Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Minnesota feels strongly about this; both Senators do. I ask that Senator Coleman be added as a cosponsor. We are willing to accept the amendment. I ask that it be accepted by voice vote.

Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask that the pending Dayton-Coleman amendment be set aside.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask that the Clinton-Enzi amendment on which there is a colloquy be withdrawn.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of Senator Daschle relating to an agreement with the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences to develop epidemiological studies on Vietnam veterans with respect to Agent Orange, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I have no objection on this side.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I appreciate the actions taken by the distinguished minority whip, the Senator from Nevada, and also the agreement by the Senator from California to withdraw her amendment. All I can say about it is, No. 1, we had an agreement, we thought, with the floor staff when we debated this last week--requested by the minority floor staff--that there not be a vote because they did not want a vote. Our condition was we needed to move on to other things. We would have a brief time schedule. As you can see, there is no way that we can restart, in the 45 minutes we have left, this entire debate. I will state that I categorically disagree with the views reached by the Senator from California. If we are successful in including the measure in the final VA-HUD amendment, all these issues will be resolved by the EPA. Mr. President, we had an oversight. Senator McCain has an amendment that he was promised the other day. I ask the minority leader if he would agree to adding that since we told Senator McCain he could bring his amendment up.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we are open for business. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we are willing to accept the amendment on this side.

Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, to respond to my good friend, No. 1, we are ready to accept his amendment. If we could have some more time to handle other business, I would like to. If, perhaps, the Senator--each Senator could take 5 minutes or 10 minutes?

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 2195

Mr. BOND. As I indicated, we are ready to accept the amendment by the Senator from Illinois by voice vote. (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BOND. There are no objections on either side. I ask that it be agreed to by voice vote.

Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I have had numerous discussions with the Senator from California. Obviously, we see these issues very differently. Let me point out to my colleagues, this is not something that has just come up. When we had the committee markup of this bill, the Senator and I had an opportunity to debate it at that point. An amendment, not modified, such as the one I presented on the floor last week, was kept in the bill. Her motion to strike failed 17 to 12. After that time, we met with the Senator from California and other concerned Senators to make sure we did not do the things that the current California Air Resources Board regulation would do; that is, cost 22,000 American jobs and put at risk of fire, burn, and explosion people using small engines, whether they be in a lawnmower, a leaf blower, a weed eater, or a chain saw. These were the real problems in the California Air Regulation Board proposal. Now, when I listened to the Senators, they wanted to make sure, No. 1, they did not affect diesels. I said good point; make sure we cut diesels. They wanted to make sure it only applied to smaller engines, and that is why we put the 50 horsepower and smaller engine limitation in it. They wanted to make sure you could require retrofitting, and we made it clear it was only for new engines. Most of all, almost every State wanted to get some form of reduction of pollution from these small engines, so we crafted an amendment that made all those changes and specifically directed the EPA to move forward with a rule. The fastest they can do that rule is that it is to be proposed by December 1, 2004; and then the EPA is required to move forward on it. That would be a quicker reduction in emissions than under CARB, the California Air Resources Board, proposal. Now, when this measure came to the floor, I had a number of cosponsors, people who felt very strongly, as do I, about this amendment, and we debated it on the floor. The Democratic leadership came to us and said: We do not want to vote on this. We want to accept it by voice vote. We said: All right, we will cut off the debate, accept it by voice vote, if that is the last we are going to deal with it. Now, today, my colleague from California says she was not a party to that agreement and she wants a vote on it. Well, I view it as a failure to live up to that agreement. Nevertheless, there are a very significant number of Senators on my side, and I assume on the other side, who would want to weigh in on it, and some of those Senators are not back. As I said, we have a deadline this afternoon when we are going to try to take other amendments on this bill. I said we would not be debating this amendment today because other Senators have amendments that must come up. But there is so much misunderstanding about what the Clean Air Act provides, what CARB has done, and what my amendment would do. First, the Senator has said, on a number of instances, that every State loses the right to fight pollution. States can take bits and pieces of the California ruling and use it in their State. Well, No. 1, California is the only State that has a narrow exemption for engines under 175 horsepower that do not affect agriculture and construction. Obviously, many of these engines that are affected would affect agriculture and construction. No State can pick and choose and develop its own regulations from part of the California regulation or take bits and pieces of the California regulation. No State, on its own, can go out and regulate these small engines. There was a presumption in the Clean Air Act that we would have a national standard. Now, the EPA has moved forward on regulations on a wide variety of engines. We are directing them specifically to go after these small engines and get the proposed rule out within 1 year, to consider job loss, and to consider the fire hazard of these catalytic converters. I understand the CARB regulation would not go into effect until 2007. My colleague from California said we cannot force all States to rely on national standards. Well, that is what the Clean Air Act does. We want to make sure the national standards are imposed to give every State the reduction in air pollution which comes about from implementing the kinds of changes that were made for ATVs and snowmobiles that do not require catalytic converters. At the end of the day, if they cannot get the reductions, then EPA, which has a national responsibility, can listen to all of these arguments. Frankly, many of the arguments made by the Senator from California reflect a completely different understanding than I have on the science and on the technology involved. Under these circumstances, I do not think we ought to be exporting 22,000 jobs to the Far East, perhaps China, and posing a significant fire risk to anybody using small engines. As I have said before, I use those small engines. When I am using a chainsaw, I am very aware of the danger of that saw blade. If it had a catalytic converter-heated engine, at 1,100 degrees, I do not know how I would do it. I would probably, if I cut down a tree, set the tree on fire with the catalytic converter. When we are talking about fire hazards, as I would think anybody in California would be very much concerned about, a catalytic converter is a tremendous fire hazard. I will go into that in a moment. But my colleague said one company, referring to Briggs and Stratton, should not be allowed to change our air quality rules. Frankly, California wrote a rule that favors one company, Honda, which manufactures small engines and has very significant production in the Far East already. They could start up just like that because the American companies would not be able to retool immediately. Honda would capture the market. I am arguing for the jobs of 5,000 workers in Missouri, 5,101 workers for Briggs & Stratton, and about 2,000 of them work for Briggs & Stratton; 3,000 of them work for other companies that have part of this: In Wisconsin, 5,158 jobs; Georgia, 2,542 jobs; Kentucky, 2,198 jobs; Illinois, 2,116 jobs; Alabama, 1,288 jobs. I am worried about the workers. I have visited those workers. I did not know the Senator from California was coming to the floor today. Otherwise, I would have brought out a scroll signed by the workers who would lose their jobs if this amendment were adopted. The Senator points out that Briggs & Stratton said it wouldn't cause them much trouble. Well, they are a multibillion-dollar company. They can move their production to China as well. I fully expect that they would. It wouldn't make much of a difference to the shareholders. They said it wouldn't affect the shareholders, no. But it will affect 22,000 jobs in the United States. That is why this amendment is important. These arguments and the totally differing view of how this problem can be addressed should rightly be debated at the national level. The EPA is directed to move forward, take all the technological information, take the arguments, listen to the safety concerns, listen to the cost benefit arguments, and figure out how the Nation can get cleaner air by further limiting the pollution from these small engines. If they come down with a modified catalytic converter proposal at the end of the day, so be it. But the California fire chiefs were excluded from the negotiations. The negotiation went on between CARB and Honda. The California fire chiefs were stunned because they had been assured that there would not be a problem with the regulation causing fire. After they saw the CARB rule, the California State fire marshals wrote a letter saying: We categorically do not support the CARB proposed regulation because we believe it will lead to a substantial increase in residential and wildland fires. The Senator and the chief of staff from California have had very direct conversations with representatives of the California fire chiefs. They must have been very persuasive because now their letter says: We are sure that the safety concerns can be addressed. I think that suggests that there was a great deal of effective persuasion applied. But they were not the only ones who believed there was a problem, when you look at the other people who have raised questions about it. The National Association of State Fire Marshals remains very concerned that the CARB rule cannot be safely met. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission expressed concerns over the potential for burn, fire, or material hazards that remain unaddressed. The Missouri State fire marshals remain concerned that the CARB rule creates a significant threat to the safety of the people, property, and the environment. The National Marine Manufacturing Association is concerned that California's activities create marine safety issues that must be evaluated further before they are imposed on industry. There is one place where they can evaluate those concerns and evaluate the technology and make sure we clean up the air without an undue cost, a cost in risk of fire and explosion. I was talking with a fellow in Missouri this weekend at a football game. His neighbor drove a car with a catalytic converter out into the field, caught the field on fire. A lot of people are very much concerned, in addition to these groups, as to the dangerousness of catalytic converters, which can get up to 1,151 degrees. In the November 6 letter I received before there was this very persuasive meeting with the eloquent Senator from California, the California fire chiefs said: Earlier this year, in oral and written communications to the California Air Resources Board, our association expressed serious concerns about the CARB's plan to require catalytic converters on lawn mowers and other lawn and garden power equipment. Firefighters have far too much experience suppressing fires caused by catalytic converters on automobiles carelessly parked on combustible grass and leaves. After this past month of fighting wildland fires, we are almost too tired to think about catalytic converters on lawn mowers which, after all, are intended for use on grass. California does not need yet another way of igniting fires. That was the November 6 letter sent to me. Grass ignites at about 500 degrees. Grass clippings ignite at 518 degrees. High efficiency catalytic converters from CARB's own testing reach temperatures of 1,126 degrees Fahrenheit. We wrote to CARB. I asked them if they had any safety data, if they had done any studies, had they looked at alternative methods, had they tried out any of these small engines with catalytic converters, had they done any tests. We asked them a whole list of questions that any responsible agency would be expected to answer. I fully expect the Environmental Protection Agency to make sure we have a rule that cleans up the environment but doesn't cost jobs and doesn't increase significantly the risk of fire. There are many issues we are not going to be able to resolve here today. I want to see these technology issues debated, worked out on a prompt schedule, and produced in a resolution by the EPA. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I would object to further proceedings en bloc.

Mr. BOND. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period for morning business with Members permitted to speak up to 10 minutes.