July 28, 1976
Page 24308
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield whatever additional time the Senator from New York wishes.
Mr. BUCKLEY. I thank my friend from Maine. I shall only take another minute or two.
It is the intent of the present law — and it is spelled out in this amendment — that the owner carries the responsibility for this work, which can be done anywhere the owner wishes. If the owner does not make those needed replacements, and that becomes the reason a car fails an in-use air standards test, then that is evidence of improper maintenance, voiding the effectiveness of the warranty coverage at least until the spark plugs are replaced by the owner. This amendment should encourage wise and proper maintenance of cars.
The alternative approach suggested by my good friend from Texas (Mr. BENTSEN) would reduce the warranty term to 18,000 miles. That would be unwise. It would enable the automotive industry to relax its quality control to the point that cars in use are likely to become far heavier sources of pollution. This would increase the burden on the consumer to have cars brought back into compliance at the consumer's expense, should they fail an inspection test of emissions, even with careful and proper maintenance.
Mr. President, I urge that the Senate support the Baker amendment.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me 30 seconds for a unanimous consent request?
Mr. MUSKIE Yes, I do.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. DURKIN) be added as a cosponsor to this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, under the unanimous consent agreement, I indicated that the time on the Baker amendment would be divided between Senator BAKER and myself and Senator BENTSEN.
All I want to do at this point is say that I support the Baker amendment.
It was filed at the same time as the committee bill. There is a description of it that was contained in the individual views that were included in the committee report. I think its effect is to strengthen the provisions of the bill and add some other acceptable safeguards. For reasons that I think have been so well spelled out in the colloquy between Senator BAKER and Mr. McCLURE and by Senator BUCKLEY and Senator STAFFORD, I support the amendment. I am happy to turn over to Senator BENTSEN whatever time remains on the Baker amendment.
Mr. BENTSEN. I thank the manager of the bill.
First, on the question of lessening the clean air standards, there is no intent at all to try to bring that about, and I do not think my amendment does that. What we are looking at, again, is a production warranty that must not be confused with a performance warranty. We have adequate safeguards in the production warranty to see that the burden still stays on the manufacturer.
When we talk about going from 5 years/50,000 miles on the performance warranty to 18 months or 18,000 miles, whichever comes first, we have not at all affected the production warranty requirements of 5 years or 50,000 miles, and have no intention of doing to. We have procedures under the act providing EPA the right to check assembly line production. We also have the recall procedure which, if EPA finds five of the models not meeting that standard, an investigation can be initiated and a recall ordered.
If we had a situation where EPA saw vehicles out there at 20,000 miles and the whole class or model of cars failed, that is obviously a production failure and there would be a recall ordered. Again, you have the recall requirements put on them so we have adequate safeguards there.
I have heard some people on this floor say that they have taken care of the independent garage man. The message has not gotten across to him, and he does not believe that at all. I agree with those garage men that we have not.
The National Congress of Petroleum Retailers, the gas station operators, write :
Our members are certain that the provisions as currently drafted will have a disastrous effect on their business, on their employees, and on the consumer's ability to get the best price and service for their vehicles. The performance warranty will effectively force the consuming public to return their vehicles to franchised dealers for all parts and services to their cars for 5 years or 50,000 miles so they can be sure they are not invalidating their warranties.
My good friend from Tennessee has addressed himself to the problem and he has attempted to protect the independent garage man, but, frankly, I do not think he has gone far enough. The pressures are going to be on that car owner. When he has a failure in performance and has been using an independent garage man and goes to the franchised dealer for warranty repair, that franchised dealer has to make, in part, a judgmental decision. Some judgment will be involved there. There will be a swearing match as to what was done, whether the owner really followed the manual, whether the independent garage man did. They are going to have a hassle.
Finally, perhaps, he gets paid, even if it happens to be a car owner who is on the road and will never see that franchised dealer again. We would hope that even under those conditions, his warranty coverage is provided and he gets just compensation. But there is no question that there is going to be more argument involved than if he had been going to a franchised dealer all the time.
How does the car owner avoid that? The way he avoids it is just to go to franchised dealers from then on and not have that kind of dispute. Those are the pressures that are going to be on the car owners of this country. That is how we are going to close the doors of 400,000 independent garage men in this country.
I think that is wrong. I think that lessens competition. There is a place for the franchised dealer. He does a great job. But there is a place for that independent garage man who also does a good job for the people of this country in giving them competitive service.
The sponsors of the Baker amendment said that cutting back to 18,000 miles and 18 months on the performance warranty, not the production warranty, puts an additional cost on the consumer, because it shifts the burden and the expense of repairing the faulty emission control system from the manufacturer to the car owner.
Under a warranty, the question is not who pays, but when. Is anybody under the illusion that it is not going to be a car owner who finally pays? He is the man who is going to pay the cost.
It is just a question of when it is done. Under a prolonged performance warranty, the owner pays for coverage at the time of purchase and then must properly maintain the car and have the warranty work performed by the franchised dealer of the manufacturer if he really does not want to be hassled over it.
Also, under a prolonged 5-year and 50,000-mile warranty, the consumer, the car owner pays for the coverage, which he may never claim. If his vehicle never fails an emission test, he will not seek warranty repairs and he will have lost the $160 to $260 he paid for that coverage at the time he purchased the car. That cost will be built into his car and he will be paying for it.
In the meantime, the manufacturer will be drawing interest on his money for the extra charge that he made.
Coverage under a performance warranty of 5 years or 50,000 miles or any other period of time will not be automatic or be a blanket. The car owner will have to maintain his car according to the schedule outlined in the owner's manual. He must show that he has used the original equipment manufacturer's parts or their certified equipments, and that he has had them properly installed. If he cannot prove all three of those conditions, he can be denied compensation under the warranty.
I applaud the distinguished Senator from Tennessee in trying to meet a problem, but I do not think he has gone far enough in trying to accomplish that.
The charge has been made that the 18 months and 18,000-mile performance warranty would eliminate any financial incentive for the manufacturer to produce a durable emission control system. That simply is not correct. The 5-year/50,000-mile production warranty obligation would remain in effect, and the automaker is required to warrant that the vehicle is designed, built and equipped to meet those standards at the time of sale. The warranty also requires that the vehicle is free from defects in materials and workmanship which would cause that engine or that vehicle to fail to conform to the applicable regulations for its useful life, and that useful life is now set at 5 years and 50,000 miles, and it is going to stay that way under my amendment.
I do not affect that in the least, but I agree with the House Small Business Committee in saying that the 5-year/50,000 mile warranty is unnecessary and may well put many of your independent garage men, all 400,000 of them, out of business.
Mr. President, I would hope that the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Tennessee is defeated, and that the Senate will approve the substitute measure which I have sent to the desk, as proposed by the Senator from Texas.
I am willing to yield back the remainder of my time if the Senator from Maine is.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HATHAWAY). Who yields time?
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me ask, I would just like to have 2 minutes to sort of summarize this point, but before I do that let me ask if the Senator from Tennessee requires any more time.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I do not require any more time.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I ask Senator BUCKLEY.
May I just say this — and I yield myself 2 minutes and I will be through — does the Senator want some more time?
Mr. McCLURE. Five minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Would the Senator like it now?
Mr. McCLURE. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Idaho. I will not take more than 2 minutes, may I say to the Senator from Texas, following the Senator from Idaho.
Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding this time because I have a problem with the Baker amendment involving this entire question, and I think it is a question of understanding, and I would like to at least get that understanding on the record.
In our conversations in the committee, on the floor, in the hallways and everywhere else we have failed to make the distinction, I think, that must be made essentially as to what 207(a) and 207(b) cover, the distinction between the warranty under 207(a) and 207(b).
As I understand, the 207(a) warranty to which the Baker amendment addresses itself primarily, at least in the 2-percent requirement, that is a design warranty. It is not a performance warranty. It does not say that this part, installed in the car, must go 50,000 miles or the manufacturer is liable. It says that the manufacturer must design that part to go 50,000 miles, and if it is designed and produced as though it ought to go that far, they have met their responsibility unless the car owner can prove that there was a defect in materials or workmanship that might bring them back into a warranty provision.
But if it fails in less than 50,000 miles, and the car owner cannot show a defect in material and workmanship, the manufacturer is not liable, as I understand, under 207(a).
