June 8, 1977
Page 18076
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and I yield the floor.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and I ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally against both sides on the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MUSKIE. 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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I understand the distinguished majority leader wanted to know whether I wanted to use some time tonight in connection with the Nelson amendment. I will just take 2 or 3 minutes, perhaps, to indicate that in the course of the day, as a matter of fact, in the course of several days, I have discussed this proposal with Senator NELSON and we finally reached agreement on its present form, which I find myself able to accept.
I think there has been a general understanding on the part of the committee that American Motors does not have the capability of developing its own technology in connection with these standards.
It has to buy that technology from other manufacturers. So until the other manufacturers have developed the technology, which they are reluctant to do, American Motors is sort of a captive to their plans and programs.
What Senator NELSON's proposal would do is to make it possible for American Motors to have 2 years to take advantage of such technology as is developed, in the event the committee proposal on auto emissions is accepted.
Of course, the Nelson amendment deals only with the nitrogen oxide proposal.
With respect to hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide, the Nelson amendment is on all fours with the 1980 requirement of the committee bill, as I understand it.
Mr. NELSON. We are on all fours with the committee at 1980, except for NOx.
Mr. MUSKIE. And as to NOx, there would be a 2 year extension for American Motors so that it could acquire the technology from other sources and meet the standard in 1982.
Mr. NELSON. That is correct. That extension is simply to permit 2 grams per mile NOx in 1980 and 1981, instead of 1 gram per mile; but in 1982, they will meet the 1 gram per mile, which is the provision of the committee bill.
It is interesting to note, incidentally, that American Motors, as the distinguished Senator from Maine noted, must buy its technology, then adopt it to its own equipment, and then test it. Nevertheless, they assure my office that they can meet the committee standards for hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide in 1980 and they can meet the standards for nitrogen oxide in 1982.
The interesting thing to me about that is that if American Motors, the tiniest of all, without its own technology and with only 18 percent of the market, can meet the hydrocarbon and monoxide standards in 1980 and the NOx standards in 1982, it is mighty strange that the big three would be arguing that they cannot meet the same thing in 1980 as well as the NOx in 1982.
Mr. MUSKIE. I say to the Senator from Wisconsin that what the Senator has just said about the willingness of American Motors to meet the hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide standard in 1980 was very persuasive to me in considering the Senator's amendment. It seems to me that if a company with these limitations on resources was willing to make that effort, to make that commitment, with respect to those two items in 1980, they deserve serious consideration for the proposed extension on NOx until 1982. It was a very important and influential argument with this Senator and is, I hope, with other Senators as well.
Mr. NELSON. I say to the distinguished Senator from Maine that being the smallest, and so forth, they were not enthusiastic about it.
Mr. MUSKIE. I understand that.
Mr. NELSON. But we honestly responded to the question, because they wanted carbon monoxide of 9 grams per mile. That is what they desired. But when specifically asked the question, they said yes, they could meet the 3.4. I respect them for their honesty in saying so, because there would be no way for the Senator from Maine or the Senator from Wisconsin to prove otherwise. They are the ones running the company and doing the manufacturing. They gave an honest answer to it, and I respect them for it.
We specifically ask them. They did not come and volunteer. They preferred not to meet these standards fast, just as the big ones do not.
However, it is interesting that they did say that they could meet the carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon standards in 1980and that they could meet the nitrogen oxide standards in 1982.
Mr. MUSKIE. The fact is, of course, as the record of our hearings indicates, the other companies also can meet the hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide standards clearly in 1980; and Ford has testified that they could meet all three standards by 1980. Still, they urge this additional delay which is proposed by the Griffin-Riegle amendment.
I must say that I do not find it difficult to lose my patience at any time, but with respect to this matter the time has long since passed.
Mr. NELSON. Everybody who is familiar with the matter is well aware that the distinguished Senator from Maine for 15 years has led the fight in behalf of air and water quality in this country and has taken his lumps for it. He has been an eloquent and magnificent spokesman in behalf of what I think is one of the most important, if not the most important, cause in the long haul; because this will not be a livable country if we do not maintain and enhance the quality of the air and the water.
Though the Senator may say he loses his patience easily, I am amazed at how much patience he has had during these 15 years, with all the fights he has had to go through in leading Congress, the Senate, and the country on this important issue.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I add this point: I constantly was aware, during most of that 15-year period, that if at any time I faltered, the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin was behind me, ready to prod, to insure that I did not falter in my commitment to the environmental goals we both share.
Mr. NELSON. I think I was behind the Senator from Maine, too, if he was faltering. I do not know when he faltered.
I thank the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin.