appropriate testing procedures.
May I say another thing to the Senator, and this is from the testimony of Mr. Williams of the Automobile Manufacturers Association, in 1965, where he suggested that national standards be tested against the criteria one of them being, that (c)–
Control of emissions by establishment of performance standards rather than design standards.
The industry itself emphasized from the beginning, until they were faced with this deadline, that performance should be the test and that it should be geared to the requirements of ambient air.
That has been their case since 1967 and before.
Now that we take them up on that, they inject other arguments, that we should not insist upon performance standards, which they cannot guarantee, but that we should go only to the design standards, that the warranty should not be related to performance but to design.
The story is different, now that we take them up on the guidelines they laid down in 1967, which we have been trying to follow.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, the goals and objectives of this legislation are fine. But I do not think that the bill before the Senate is very realistic. I agree with the Senator from Kentucky, I do not believe that we can rewrite this measure on the Senate floor. I would offer an amendment, but it is almost impossible to rewrite the bill in such manner. I hope this exchange has demonstrated that there are real problems in the bill, and I hope this will not be lost upon the conferees representing the Senate.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD the language of the committee report dealing with this question of the warranty.
There being no objection, the excerpt from the report, ordered to be printed in the RECORD, follows:
SECTION 207. VEHICLE AND VEHICLE ENGINE COMPLIANCE TESTING
Section 207 would represent a significant departure from prior provisions for control of vehicle emissions. At the present time compliance with national emission standards for vehicles and engines is determined on the basis of whether the average of a class or model complies with the standard. Section 206 continues this procedure. Under section 206 prototype models would be certified as to compliance with standards and production-line sample-testing would be authorized to assure that the average of the models coming off the production line conforms to pre-production certification.
Under section 207, each production line vehicle would be required to comply with applicable emission standards. Each vehicle would be required to comply with standards for a 50,000-mile lifetime. The manufacturer would be required to warranty the performance of each individual vehicle as to compliance with emission standards. The dealer would not carry any obligation under this provision.
This section would provide two methods to determine whether or not individual cars will perform to the emission standard. First, the Secretary would be provided with the authority to test representative samples of vehicles on the road and, if he found that a representative sample of a model or class fails to continue to comply with the standards within the 50,000-mile period, he could require the manufacturers to recall that model or class for the purpose of correcting any nonconformity.
The second compliance testing method would be triggered by the development of a quick test procedure. The Secretary would be required to develop a test which could be quickly and uniformly applied to individual vehicles on the production line and on the road to determine whether or not those vehicles comply or continue to comply with the standards for which they were certified. The quick test would have to be correlated with the pre-certification test procedure.
It would have to be a test which could be applied in a reasonable period of time related to the normal time for a regular vehicle inspection. A quick test should avoid unnecessary slowdown of production lines, unnecessary consumer inconvenience, while providing a method to determine whether individual vehicles on the road are continuing to meet the standards for which they were certified.
The need to assure individual vehicle compliance became evident after sample-testing of vehicles on the road (both from California and nationally) revealed deterioration from conformance with the standard.
According to testimony of the National Air Pollution Control Administration:
"The more complete data confirm that slightly more than one-half of the cars tested failed to meet either the hydrocarbon or the carbon monoxide standard. For one model, more than 80 percent of the cars tested failed one or more tests. Due to the small number of cars, these emission data were not extrapolated to 50,000 miles; however, on the basis of the California data one would expect that the emissions would tend to increase to some extent with increased mileage accumulations."
This bill would require the American people to make a substantially greater investment in motor vehicles to assure that air quality standards are implemented. This investment would be defensible only if the emission control systems continued to conform to standards for the lifetime of the vehicle. Substantial deterioration from the emission standard would mean that the manufacturer was not designing emission control systems which meet the intent of this legislation. It would mean that air quality standards in regions throughout the Nation would not be effectively maintained, and it would mean that potentially billions of dollars of consumer investment would be to no purpose.
The Committee has no reason to believe that emission controls would be inexpensive. The automobile industry has indicated that achievement of the 1975 standards set by the bill would be costly – whether such standards were achieved through cleaning up the internal combustion engine or through development of an alternative power source.
The manufacturers informed the Committee that they would not be able to guarantee conformity with emission standards for the anticipated 10-year life of a vehicle. The committee bill provides that 50,000 miles would be the maximum that a vehicle would be required to conform to the standards for which it was certified. The Committee bill would provide that a manufacturer may require reasonable evidence of proper maintenance of a vehicle and must provide written instructions on maintenance, adjustments, service and operation. The Committee hopes that, if the motorist complied with these instructions, emission controls would not deteriorate after 50,000 miles to the extent that ambient air quality would be impaired. The Committee further expects the manufacturer to endeavor to either improve the quality control of emission systems or explore better ways to assure continued compliance beyond 50,000 miles of use.
The warranty required by this section would not become effective until 90 days after enactment of this Act. This delay would be needed so that the manufacturer could prepare instructions for the motor vehicle purchaser. The Committee expects these instructions to be reasonable and uncomplicated. They would have to be approved by the Secretary. During such time as the warranty provision is effective, vehicles manufactured after that date would be required to comply with present standards. Vehicles manufactured in future years would have to be warranted to comply with such standards as may be applicable.
The Committee intends that the public should be made aware of the actual cost, not the manufacturer's price, of any air pollution control equipment and warranty. While the Committee recognizes that separation of specific costs for air pollution control may be difficult, it is quite likely there would be a marked increase in cars in 1975. To the extent that such costs are attributed to the control of air pollution emissions the Committee intends that those increases be the actual cost of the air pollution systems involved.
The Committee also recognizes the difficulty in any recall provision of notifying the owners of vehicles. The burden would be placed on the manufacturer to notify both the initial and subsequent purchasers of vehicles. The Committee expects that the manufacturer would not only depend on the files of the franchise dealer, but would, to the extent practicable, use State motor vehicle department registration files to obtain the names and addresses of subsequent purchasers of cars. By establishing a 50,000 mile, no year lifetime for the purpose of warranty, the Committee did not intend to relieve the automobile manufacturers of their responsibility to notify owners of older cars. The 50,000-mile period can be assumed to be 4 to 5 years and the manufacturer should be expected to notify any owner of a vehicle that is five years old or less as to failure to continue to perform to the standard. A decision not to require the manufacturer to repair the vehicle could be made after notice and after finding that the vehicle had exceeded the 50,000-mile warranty period.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, let me make clear precisely what it provides. It provides that there shall be a manufacturer's warranty of performance for 50,000 miles.
Throughout discussions with the industry over the past 6 or 7 years, that is what they were stating, 50,000 miles. They do not consider that technology would be effective or worthwhile, in terms of cost to the consumer, unless it meets the 50,000-mile test. So we are asking for that, because unless automobiles will perform for a practical proportion of their life, meeting standards initially may not be worthwhile. Fifty thousand miles is not all their life, 100,000 miles being nearer to a measure of the life of a motor vehicle, but we have taken 50,000 miles, comparable to the 50,000-mile guarantee some companies gave us a few years ago on the drive train and the lubrication question, and we have used that 50,000-mile test on performance.
We understand, of course, that performance depends at present as well upon the extent to which the operator maintains his car. We have said in the report, and made it clear in the language of the bill, indeed, that unless the individual operator meets the manufacturer's instructions with respect to maintaining the car as it relates to the clean air provisions of the automobile, the warranty will not be available to the owner. That is the language of the bill. It was written into the bill, on page 64. May I read it?
As a condition to the obligation of manufacturers to correct deficient performance, manufacturers may require the ultimate purchaser and subsequent purchasers of such vehicles or engines (a) to provide reasonable evidence of the time when such vehicles or engines were first placed in regular service and (b) to provide reasonable evidence that prescribed maintenance, adjustment, and service requirements and schedules have been observed. The manufacturer shall furnish with each vehicle or engine written instructions for the proper maintenance, adjustment, operation, and service by the owner or operator.
In addition, Mr. President, the bill provides grant-in-aid programs to States and communities to develop inspection programs and services comparable to the safety inspection services programs, that enable both operator and manufacturer to stay on top of the maintenance problem. That is the key. The industry has recognized that, from the time of its 1967 testimony and before. We have merely responded to that concern of theirs.
We understand that it is not presently possible to build a maintenance-proof, clean car, but that it is possible – with the use of a system that is built with some durability in it and some responsibility imposed upon the operator – to assure reasonably clean operation of such an automobile. We have to have the two. One without the other is like a one-legged man.
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maine yield me some time?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Colorado.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. PACKWOOD). The Senator from Colorado is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I think we are all trying to get at the same thing, but on this subject, which I had not intended to speak on, that the Senator from Maine was discussing, it raises some questions in my mind.
First, where is an operator going to get the maintenance necessary to keep his car operating at the supposed level as when he purchased it?
My experience with various cars, and I am sure it is no different from anyone else's in the Senate, is that, to secure competent maintenance on a car at the present time in any respect is almost an impossibility. In fact, even for rather simple operations, it is nothing unusual to have to take back the car two or three times.
So, that is a weak spot in the bill. Whether we can do anything about it, I do not know, but it certainly is a weak spot in the bill.
We are assuming that the automobile manufacturers are able to develop the kind of emission controls as contemplated in the bill either by 1975 or 1976. Yet, we still would have another problem.
For example, if I am delivered a car in Washington, D.C., which contains the so-called proper emission controls, and it is in working condition and performance and up to the standards which have been set, and I drive that car to Denver, Colo., that car will no longer meet those qualifications which held in Washington, D.C.
On the other hand, when I reach Denver, if I am fortunate enough to find a garage in which I can get the emission controls on the car corrected so that they meet the standards when the car was delivered to me, I still have a problem when I leave and drive to, say, Vail or Dillon, and I cross two mountain passes, one of which is a few thousand feet, under 12,000 feet, and the other is in excess of 11,000 feet, the car will not meet the emission standards there. Therefore, under the provisions of the bill, I am contributing to a violation of the bill and its purposes. Because one simply cannot create an emission control which will be workable at sea level, at 5,000 feet, at 11,000 feet, or at 12,000 feet or, again, at 8,500 feet.
I do not know whether this means that, as an operator I would have to – and this would affect a lot of people in my State – have my car taken to a garage at each change of altitude, but there are factors like this – although I have not gone extensively into consideration of the bill – which have to be considered. As I say, the first thing which concerns me is the ability of an operator of a vehicle to get it adequately cared for and the second thing is the change in climatic conditions. The car is affected by climatic conditions and not just by altitude. The change in emission in any particular application of a car is caused by a change in climate and a change in altitude.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield rather briefly?
Mr. ALLOTT. I yield.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I want to clean up something I said earlier. At one point I believe I indicated that are no testing procedures available at the present time. That was an error. It is possible to test the exhaust of a car now. But I am told that it takes $50,000 worth of equipment, several highly trained technicians, and 13 hours of time for each test of each car.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I am referring to the kind of a test that would be necessary to determine the performance level after 10,000 or 50,000 miles.
Mr. ALLOTT. That is on an individual car.
Mr. GRIFFIN. That is on one individual car. Now, what is lacking and needed is a quicker, more convenient, and cheaper way of testing.
Although the bill itself does not say anything about this, the committee report contemplates that the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, hopefully, will develop some quick testing procedure – a procedure not available at the present time. In the meantime, there are no practical testing procedures.
There is no indication in the bill as to who would pay the cost, how it is to be paid, or who would provide the equipment. However, the warranty provision goes into effect, nevertheless, 90 days after enactment of the bill.
Mr. ALLOTT. The Senator is correct. However, it is the Senator from Michigan and I, the users, who are going to pay for the testing and for whatever controls are put on the car. There can be no question about this. That is true of the American people in this whole area of environment, ecology control, and so forth.