It also says you can design a part that must be, that is designed to be, replaced in less than 50,000 miles, and if the car manufacturer designs such a part for such replacement and it is a part of the emission control system that the part must be replaced, the replacement must be made for the 50,000 mile period. But we should not assume that the 207 (a) warranty is a 50,000-mile performance warranty of that part because the very essential element of the proof of defect in materials and workmanship is a very difficult one, and the fact that it failed in less than 50,000 miles does not guarantee replacement of that part by the manufacturer at the manufacturer's expense.
So the 207(a) warranty is not a warranty that in all instances will bind the manufacturer to replace, under the committee bill, under existing law, or under the Baker amendment.
I think if anybody disagrees with that statement I wish he would say so now so we can at least understand what it is we are dealing with in the provisions of the law.
Mr. MUSKIE. If the Senator will yield, Mr. President, I think that is an accurate statement of the law. Replacement will be required if the part is defective, as I understand it. The Senator from Tennessee may want to add to it.
Mr. McCLURE. Let me add further, do not misunderstand what I am saying about the 207(a) warranty as affecting the 207(b) warranty, which is a different matter.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for just a minute, I think the Senator is right insofar as (a) goes.
(a) is a design warranty. It says:
Either you build this part so you think it will last 50,000 miles, and that EPA agrees it will last 50,000 miles, or if you do not do that then design it so it will last less than 50,000 miles and you are going to replace it as a matter of routine maintenance if it is brought back.
The kicker in the thing, so far as the after parts market is concerned, is they say, "Look, we are losing all that bring-it-back trade because you always have to take it back to the dealer."
What we are saying is, no, you do not. You only have to take it back to the dealer if it is a prepaid part that costs more than 2 percent of the net sticker price of the car and it is a catalyst or thermal reactor.
Mr. President, the 207(b) provision is, in fact, a performance warranty. I remember very well when the clean air amendments of 1970 were enacted that section (a), as I recall it, was my proposal. Section (b) was John Sherman Cooper's proposal, and we ended up, as we often do, doing both.
Mr. McCLURE. The reason I raise the issue is that there should be no illusion as to the extent of the 207(a) design warranty for 50,000 miles; 207(b) does include plugging a portion of that omission under 207(a), but there is a different burden of proof under 207(b) than there is under 207(a), and the burden of proof is a burden of proof on the car owner in each instance.
That is true under the Baker amendment, under the section of the Baker amendment, as well. If I understand the second page of the Baker amendment, section 30 that appears on page 2 of the amendment at line 16, that burden of proof lies with the owner as it does under the committee bill, if I understand both the committee bill and the Baker amendment; am I correct?
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, so far as the burden of proof is concerned, all you have to prove is that the thing does not perform according to the emission requirements.
Mr. McCLURE. And that you have maintained the automobile according to the maintenance schedule published by the manufacturer.
Mr. BAKER. That is correct, but you do not have to do it at the dealer's showroom.
Mr. McCLURE. Right.
The reason I bring that out is because it may be a difficult burden of proof for the owner to bear, and also invites the manufacturer to establish a more elaborate maintenance schedule than otherwise would be required, so that you can, in essence, create more doubt about whether the maintenance schedule was maintained or not, and if it was not, then it voids the warranty and it voids the liability of the manufacturer.
Mr. BAKER. If the Senator will yield further, Mr. President, we ought to say for the record though, in all justice and fairness to the automobile industry, that they have been very, very good about their performance on these warranties. Most times I know of when there has been any question they have resolved it in favor of the owner. I am sure there are exceptions to that and, no doubt, I will get letters pointing them out. But, by and large, the automobile industry has been very, very good about that, and what we are dealing with here is whether or not we need to protect the aftermarket suppliers, the independent garage owner, the mechanic, and the like. The purpose of the Baker amendment is to do that and to strengthen the protection and the competitive position of the independent operator under (a) and (b).
Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, I do not mean to burden this discussion unduly, but it seems to me when we start talking about protecting the consumer, what we are trying to do here, as we are trying to compromise the various pressures we are dealing with, is actually increasing the cost to the consumer of maintaining his automobile.
Because we are, in essence, trying to thread three needles at once.
With my eyes and the sight that I have, I find very great difficulty getting the thread through the eye of one, let alone trying to thread three at once.
But we are trying to thread three at once. We are trying to say to the manufacturer, "You build that car this way, you meet these requirements."
At the same time, we are trying to protect the market freedom of both the purchaser and the supplier of the goods and services in the market so that we do not force everyone to go back to the franchised dealer or the manufacturer.
Third, we are trying to protect the consumer in this instance against merchandise that does not meet the warranty.
We are also trying to find a way by which we can see that these cars perform the way they are supposed to perform in-use and not just in theory, and we compromise each one of those as we try to find the best way of balancing.
It seems to me that inherent in all this is going to be an increased cost of maintenance. That is an inherent part of the problem of meeting the pollution goals we are trying to meet.
As we are trying to clean up the air in this country, the consumer is going to pay a bill. A part of that bill will be paid on the maintenance of his automobile. We are trying to determine just exactly where that cost is going to be paid. But it is going to be paid by the consumer in the original price or in the kind of maintenance he has to do and in the maintenance requirements themselves.
Mr. BAKER. Will the Senator yield me one more minute?
Mr. MUSKIE. Of course.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, in a nutshell, we are going to decide in the Baker-Bentsen amendments whether the warranty on the car ought to be 18,000 miles or 50,000 miles.
I happen to think it ought to be 50,000 miles.
Next, we are going to decide whether or not we ought to beef up the protectionof the individual garage owner or leave it to the automobile dealer.
I think we ought to beef it up for the independent garage owner and I think we have in the Baker amendment, without throwing the 50,000-mile warranty out the window.
Last, America does a lot of things well. But I do not think anybody even approaches America in the building of quality automobiles.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Only 2 minutes remaining on this amendment.
Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. BENTSEN. I would like a little of the time in opposition. I am ready to yield back.
Mr. MUSKIE. I understand and also am disappointed on that because we will have a couple of votes very quickly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Once the Bentsen substitute is offered, there will be 50 minutes which can be used in addition, but at the present time there are only 2 minutes remaining on the Baker amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. There are only 2 minutes remaining on the Baker amendment, 50 minutes remaining on the Bentsen amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Once it is offered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Then why do I not reserve my time.
Mr. BENSTEN. Let the Senator from Arkansas have a chance.
Mr. BAKER. I can reserve any statement I have until later. I will try to claim any remaining time later to finish my accolade to the automobile industry.
Mr. BUMPERS. My questions go to theSenator from Tennessee.
One, how long has the 5-year, 50,000-mile warranty been in effect in this country?
Mr. BAKER. The question was asked on that, and it has been in effect since the Clean Air Amendments of 1970.
Mr. BUMPERS. The second question: Under the Senator's amendment is it permissible for a consumer to take his automobile to anybody to have the emission control device replaced if it turns out to be defective?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time on the Baker amendment has expired.
The Senator can be recognized to offer a substitute.
Mr. BUMPERS. The Senator was yielding to me.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. He has no time. The Chair states that the Senator from Texas has no time until his amendment is offered.
Mr. BENTSEN. The Senator from Texas has time on the Bentsen amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, but it has not been offered.
Does the Senator from Texas offer it?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. MUSKIE. We are operating under a unanimous consent agreement which I propounded and which provided that we were to set aside the Bentsen amendment temporarily, reserving all time still remaining to us, and turn to the Baker amendment under the 1 hour time limitation previously agreed to.
So that the Senator from Texas and the Senator from Maine still have, under the terms of that unanimous consent agreement, whatever time remained to us on the Bentsen amendment when we turned to the Baker amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct, but the amendment has to be laid before the Senate.
Mr. MUSKIE. The amendment was offered when we began discussion of this whole business and is going to be reoffered as a substitute for the Baker amendment. But the unanimous consent agreement was not conditioned upon that.
Mr. BENTSEN. If there is any question in the Parliamentarian's mind
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. It has to be reoffered because it was withdrawn at the time the unanimous consent agreement was entered into. All we have to do is report the Bentsen amendment in order to have 50 minutes of time.
AMENDMENT NO. 1614, AS MODIFIED
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, if the Parliamentarian will allow me, I offer the amendment in the nature of a substituteto the Baker amendment, applicable to the provisions and applicable as originally proposed to the bill itself.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is an order allowing that, and the amendment will be stated.
The second assistant legislative clerk proceeded to read the amendment.
