June 9, 1977
Page 18125
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Time on the amendment is limited to 30 minutes equally divided between the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Wisconsin.
Who yields time?
Mr. GRIFFIN Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. GRIFFIN. This amendment would recognize a certain amount of validity and merit to the argument of the Senator from Wisconsin, even though he is offering an amendment which the American Motors Corp., as I understand it, does not want. But assuming that his concern is justified and that American Motors, because they do not develop and have their own technology for emission controls, would need a year's delay in the application of standards, particularly with respect to NOx, it seems to me his amendment is not drafted appropriately. This amendment writes into the law certain figures for American Motors only before we know what the final figures are going to be for the rest of the industry.
I know that his amendment is predicated upon the assumption that the committee bill standards will be adopted, although I am not quite sure that those standards will be adopted or some other schedule, perhaps to be offered by the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER) . What my amendment does is change the form of the Senator's amendment and specifically provides that a manufacturer which has produced less than 300,000 cars would have one year's delay for any one pollutant. So, in other words, it could be just for NOx for the model year 1979, as compared to whatever standards apply to the rest of the industry.
It seems to me that this is a more logical way to approach the problem, rather than to write in particular numbers for American Motors now when we do not know what the numbers are going to be for the rest of the industry.
That concedes and recognizes a point which really is subject to some disagreement because, as my junior colleague from Michigan has already pointed out, that technology is available to American Motors without a year's delay, and there is a real question as to whether or not some special exemption should be carved out here for American Motors.
But I will go along with it with this kind of an amendment, which is, it seems to me, the way the amendment should have been drafted.
My amendment to the Nelson amendment has one other important feature. The Nelson amendment refers to any manufacturer whose sales in the world were less than 300,000 light duty motor vehicles for the year 1976. It is assumed that that applies to American Motors, and I guess it does. But I really do not know who else it applies to, and there is not any language in his amendment that would preclude the application of that special exemption for the foreign manufacturers of automobiles sold in the United States.
I, for one, am not about to grant such an exemption to foreign-made automobiles. The language as drafted, it seems to me, would do that.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. PELL) . Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I yield for a question to the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield, simply for clarification? I am not using the Senator's yielding to engage in argument, but merely to understand the Senator's amendment.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator would use his microphone.
Mr. MUSKIE. The first part I understand very clearly. It is designed to limit the relief of the Nelson amendment to American manufacturers of 300,000 cars.
Mr. GRIFFIN. That is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. The second part of the Senator's amendment, which I want to be sure I understand, as I read it, it seems to me to be or its effect seems to be to make possible a series of 1-year delays of all pollutant standards.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Any.
Mr. MUSKIE. Any pollutant standard beginning with the year 1979.
Mr. GRIFFIN. That is right.
Mr. MUSKIE. For manufacturers of all American automobiles.
Mr. GRIFFIN. No; you have to read it in context with the language that precedes this.
The Senator talked about the manufacturer whose sales were less than 300,000, and then it goes on, and then he talks about automobiles manufactured by such manufacturer. My amendment then states—
contain the standards which apply to other manufacturers except that the effective date of the standards for any pollutant for the model year 1979 and subsequent years may be delayed in each case for a period of not to exceed 1 year if the Administrator determines that such delay would not be harmful to public health.
But I see the Senator's point.
Perhaps at one place there could be inserted "the effective date of the standard for any pollutant in the case of a manufacturer," and then repeat it, "making less than 300,000 cars." I do not think it is necessary though in the context in which it is put, but that is the intention of my amendment — that it would be only to that manufacturer but not all manufacturers.
Mr. MUSKIE. But the Senator's intention then — maybe if he would clarify this then we can look at the language.
Mr. GRIFFIN. That is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator's intention is to modify the form of relief to be available to American Motors.
Mr. GRIFFIN. That is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. And not to extend the relief to other American manufacturers.
Mr. GRIFFIN. That is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. The form of relief proposed for American Motors is to make available a series, potentially a series, of 1-year extensions.
Mr. GRIFFIN. That is right.
Mr. MUSKIE. Beginning with model year 1979.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Beyond the schedule that would apply to the other manufacturers.
Mr. MUSKIE. I understand it, and I will not take the Senator's time any further. I will discuss the amendment with Senator NELSON.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I do believe that if my amendment is read in the context of the Nelson amendment, which refers to a manufacturer of less than 300,000 light duty motor vehicles, and then it says "such" manufacturer, there would not be any question about the meaning of my
amendment. Certainly with this added colloquy there could not be.
I believe this is an improvement of the Nelson amendment, and one that would certainly, as far as this Senator is concerned, close a possible loophole in having this broad exemption apply to companies other than American Motors.
So I commend the amendment to the Senate and hope it will be adopted.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, how much time remains on this amendment and who controls the time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are19 minutes remaining. The Senator from Wisconsin has 15 minutes and the Senator from Michigan has 4 minutes.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I wish to say to the distinguished senior Senator from Michigan that in the RECORD of yesterday, June 8, on page S9223 contains a chart of all the automobile manufacturing companies in the world with their 1976 production and an explanation of the impact of this amendment.
As to the provision in the Senator's amendment which would make this extension applicable only to domestic cars, that would be clearly in violation of our trade agreements. We have discussed the language that was placed in the amendment with the special trade representative, and it would not be in violation of our trade agreements.
Amendment 366 requires that in order to qualify for this extension the manufacturer must have manufactured less than 300,000 cars in 1976 and must be a company that purchases its pollutions control technology from other companies.
The actual fact is, so far as we can determine, only Avanti, that makes some 150 cars, and American Motors would qualify because others, which manufacture less than 300,000, either manufacture their own technology or they have no trouble meeting the committee standards anyway. The first part of the Senator's amendment would violate our trade agreements, and I do not think it would be sound policy for Congress to write into legislation a provision of that kind.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as may remain on my side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I appreciate the information provided by the Senator from Wisconsin. I did not have these production numbers earlier. But it seems to me that it only reinforces the arguments that I have made and suggests stronger reasons for support of my amendment. Attention is called to the fact that BMW, Saab, and Volvo would fall in this category. Is that correct?
Mr. NELSON. Neither BMW nor Volvo fall in the category because they manufacture their own technology.
Mr. GRIFFIN. They fall into the category in terms of number of cars they manufacture. I am looking at foreign manufacturers that produce less than the number 300,000, which is the key number in the Senator's amendment.
Mr. NELSON. May I interrupt for clarification?
Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes.
Mr. NELSON. But if the Senator refers to the language it provides for manufacturers of 300,000 automobiles.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mitsubishi in Japan come over that figure. But Fuji, Lotus, Ferrari, Rolls-Royce, all of those companies produce less than the magic number. Then the question would be on the other matters which the Senator includes here and which are very much more difficult to determine, whether or not they in fact are primarily dependent upon the technology of others. I would be surprised, frankly, if those foreign manufacturers completely provided and developed their own technology and in no instances purchased technology from other sources.
I think the problem that a substantial company like American Motors has in our country with respect to technology would certainly be duplicated by the small manufacturers in other countries.
And with all due respect, I think the Senator from Wisconsin leaves open a big loophole there in asking us to buy a pig in the poke. We do not know what the situation is, and I would say that to have a "buy American" provision in this kind of an amendment would be most appropriate and certainly not unusual. We have it in other areas of legislation. In a situation where we otherwise do not know what we are doing, it would seem to me it would be most appropriate.
I reserve any time that may remain.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, may I respond?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. NELSON. The Senator from Michigan, I think, misinterprets the amendment. The amendment provides that this exemption for time lag would apply under two circumstances. A company must manufacture less than 300,000 automobiles and it must purchase their pollution control technology from someone else.
