[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 21]
[Senate]
[Pages 29028-29032]
[From the U.S. 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.

[[Page 29029]]

  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 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

[[Page 29030]]

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.
                                  ____


                               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

[[Page 29031]]

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

[[Page 29032]]

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 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.

                          ____________________