There is no use in kidding ourselves. The American people will be spending a lot more for a lot of products in order to have the industries meet the standards that Congress is promulgating now. I think they are proper. I think we are proceeding in the right direction. However, it is John Q. Public who pays and who will pay for the testing and for the maintenance and ail the rest of it.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, in response to the point made by the distinguished Senator from Michigan, the committee has long been aware of the need for a quickie test, so-called. This is why we geared the warranty provision to such time as the Secretary is satisfied such a test exists.
The 90-day provision that is in here now, and that might be in effect imposing the requirement on the industry before such a test is developed, is at the insistence of the industry.
I repeat that the bill proposed by the committee would have been geared to the establishment of a quickie test.
I have no objection to modifying the bill to return it to what it was. I assume that the industry had some reason for insisting upon the 90-day provision.
With respect to the points made by the Senator from Colorado, he says that the points he made reflect the weakness of the bill. I take issue with that statement. The weaknesses that are reflected are endemic in the industry and the internal combustion engine.
The industry itself has recognized this over the years. And it has constantly striven to make the automobile maintenance-proof. It has undertaken to stretch out the life of the lubrication system, to reduce the number of times or the frequency of lubrication, and so on.
The industry recognizes that the American motorist is not a good maintenance engineer.
Therefore the industry has worked to make the car maintenance proof.
I think the greatest problem the industry faces is the shortage of mechanics across this country. As a matter of fact, if there were sufficient mechanics and if each owner followed the particular maintenance schedules of the automobiles, without any new technology or new devices, they would be substantially cleaner vehicles. I do not know the extent to which they might be cleaned up, but I suspect that 50 percent might not be a bad target at which to shoot. That is because of maintenance problems.
We cannot by legislation remake the automobile industry. We brought pressure on the industry from the beginning, 7 years ago, to press with urgency, not merely for control of the internal combustion engine, but for the electric automobile, the external combustion engine, and other ideas that might develop in order to get away from the problem of the internal combustion engines. That is because the internal combustion engine has greater maintenance problems than the electric or the external combustion engine would if it were developed.
The industry likes the internal combustion engine. It likes the comfort and the conveniences it has built into it.
The pending bill does not say to the industry. "You have to stick with this." It does not say that Congress is committed to the internal combustion engine.
We cannot solve the problem of whatever technology the industry chooses to put its bets on. All we can do is to set the standards.
The automobile industry has created all of the problems from the top to the bottom. The corner service station is related to the fact that Detroit built an automobile with an internal combustion system.
The dealer on Main Street is a product of the manufacturer in Detroit. He gets his franchise from them. He gets the manufacturer's requirements as to what kind of building he should construct, what kind of service he should provide.
The key to controlling the situation is in Detroit. As a matter of fact, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER) has persisted in making the point that it is not for us to say how these things should be done, but rather what performance standards are to be met.
So, if the bill is weak in not providing for the solution of the maintenance problem, I would welcome an amendment that would cure that weakness. But I do not think there is any way of writing a law that will create maintenance capability all across the country. Only the automobile industry can do that.
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I would have to take exception to the statement about the automobile industry, because I think the internal combustion engine has resulted in great efficiency. The torque, the r.p.m., speed of pickup, all of those factors are things that the American people have demanded.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, they have demanded it because of the automobile industry's advertising. There is plenty of testimony to the effect that we do not need power built into the automobiles. The appetite for the power has been stimulated by advertising.
The Senator knows that if the industry had chosen to put its muscle behind low power cars, lighter cars, cheaper cars, emission-free cars, it could have sold them. Does the Senator from Colorado doubt that?
Mr. ALLOTT. I think only within limits could they have done that. My feeling is that what the automobile industry has done is to meet the demand of the public. I admit, they have advertised and promoted the product just as one would promote suds or some other kind of detergent. This is part of the American way of life.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I can recall driving an automobile back in the mid-thirties
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I will get the floor later if the Senator wants it.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thought the Senator had yielded the floor. I had gotten the floor and was speaking and the Senator from Colorado interrupted to ask me a question.
Mr. ALLOTT. The Senator yielded to me. It is all right.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I can recall driving my first automobile. It had 100 horsepower. I cannot recall demanding 200. I cannot recall even thinking about it until the industry put it in my mind.