The only place that I know of in America, and perhaps in the world, that is the primary source for the information about who manufacturers their own pollution control systems and who purchases it is the Environmental Protection Agency. EPA must certify every automobile, domestic or foreign, that is sold in this country. The Environmental Protection Agency informed my office that under this provision only American Motors and Avanti would qualify, no others would be eligible.
BMW and Volvo, for example, manufacture their own pollution control technology. Neither of these firms would qualify. So under the language drafted it is down to American Motors and Avanti.
Consequently, this language does not create the particular problem that the Senator from Michigan raised. The amendment has been checked with the special trade representative, and it does not violate our trade agreements; whereas, the provisions by the Senator from Michigan would violate our trade agreements.
How much time does the Senator from Wisconsin still have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 10 minutes remaining.
Mr. NELSON. I yield whatever time theSenator from Maine desires.
Did the Senator wish additional time?
Mr. GRIFFIN. No. I reserved any time that I had remaining.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the Senator from Wisconsin has covered the first matter raised by the Griffin amendment, and I shall not undertake to add to his observations on it. He carefully explored the whole question of the impact on foreign manufacturers of his original amendment. He explained the rationale for it. He explained the safeguards which have been written into his amendment, and he satisfied me on those points before I agreed to support his amendment.
As I say, he satisfied me on those points. However, I am concerned about the second feature of the Griffin amendment. As I read it, and the Senator from Michigan has confirmed my understanding of it, what it would do is give greater relief to American Motors than is required to meet American Motors' needs. Second, it would put into place machinery for a series of 1-year delays from now on for American Motors, which, if put in place, I am sure would be used by the other manufacturers as an excuse to request similar kinds of administrative flexibility.
Mr. President, it has been the policy of Congress since 1970 to decide directly what the public health requires in this connection. The Griffin amendment would transfer that decision making authority to the Administrator at this late date, when the health requirements have been carefully reviewed year after year after year in the light of unfolding knowledge and in the light of experience. That experience has only confirmed all relevant judgments as to the necessity to maintain present standards. To open up that question and transfer it to the Administrator at this late date is simply to open another loophole.
The Senator from Michigan has expressed his unhappiness with the loophole with which he dealt with the first point of his amendment. Well, I am equally concerned with the loophole the Senator from Michigan has opened up with his second one.
Mr. President, American Motors has indicated it can meet the hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide standards for 1980.There is no reason, therefore, to open up the possibility of further extensions of time to American Motors on those two pollutants after 1980, as the Griffin amendment would do.
In other words, the Griffin amendment is undertaking to give American Motors relief that American Motors, I am sure, would like, but which American Motors says it does not need with respect to the hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide standards in 1980. If we were to grant American Motors that relief which it does not need, then I would not blame the other manufacturers if they came in and asked, "Why not give us the same relief?"
It makes no sense, Mr. President.
Second, American Motors has said it can meet the nitrogen oxide standard in 1982, if we will give them until 1982. The Griffin amendment has opened up the possibility that we would give American Motors relief beyond 1982 on the NOx standard. If we do, then other manufacturers are going to come in and say, "Simple equity demands that you give us the same kind of unnecessary relief you have given to American Motors."
Mr. President, this is nothing but another example of the kind of delaying tactics, the kind of stretchout of the inevitable, the kind of stretchout of what is required by the public health, that the American automobile industry has demonstrated for the 14 years I have been chairman of the Environmental Pollutants Subcommittee. It ought to be summarily rejected. In due course, when all time has expired, I shall move to table the amendment.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, will the Senator give me a minute to respond? I believe I have some time remaining, have I not?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. Why not use your time?
Mr. GRIFFIN. My time has expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. Does the Senator from Wisconsin object to my yielding time to the Senator from Michigan?
Mr. NELSON. No; I have no objection.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield the Senator 2 minutes.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, I have listened with interest to the Senator from Maine. I take issue with him. Our amendment does not go further in terms of providing relief to American Motors, because it does not lock in different standards for American Motors than for the other manufacturers. It only provides that the Administrator may grant American Motors — and not any other manufacturer — a 1-year delay in the case of any particular pollutant, provided that he determines that such delay will not be harmful to the public health.
So it does not grant American Motors more relief, it grants them less relief; and if they get any relief, it is dependent upon a showing by the administrator that it is necessary and that it will not harm public health.
The Nelson amendment locks figures into the law without knowing, at least at this point, what the emission schedule will be for the rest of the industry. I know that the Senator from Maine thinks he knows what it is going to be. Maybe he is correct. Maybe he will have the votes when the time comes and these figures will correspond to those finally established in S. 252.
But I can tell the Senator this: If the Senator from Maine, later on in this debate, is proven wrong, the Senator from Wisconsin will be back asking for some modification of this. In that case if the NOx standard for 1982 for the rest of the industry is different, he will want another year's delay beyond that for American Motors.
It seems to me that the rational and logical way to adopt this kind of policy, if we want to do it, is not to write figures into the law; but to say that American Motors, recognizing that it does depend upon other companies for its technology, may have a 1-year delay over and beyond whatever the schedule is established for the rest of the industry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I think I have about 2 minutes remaining, and I must answer the Senator's argument.
His amendment says this:
The effective date of the standards for any pollutant for the model year 1979 and subsequent years may be delayed in each case for a period not to exceed one year.
That means there will be a series of applications 1 year apart for the automobile industry for the kind of delay they have been pursuing for 7 years. Every time they have been given the possibility of administrative delay for a year, they have spent 2 years pursuing the delay and postponing the kind of effort that might have avoided this confrontation on the floor of the Senate in the year 1977. They have received three 1-year delays, two by administrative decision and one by congressional decision.
Then they got hungry for more and asked for five, and that is their posture at the present time. They see some problem in getting five, so now they are back trying to get the 1-year delay, hoping they can build on the success they have had in the past in getting 1 year after 1 year after 1 year of delay.
Mr. President, I move to table the Griffin amendment.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold that for a moment?
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state It.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Is this amendment subject to a division?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the amendment is subject to a division into two parts.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I ask for a division.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President—
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The division is being made.
ORDER OF PROCEDURE
Mr. SCOTT. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that after the disposition of the pending amendment before us, and the amendments to be offered by the Senator from Utah (Mr. GARN) , I might bring up my nondegradation amendment. It has been ordered to be printed. I do not have printed copies on the desks, but they should be here long before that.
Mr. MUSKIE. I certainly have no objection to the request of the distinguished Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. MUSKIE. May I ask a parliamentary inquiry?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. MUSKIE. The division which has been ordered, I take it, puts before us first that part of the amendment of the Senator from Michigan which is found in the first two lines of his amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is the part—
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of Senator SCOTT?
Mr. MUSKIE. As I understood his request, it was that it follow an amendment by Senator GARN.
Would the Senator repeat his request?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request of the Senator from Virginia was that his amendment would come up before the disposition of the amendment of the Senator from Michigan.
Mr. SCOTT. No, Mr. President.
Mr. MUSKIE. I did not understand it that way.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, I do not care when it comes up, but I just wanted to plan my day by having some idea as to when I might bring it up for consideration. The thrust of my request is after the pending amendments are decided, and the amendment proposed by the Senator from Utah (Mr. GARN), I might bring up my amendment. If someone has a different idea, it is perfectly all right with me.
Mr. MUSKIE. I have no objection to that.
Mr. RIEGLE. Reserving the right to object, we were asked yesterday to be prepared to proceed this morning, if we could, to wrap up the automotive section. Senator GRIFFIN and I are ready with our amendment. We have made one major change in it. As long as the Senator from Virginia has indicated that he really does not care when he proceeds, as long as he has some indication as to when that will be, it would be my preference, if he is so inclined, that he wait and that we go next with the Riegle-Griffin amendment following the disposition of the Nelson amendment.
Mr. SCOTT. Let me ask the distinguished Senator, how long, approximately, will he require? Does he have 6 hours?
