[Pages S14928-S14932]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

SMALL ENGINE POLLUTION

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I will make my remarks as if in
morning business, but my remarks pertain to the HUD-VA bill, and in
particular to the small engine provision of that bill.
If Members will remember, the Senator from Missouri, in the
Appropriations Committee, placed an environmental rider into the HUD-VA
bill which would prevent California from moving forward with its
regulation to regulate off-road engines under 175 horsepower. The State
has developed a regulatory scheme to do so because these engines were a
substantial part--17 percent--of the mobile source pollution in the
State, and it was believed by the California Air Resources Board that
regulation of these engines could be achieved and, in fact, could
reduce pollutants considerably.
On the floor of the Senate, the Senator from Missouri offered an
amendment to his amendment from committee. The new language which
changed the amendment, in my view, making it better, by only affecting
engines under 50 horsepower. I spoke against his amendment in the
Appropriations Committee. I did not press for a vote on the small
engine amendment which he offered on the floor largely because I
thought we would lose it and that we had a better chance of trying to
remove the language from the bill in conference.
The bill has been preconferenced. Sadly, we have not been able to
remove that language from the bill. I am told today that if I were to
submit the amendment we had prepared which would eliminate the Bond
amendment in its entirety, I would not be allowed a vote on that
amendment. I believe the rationale is because I agreed to go to
conference. I had only because I didn't want to lose on the floor and I
thought I didn't have the votes.
Since that time, a number of States have realized that their
regulatory schemes would also be impacted by this provision. Other
States would be affected because the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air
Act essentially said that California has the ability to regulate these
engines, and other States may then take various components of that
regulation and enact them as their own State law if they so choose.
Since last week, a number of States have weighed in indicating they
have regulatory regimes underway that would be affected and that they
are opposed to the Bond amendment. Nonetheless, we are where we are.
I have come to the floor today simply to speak about why I think this
is so egregious--and I do think it is egregious. I believe it is the
first major setback from the clean air amendments of 1990, and
specifically from the amendments allowing States to regulate air
quality for the protection of their own people. By eliminating this, we
are taking important rights away from the States certain rights and
diminishing the States' ability to take care of their own people.
As the fire chiefs have said to me in a letter, if they waited for
the Federal Government to regulate bedding and upholstery, they would
be still be waiting for that regulation. Instead, the States have taken
it on their own to make those regulations. The people of California are
much safer because of it.
Let there be no doubt. I believe very strongly that this small engine
provision should be removed from the bill and that we should restore
the States' rights to protect public health under the Clean Air Act.
On the surface, the amendment that was adopted on Wednesday looked
like a substantial improvement. At the time I thought it was an
improvement simply because it dropped from 175 horsepower to 50
horsepower. However, the amendment still blocks all States from
regulating some of the dirtiest engines out there.
The States will lose the ability to reduce pollution from all spark-
ignition engines smaller than 50 horsepower. This includes lawn and
garden equipment, some forklifts, recreational boats, off-road
motorcycles, and all-terrain vehicles. The original small engine
provision would not have affected boats or off-road motorcycles. But
the amendment adopted on Wednesday is broad enough to affect a whole
new group of engines.
This provision will take four California regulations off the books.
My State will lose regulations on lawn and garden equipment,
recreational boats, and off-road motorcycles.
I don't know whether the effects on additional engines were
intentional or not. We told the Senator from Missouri about them and
the language did not change.
But I want to point out another important fact about the amendment
adopted on Wednesday. The language requires the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency to propose a new national regulation by December 1,
2004. It does not require the EPA to finalize that regulation, ever.
They could propose a regulation and never finalize it. The one
promising part of this amendment guarantees nothing. The States need to
reduce these emissions now.
I want to remind my colleagues just how dirty these engines are. You
will see here that mowing the lawn produces as much pollution as
driving a car for 13 hours. I didn't know that before. I didn't know
that if you mow your lawn for 1 hour it is like driving the automobile
for 13 hours.
This chart shows how long you would have to drive a car to produce as
much pollution as when you operate various types of equipment for one
hour.
In other words, using a weed trimmer for 1 hour produces as much
pollution as driving a car for 8 hours, mowing a lawn for 1 hour
produces as much pollution as driving a car for 13 hours, and operating
a forklift for 1 hour produces as much pollution as driving a car for a
full 17 hours.
Clearly, this is a problem. In 8 hours a person can drive from
Washington to Charleston, SC. Or he can mow the lawn for an hour and
produce just as much pollution. The States need to be able to clean up
these engines.
The small engine provision is bad for the States and for public
health. The compromise from last week did not change the substantive
issues.
The small engine provision is still using an appropriations bill to
make fundamental changes to the Clean Air Act. It is an environmental
rider on the HUD-VA bill. It has had no authorization. It has had no
hearing. It does not belong in this bill.
The amendment from Wednesday still takes a longstanding right away
from the States. States with serious air pollution need to be able to
reduce emissions from these engines. The 1990 amendments to the Clean
Air Act guarantee the States the right to do so. This provision
overturns that right without even going through the proper channels.
Under the compromise, my State alone will lose the right to regulate
over 4 million cars' worth of pollution. That is what is being taken
away--access to 4 million cars' worth of pollution. That means the
State is most likely going to have to tighten regulations on stationary
sources, which is going to mean more expense to major industries in the
State of California. That means job loss in other industries.
I cannot see how building cleaner engines should cost jobs to
individuals at one company when every other company has said they will
be able to build the engines without job loss. Because Briggs &
Stratton does not like one California regulation, every State in the
Union is going to permanently lose the right to reduce pollution from
these engines. States with serious pollution problems need to be able
to reduce these emissions or risk harming public health and losing
transportation funds.
This provision affects every single State, not just California. For
example, I understand that New York has already adopted the California
regulation affecting recreational boat motors. New York will lose that
regulation because of this provision.
Eight southeastern States--Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee--have all
written a