Mr. President, now I insist on something at least that powerful or more. The idea did not originate with me, but with the industry. I must say I enjoy it.
I say to the Senator that this bill is not directed only to the automobile industry. This bill is going to require that the American motorist change his habits, his tastes, and his driving appetites. Of course he has to, if we are to revert to a lighter car and a lower powered car. Those two factors, without any technology, could drastically reduce emission. The consumer also must make sacrifices in addition to those made by the manufacturer. So it is rather pointless to argue about whether the appetite arose in industry advertising or within the minds of consumers. The fact is both must now modify their concept of what tomorrow's automobile should be.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I yield five minutes on the bill to the Senator from Colorado.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BAYH.). The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I want to say in response to what has been said here that I am sorry there really is only one authority on automobiles on the floor although apparently there are others who have driven a little bit.
Mr. MUSKIE. Would the Senator identify the authority?
Mr. ALLOTT. Would the Senator repeat his question?
Mr. MUSKIE. Would the Senator identify that exclusive authority? I had not recognized it.
Mr. ALLOTT. I have been listening to him for a little bit here.
Mr. President, I am frank to say, to get back to this matter, we will have several problems and one will be with maintenance. I think if it were possible today to check the personal car of each Senator, I would doubt very much if any is operated within 75 percent of its specifications. It is impossible to get repairs to get them to operate at much more than that – maybe 80 percent, and I am being kind at that. That is the point I make.
In the operation of this particular matter one cannot apply the same standards to an automobile here and an automobile that is driven to Denver or over into the mountains, and have that car meet the standards that it did when it was originally made and delivered, even if it were 100 percent. No one can deny that. No automotive engineer that I know of anywhere in the country will deny it.
Second, I do think that we have to think not only in terms of what is going to happen to our engines when we have to drive them across the country, but we have to think of maintaining them. These are the two points I make. Nothing I have heard convinces me otherwise, and I am susceptible to being convinced. I would like to hear if there are answers to those points.
But what are we going to do with people who have the kind of country we have in Colorado where one goes from 3,000 feet in some parts of our State to 12,000 feet, and 12,000 feet is nothing unusual in our State; and then, the car will have to be adjusted every 5 miles as it goes up 1,000 feet. These are the problems we face.
I do not say the bill is wrong for that reason, but there are problems we have to face and it does not do any good to say the automobile industry inflicted this on us.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, may I have 3 minutes?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, getting back to the testing requirements, my able colleague from Michigan raised a point I thought was completely valid; namely, that the obligation becomes effective 90 days after enactment but there is not available presently the means within reason to make the tests.
I was surprised to hear from the able Senator from Maine that originally he had shared that concern, but the committee had changed the language at the specific request of the automobile manufacturers.
None of us claims infallibility about anything, but I wonder if Detroit, given the opportunity for second thoughts on this, would not agree with my colleague from Michigan, that the original position of the committee would be much more desirable. Under the original language the obligation would not become applicable until 90 days after there was available reasonably the means for a test. The Secretary would be obliged to make an executive finding, that such a test existed before the obligation would arise.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. HART. I yield.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I do not know. I take the Senator from Maine at his word. I do not know what the position of the industry was before his committee. I find it inconceivable that they would ask for a warranty to go into effect 90 days after enactment if there was a provision in the bill that said it would not go into effect until a certain testing procedure was developed; and we have no idea at the present time how long it will take to develop.
Mr. HART. I find in the committee report language to suggest it was indeed the committee's original intention and, for some reason, apparently at Detroit's request they put in the requirement that it go into effect 90 days after enactment. We find in the report on page 29, fourth paragraph, this language:
The second compliance testing method would be triggered by the development of a quick test procedure. The Secretary would be required to develop a test which could be quickly and uniformly applied to individual vehicles on the production line and on the road to determine whether or not those vehicles comply or continue to comply with the standards for which they were certified.
Mr. GRIFFIN. If I may pursue this further, when we talk about the Secretary developing quick tests, I wonder if anybody, including the Senator from Maine, has any idea how much it will cost to make quick tests available all over the country and how long it will take.