Mr. RIEGLE. I will say to the Senator the time has been reduced to 4 hours. I do not know that we will need all that time. There may be a substitute offered for our amendment. I hope there is not. I would think it would be something less than that period of time.
Mr. GARN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I sat in the Chamber all day yesterday waiting for Senator GRIFFIN and Senator RIEGLE to bring up their amendment. I was perfectly willing to wait. I was asked by the leadership if, after the disposition of this vote this morning, I would call up my amendment. It was their request. I agreed to the request. I would like to proceed with those amendments, having waited all day yesterday thinking the automobiles were going to be brought up and then we would go to stationary sources. I would like to proceed as I was asked by the leadership to do this morning and let the automobile section wait for me today as I waited for them all day yesterday.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I wonder if I could plead with the distinguished Senator from Utah and the distinguished Senator from Virginia to allow the Senators from Michigan to bring up their amendment. We urged them last evening to call up their amendment upon the disposition of the amendment by Senator NELSON. They said they would consider that overnight. As a backup, for fear they would not today be willing to call it up at that time, we asked the Senator to be prepared to call up his amendment in the event that, upon the disposition of the Nelson amendment, Senators GRIFFIN and RIEGLE did not call up their amendment.If the Senator would allow me in this instance to urge him, and I say the same thing to the Senator from Virginia, let us bring up the Griffin-Riegle amendment. Then I would certainly be glad to ask unanimous consent that either or both Senators follow the disposition of that amendment with their amendments.
Mr. GARN. I would like to accommodate the leader. He has always been very fair with me. I do not anticipate that all three of my amendments together would take anywhere near the time of the 6 hours allotted on the Riegle-Griffin amendment.
Mr. RANDOLPH. It is 4 hours.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. It has been reduced to 4 hours.
Mr. GARN. I would still prefer to dispose of the stationary source amendments, at least those three amendments. I am sorry I did not bring them up yesterday. I would like to be accommodating, but I would also like to know about the time. One of my amendments will require 5 or 10 minutes of discussion. I would anticipate we could start my amendment after this vote, and by 1:30 all three of them will be disposed of.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, I will be glad to follow the Griffin-Riegle amendment. My unanimous-consent request was prefaced on the amendments of the Senator from Utah being taken first. All I would like to know is when I could call up my amendment.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I. ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of the amendment by Mr. GRIFFIN and Mr. RIEGLE, the distinguished Senator from Virginia be recognized to call up his amendment. Could we go that far?
Mr. MUSKIE. If the Senator will yield, I would want to be sure that that consent agreement did not preclude the possibility of substitutes or amendments to the Griffin-Riegle amendment.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. No; it would not.
Mr. MUSKIE. As long as that is understood.
Mr. GARN. Reserving the right to object, might I ask the leader what will happen to me?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Nothing at this point. [Laughter.]
I am going to come back to the Senator in a minute, may I say to my friend.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, I would, in fact, prefer to follow the distinguished Senator from Utah because of the nature of my amendment. I think it would put me in a preferred position to follow him.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. May I then suggest this: that we proceed to dispose of the Nelson amendment and in the meantime I will endeavor to do a little courtship with my two friends on the other side to see if we can work out something.
Mr. MUSKIE. If the Senator will yield, I hope he is not too insistent on his own point of view on this because it was so hard to get either of these Senators to come to the floor. It seems to me the Senate will be the beneficiary whichever way it goes. It is all right with me whichever way it goes. We have the ball rolling now. I must say the distinguished Senator from Utah was most cooperative last evening in offering to be here this morning to follow the Nelson amendment. I want to express my appreciation for that.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Very well. Mr. President, several Senators are expecting rollcall votes and they have been delaying their committee meetings. I suggest we proceed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator withdraw his unanimous-consent request?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I do.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the first division of the Griffin amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I have indicated my intention to table the original Griffin amendment. I will now move to table each part. I move to table the first part.