[[Page S14929]]

letter opposing this provision. The letter clearly states that any
compromise that does not fully restore the State's rights is
unacceptable to those States.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the November 10 letter
from the Southeastern States Air Resources Managers be printed in the
Record following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(See exhibit No. 1.)
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thirdly, States still need flexibility to improve air
quality. One size-fits-all solutions just do not work. We should not
force every State to rely on national regulations. National regulations
move too slowly and are often just not strong enough for States with a
lot of pollution.
We have heard a lot about unfunded mandates lately in the Senate. We
have given the States a duty to protect public health. The small engine
provision does not change the States' responsibility but it takes away
a mechanism by which they might comply with this mandate. This
provision, in a sense, creates another unfunded mandate.
The amended provision still creates a very bad precedent. I don't
think one company should be allowed to overturn States' rights under
the Clean Air Act, especially when that company said on their annual
report to the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 11, 2003,
that the disputed regulation would not ``have a material effect on
their financial condition or results of operations, given that
California represents a relatively small percentage of Briggs &
Stratton's engine sales and increased costs will be passed on to
California consumers.''

This is their 10-K, their report to the Securities and Exchange
Commission, from just 2 months ago. Where does the truth really lie? If
California is just a small part of the company's market and the company
will just pass on the costs, why does Briggs and Stratton object to the
California regulation and insist on changing the Clean Air Act? It
makes no sense.
I believe people will pay the necessary costs for cleaner engines. I
believe that people will pay for cleaner lawnmowers when they learn
that you have to drive your car for 13 hours to produce as much
pollution as your lawn mower does in 1 hour.
Every company and every industry needs to do their part to protect
public health. Briggs & Stratton should be no different. We should not
allow them to pass the buck to other industries.
Once again I will quote from a letter from Allen Lloyd, the Chairman
of the California Air Resources Board, about this provision. According
to Mr. Lloyd,

. . . the aggregate impact of the 50 hp [horsepower]
preemption will be 70 tons per day of smog by 2010, the date
by which California's various offroad regulations would have
been fully effective. This tonnage impact is over and above
Federal regulations for the same emission sources and
reflects California's more health-protective rules. For
context, 70 tons per day is equivalent to adding 2.4 million
cars to California roadways . . .

So when the conference committee includes this provision in their
conference report, they are effectively adding 70 tons of pollutants to
California's air each day. The California Air Resources Board has also
said that this provision could well result in the death of more than
300 people per year in California alone.
California already has seven nonattainment areas, more than any other
State. My State has the worst air quality in the country, and now this
provision is taking away the State's right to regulate some of the
dirtiest engines available. It is a strike at the core of States'
rights under the Clean Air Act.
The small engine provision also threatens our economy. California has
to reduce emissions from these engines to comply with air quality
requirements under the Clean Air Act. Taking away the State's right to
reduce emissions threatens our State Implementation Plan, with serious
economic consequences.
Violating the State's plan will jeopardize $1 billion in
transportation funds per year in Southern California alone. The South
Coast could lose those funds next summer. The South Coast has the worst
air quality in the nation and cannot afford to lose $1 billion per year
in transportation funds.
Statewide, this provision threatens $2.4 billion in transportation
funds. And this is just in California.
So this has huge ramifications for my State and every other State
facing serious pollution. They will all be in a serious situation in
the future when the time comes and they find their hands are tied
because one company did not want to build cleaner engines.
It has become clear that the supporters of the small engine provision
have confused two very different ideas. Just because a group is
concerned about the California regulation on lawn and garden equipment
does not mean they support the small engine provision.
The California Association of Fire Chiefs has expressed important
safety concerns about a specific regulation. But the chiefs have also
clearly said they oppose the small engine provision because of its
affect on States' rights. The Fire Chiefs understand the importance of
state leadership on these issues. To quote the chiefs' November 11
letter in reference to the small engine provision:

We were never asked to comment on this matter, but for the
record, we do not support legislation that would interfere
with a state's ability to protect its own citizens.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Fire Chiefs' letter
from November 11 be printed in the Record following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 2.)
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I do not quite know what to do. I
would very much like to have a vote on this matter. I have tried to
importune the conferees. I am told the Governor of California, Mr.
Schwarzenegger, now inducted as Governor, has indicated his support for
the removal of this amendment. It is my understanding that a whole
panoply of States oppose this provision.
It is clear to me this is a bad thing. It is clear to me this is
going to set back the cause of clean air. It is clear to me this is
going to impact youngsters and the elderly with asthma and other lung
diseases. It is clear to me that it is going to impact our
transportation dollars. It is clear to me that by 2010, because of one
company, California is going to have deal with 70 additional tons of
smog per day. None of this needs to happen.
I regret that I cannot send an amendment to the desk. I regret I am
not being allowed a vote on the amendment. But this is the wrong thing
to do.
I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Exhibit 1

Southeastern States Air

Resource Managers, Inc.,

November 10, 2003.
Hon. Zell Miller,
Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.,
Washington, DC.
Dear Sen. Miller: Southeastern States Air Resource
Managers, Inc. (SESARM), representing the directors of the
southeastern state air pollution control agencies in Alabama,
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina,
South Carolina, and Tennessee, is writing this letter to
encourage your support of the removal of a position
introduced by Senator Bond in S. 1584, the Fiscal Year 2004
VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill. The
provision would amend Section 209(e)(1)(A) of the Clean Air
Act to curtail a state's authority to reduce emissions from
diesel and gasoline off-road equipment and engines.
While Senator Bond's proposed provision regarding the off-
road engines apparently was intended to address rules adopted
only in California, it will limit the ability of all states
to solve serious public health-related air quality problems.
Senator Bond's proposal revises a very important provision of
the Clean Air Act which allows states to adopt engine
emission standards more stringent than the federal standards
as long as appropriate federal review processes are followed.
Congress wisely put this provision into the Act to give
states the ability to deal with serious air quality problems
across the country. SESARM opposes the impact of the Bond
proposal on this important provision.
Please note that other compromise amendments which fall
short of fully restoring Section 209(e)(1)(A) are, in our
opinion, unacceptable and will constrain states as discussed
above. SESARM and your state air pollution control agency
would appreciate your support of removal of the Bond
Amendment from S. 1584.
Sincerely,
John E. Hornback,
Executive Director.

[[Page S14930]]

____
Exhibit 2

California Fire Chiefs Association,

November 11, 2003.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Sen. Feinstein: The California Fire Chiefs Association
(CFCA) has been expressing concerns about the potential fire
hazard posed by catalytic converters that may be required for
certain lawnmowers and other outdoor power equipment. In just
the past few days, out concerns seem to be receiving
significant attention.
After further investigation we have determined that there
were some misunderstandings between CFCA representatives and
the California Air Resources Board (CARB) as it relates to
the regulations.
The fire safety issues we raised need more attention and
require independent assessment before engineering and
production decisions are made. In our most recent discussions
with CARB, they support the idea of an independent study, and
have proposed moving forward with a study, much the same as
what is now underway with catalytic converters being used in
marine applications. We enthusiastically support this idea,
and will be working closely with CARB, the Sate Fire Marshal,
and the US Environmental Protection Agency to ensure that all
fire safety concerns are addressed. We wish to make clear
that we regard fire safety and environmental quality as being
equally important, and wish to make it clear that we support
without reservation the air quality goals of the proposed
requirements. We support the regulation moving forward as we
have received assurances from CARB that our safety concerns
will be addressed through the independent study.
Finally, we understand that as a separate matter, the
Senate is debating the question of whether states are free to
develop safety and environmental standards. We were never
asked to comment on this matter, but for the record, we do
not support legislation that would interfere with a state's
ability to protect its own citizens. To the contrary, we have
had to count on the Sate of California to develop fire safety
standards for upholstered furniture, mattresses and bedding
because the federal government has failed to do so. The
issues of fire safety and air quality as they relate to
outdoor power equipment can be addressed, and I believe
that working closely with CARB we will find a solution
that will provide a high degree of fire safety while
maintaining CARB's goals for air quality.
In closing, allow me to express my personal apologies to
you. We were not aware that you had an interest in this
matter or that we were engaged in anything beyond fire
safety. As you know, we have had our hands full in the past
month. Even so, if we had been aware of your interest, we
would have asked for your help in sorting through these
issues. You have always been there when we've needed your
help. We look forward to moving beyond the current issues and
working with you on higher levels of air quality and fire
safety for the communities of California.
Sincerely,