Mr. MUSKIE. If we knew we would not need to give the Secretary discretion, would we?
Mr. HART. But we have not given him discretion in the bill as reported.
I feel it would be preferable to state something on the order of–
Within 90 days after the Secretary establishes methods and procedures for the tests required that this obligation be established.
I cannot understand why that is not in the interest of the manufacturers and all dependent on the industry.
Mr. MUSKIE. I find that language completely acceptable. I agree it is asking a great deal to impose a warranty before we have a test to measure whether or not, the warranty is being violated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield myself another 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized for another 5 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. I would be perfectly agreeable. May I suggest that here are three Senators discussing this matter. Why do we not decide what should be in the bill and recommend it to the Senate? We seem to be in agreement. I am for it and the two Senators are for it.
I suggest we offer the amendment to the bill and let the Senate act on it.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I would support the amendment. It is a small step in the night direction, but it points out how ridiculous this portion of the legislation is.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, as compared to what the committee had in the bill, if it has become ridiculous because of this provision, the source of the ridiculousness is not the committee.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
It is ridiculous to say a warranty shall be effective 90 days after enactment when there is no testing procedure available. It would also be ridiculous to say the warranty provision would be effective 90 days after the Secretary develops a quick test, whatever that is, when we have no idea if this quick test can be made available throughout the country in 90 days, how much it would cost, on what would be involved. It is legislating in the dark, and it is ridiculous.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, let us take the small step, anyhow.
I would offer as an amendment the addition of this language beginning on page 63, at line 19, striking nothing, but inserting prior to the language appearing on line 19:
Within 90 days after the Secretary shall have established feasible methods and procedures for making tests as required by subsection (b)–
And, as a necessary conforming amendment, I am advised that a change on page 82, line 10, would be required; namely, deleting the reference to "207 (c) ".
I would inquire of the manager of the bill–
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is advised by the Parliamentarian that an amendment is pending.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. COOPER. I am withdrawing my amendment to amend section 207. I think the discussion that ensued following my calling it up indicates some of the problems that we had in the committee. Since I am no engineer – in fact, since 1936, I have not owned a car, nor have I driven a car in 20 years – I think there are problems in the warranty amendment. However, trying to separate the warranty as between a construction and design warranty from a warranty which
would extend to performance of automobiles driven by 100 million drivers is extremely difficult.
There are provisions in the bill which seem to put pressure on the manufacturers to produce a design which will last 50,000 miles or the life of the car. These include certification by the Secretary; second, a provision that it will require testing on the production line; third, a provision that the Secretary can test it at any time; fourth, that the Secretary can order recall of any number of cars from any number of owners; and finally, penalties of up to $10,000 if a car is put in commerce which will not meet these standards.
So it seems to me there was a question as to whether there should be a performance warranty. As I have said, my knowledge is not sufficient to comprehend it. With other problems of the committee, we may not have gone into it as fully as we could. I wanted to raise the matter because I think it is proper that we have some further discussion of it in conference; but I withdraw the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment of the Senator from Kentucky is withdrawn.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, I offer an amendment providing that the following language be inserted on line 19, page 63: Within 90 days after the Secretary shall have established feasible methods and procedures for making tests as required by subsection (b)–
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator send his amendment to the desk?
Mr. HART. Mr. President, this amendment is offered by my colleague from Michigan (Mr. GRIFFIN) and myself.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendments offered by the Senator from Michigan will be stated.
The legislative clerk read the amendments, as follows:
On page 63, line 19, after "(c) ", insert "Within 90 days after the Secretary shall have established feasible methods and procedures for making tests as required by subsection (b),".
On page 82, line 10, strike out "207 (c),".
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, as I have already indicated, I am willing to accept this amendment. I am happy to yield back my time.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, I think I have indicated that the amendment is offered both by myself and my colleague (Mr. GRIFFIN).
I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time on the amendment having been yielded back, the question is on agreeing, en bloc, to the amendments offered by the Senator from Michigan (Mr. HART) for himself and Mr. GRIFFIN.
The amendments were agreed to en bloc.