Mr. BENTSEN. 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 is as follows:
In lieu of the language intended to be proposed by the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Baker) insert the following:
On page 70, beginning with line 13, strike out all through line 5 on page 73, and insert the following:
"Sec. 27. (a) Section 207(b) (2) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857f–5a(b) ) is amended by adding the following at the end thereof: 'No such warranty shall be invalid on the basis of any part used in the maintenance or repair of a vehicle or engine if such part was certified as provided under subsection (a) (2).'.
"(b) Section 207(a) of such Act is amended by inserting '(1)' after '(a)' and by adding the following new paragraph at the end thereof:
"'(2) In the case of a motor vehicle part or motor vehicle engine part, the manufacturer of such part may certify that use of such part not result in a failure of the vehicle or engine to comply with emission standards promulgated under section 202. Such certification shall be made only under such regulations as may be promulgated by the Administrator to carry out the purposes of subsection (b) . The Administrator shall promulgate such regulations no later than two years following the date of the enactment of this paragraph.'
"(c) (1) Section 207(b) of such Act is amended by striking out 'its useful life (as determined under section 202 (d) )' in each place it appears and inserting in lieu thereof 'a period of eighteen months or eighteen thousand miles (or the equivalent), whichever first occurs'.
"(2) Section 207 of such Act is amended by adding the following new subsection at the end thereof:
"'(g) In lieu of the eighteen-month or eighteen-thousand-mile period of use referred to in subsection (b) there shall be substituted "the useful life of the vehicle or engine (as determined under section 202(d) )" if the Federal Trade Commission finds under section 27(d) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1976 that no significant anti-competitive effects result from the application of such warranty for such useful life.'.
"(d) The Federal Trade Commission shall undertake a study to determine whether or not any anti-competitive effects would result from any warranty required to be provided pursuant to section 207(b) of the Clean Air Act if such warranty applied for the useful life (as determined under section 202(d) of such Act) of vehicles and engines to which such warranty applies in lieu of the eighteen-month or eighteen-thousand-mile period specified in such section 207(b). Such study shall include public hearings. Such study shall include an analysis of any measures implemented by the Administrator to prevent or diminish such anti-competitive effects and shall include a finding with respect to whether or not a significant anti-competitive effect would nevertheless result from such warranty if the warranty applied for such useful life. Such study shall be undertaken primarily by the Bureau of Competition in consultation with the Bureau of Consumer Affairs.
"(e) (1) Section 207(c) (3) of such Act is amended by inserting after the first sentence thereof the following: 'In no event and under no circumstances shall a manufacturer (in written instructions or otherwise), specify, require, or designate the use of any proprietary or brand name automotive part, material, or substance for purposes of this paragraph. For such purposes, the manufacturer may only specify performance standards or enginering specifications or the use of parts which have been certified as provided in subsection (a) (2) or parts meeting such standards or specifications. No manufacturer may directly or indirectly specify for such purposes that maintenance, replacement, or repair may only be performed by franchised dealer or approved automotive service establishments. The manufacturer shall provide in boldface type on the first page of the written maintenance instructions notice that maintenance of the emission control devices and systems may be performed by any automotive repair establishment or any individual using any automotive part which meets the performance and engineering specifications of the manufacturer or which has been certified as provided in subsection (a) (2).'.
"(f) Section 207(c) of such Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph:
"' (4) In the case of any nonconformity of any vehicle or engine required to be remedied at the expense of the manufacturer under this subsection, the owner of such vehicle or engine shall be, under regulations promulgated by the Administrator, compensated by the manufacturer for any amount expended by him with respect to such nonconformity before the date on which such nonconformity is required to be remedied under this subsection.' ".
On page 73, line 8, strike out "SEC. 30" and insert "SEC. 28".
Renumber sections 31 through 38 as sections 29 through 36, respectively.
On page 88, beginning with line 15, strike out all through line 9 on page 89.
On page 89, line 10, strike out "Sec. 40" and insert "Sec. 37".
Renumber section 41 as section 38.
Mr. BENTSEN. Now I would like to yield to my distinguished friend from Arkansas to ask the questions.
Mr. BUMPERS. Let me ask the Senator from Texas this question.
I have tended to support the Senator's amendment because of what I thought were anti-competitive elements of the way they were carried out.
What I want to ask is, if the Baker amendment is adopted it was my understanding that this warranty could be perfected at any dealer and not necessarily the dealer from whom the automobile was purchased, or a similar dealer.
For example, if I owned a Chevrolet automobile and the emission control device became defective at any time during its life, in this case we will say 5 years and 50,000 miles, I could take it to any garage, not necessarily the Chevrolet dealer from whom I bought it, or any other dealer, but any garage, and have it replaced or repaired.
Now, do I understand the Baker amendment correctly?
In other words, it would prohibit the automobile manufacturer from insisting we bring it back to that dealer?
Mr. BAKER. The Senator from Arkansas is entirely correct.
Mr. BENTSEN. Let me further add, that I think the Baker amendment is a step in the right direction. I congratulate the Senator for it.
The problem is this. The man is entitled to go to anyone for service he wants to, but then the burden of proof is on him when he goes to that franchised dealer to get fulfillment on his warranty when he has had a problem. And here we have a situation where we have, in effect, a man who becomes the judge as to whether or not there was compliance with the "proper" maintenance requirement, whether the owner really fulfilled the obligation spelled out in the manual.
And who is the judge? He is the franchised dealer.
And what is he judging? The work of his competitor, the independent garage man.
So I think that is loaded against the independent. That is my concern.
I think what the Senator from Tennessee is trying to do is a very worthwhile objective. He is trying to achieve the same thing I am trying to achieve.
But the problem we have is that the judgment of that franchised dealer just has to be colored by the fact that this man who has done the work is not one of his own mechanics, not one of his own colleagues, but actually a competitor of his.
Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Senator.
Mr. BENTSEN. With that, if the Senator is ready to get a vote on this
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me just take the 2 minutes I asked.
Mr. BENTSEN. That last 2 minutes went about 20 through no fault of the Senator's.
Mr. MUSKIE. I want to make two points, I say to the Senator, in order to make clear what I think are the critical points on that chart.
That chart, in my judgment, is the whole argument against the Bentsen amendment.
We have been struggling since 1963 to clean up the new car because the used car is not amenable to retrofit for that purpose in any effective way.
Since the 1967 act we have been imposing standards upon new cars for the purpose of cleaning up old cars. The black line on each of those charts shows what the standards have been. They have changed: they have grown tougher as we have gone along. Hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides are shown on the chart. Those are the standards for which automobiles were certified before they went into production.
In use, the red line shows that they have failed to meet the standards by wide margins.
How in heaven's name are we going to get that red line down to the black line and meet the health standards unless we use every tool that is available to us for bringing pressure upon the manufacturer?
If the used car were amenable to modification for cleanup purposes, then the neighborhood garage, the neighborhood dealer, the neighborhood mechanic could do it. But they cannot. Only the manufacturer can design the car so that it will meet the clean air standards. If we tell the manufacturer to design it for an 18,000-mile warranty instead of a 50,000-mile warranty, we are never going to get that red line down to the black line.
That is the problem. That is the issue before the Senate.
With respect to the aftermarket parts industry, nobody is more concerned about their welfare than I am. But we have written safeguards into the bill. The Baker amendment adds other safeguards which protect their competitive position; which prohibit the automobile industry from intimidating the consumer into using the franchised dealer; which give the independent parts manufacturer an opportunity to get his parts certified so that they will meet the clean air standards. I think all of that is a reasonable concession to the desire and the need for competitiveness in the parts industry.
With those two arguments, Mr. President, I have really stated the heart of my opposition and I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time. The Senator from Texas may like to respond briefly.
Mr. BENTSEN. I would like to respond for 2 minutes.
On these lines on the chart which concern all of us, what we are talking about is the fact that the performance warranty has not been in effect during that period of time. They have not had the ability to enforce the performance warranty. That is the major reason.
The point we must make sure of is that we do not confuse the production warranty with the performance warranty. What the Senator from Maine is really concerned about, I believe, is a conscientious enforcement of that production warranty. I share that with him. I believe we have the tools in the bill, and I have not touched that in any way, to see that that production warranty is enforced and that the big cars have that problem, that responsibility and that obligation.
But I do not want to see in the after service market the 400,000 independent garage men in this country precluded from doing business.
With that, I yield back the remainder of my time.