William J. McCammon,

President,
California Fire Chiefs Association.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
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

[[Page S14931]]

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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. BOND. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The clerk will continue the call of the roll.
The legislative clerk continued with the call of the roll.
Mr. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, I have been working with the distinguished
Senator from California for more than a day. I am trying to work out
this very sensitive issue dealing with small engines, which has been
talked about at some length.
I am very disappointed that the majority is not going to allow the
Senator from California to have a vote on this amendment. It is too
bad. It happens. It happens too much around here. When there is some
decision made that they may not be able to win the vote, they just
don't give us a vote. I think that is unfortunate.
I have spoken to the Senator from California and, of course,
everybody needs to hear it from her. We are going to take our chances
in conference on this matter. The House has said this should not be in
the bill. The Senator from California, if she wanted to be like too
many people are around here and say if she doesn't get what she wants,
nobody will get anything, could hold up action on this important
legislation that Senator Mikulski has worked on for many months with
the majority.
The only thing I can say is I applaud the Senator from California for
what she has indicated she reasonably might do, and that is not go
forward on this amendment. I think it is too bad.
I have said it before, and I will say it again. I personally think
she is on the right side of this issue. If this matter were brought to
a vote, I think she would win it on the Senate floor. Obviously, we
have been here now for 3\1/2\ hours, and the majority has indicated
they are not going to allow a vote. When this amendment goes down, it
will allow us to move forward with other pieces of this legislation.
I say to my friend from California, it is my understanding that she
has heard the statements that I have made. And as I have indicated
through the Chair to the Senator from California, this happens far too
often here. When it appears there is a chance that we can win a vote,
they don't give us a vote. As a result of that, we are not going to be
able to have a vote. But for the Senator from California, being the
team player she is, we would not be able to go forward on the bill. I
still think the Senator from California and the Senator from Nevada are
members of the conference, and we will do our best in full conference
to see that justice prevails. I will do what I can.
I express my appreciation to the Senator from California for her not
moving

[[Page S14932]]

forward with the amendment at this time.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Democratic whip for his
concern and his words.
I want to correct a couple of things. The Senator from Missouri
pointed out that catalytic converters are fire hazards. That may be
true with some. But virtually every automobile, every pickup truck,
every sport utility vehicle driving on the roads and highways of
California today is equipped with a catalytic converter. It has been
that way for a substantial period of time. Catalytic converters are
nothing new.
Secondly, I want you to know that Honda has said that they would
increase their U.S. production of these engines even with the
California regulation. So, in other words, there are other companies
manufacturing these engines in the United States that have said they
would adhere to these new regulations and produce cleaner engines.
Thirdly, I want you to know that Briggs & Stratton has already moved
some of its operations to China. I very much doubt that this California
regulation has much to do with it. I am told they have been
manufacturing in China since 1986, and in April of this year they
increased their ownership share of two factories in China from 52
percent to a controlling 90 percent. I am also told that California
regulators have incorporated Briggs & Stratton's own recommendations
into its final rule issued in September. The Air Resources Board
relaxed the regulation's exhaust emissions standard, relying instead on
controlling evaporative emissions, as recommended by Briggs & Stratton.
So I don't know why this is being done. But I will tell you one
thing: everybody who votes to sustain this will be also voting to put
70 more tons of smog into California's skies in 2010. That is how
important this issue is to our State.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Senator is
going to withdraw the amendment.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I did not send it to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is in morning business at this
time.
Mr. REID. Could the bill be reported?
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask that we go to the bill.

____________________