[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 66 (Tuesday, May 24, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 24, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                           Amendment No. 1744

      (Purpose: To express the Sense of the Senate concerning the 
  manufacture, sale, and use of lead fishing sinkers, jigs, and lures)

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have an amendment here the Senator from 
New Hampshire is going to offer on behalf of Mr. Nickles and Mr. 
Simpson. And we have reviewed that, it is a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution, and we clear it and have no objection to it.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith] for Mr. Nickles, 
     for himself, and Mr. Simpson, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1744.

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section--

     ``SECTION.  . SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING LEAD FISHING 
                   SINKERS.

       ``(a) Findings.--
       ``(1) on March 9, 1994 the EPA promulgated a rule to ban 
     the manufacture and sale of lead, zinc, and brass fishing 
     sinkers,
       ``(2) the proposed rule was developed in response to a 
     Toxic Substances Control Act petition requesting that EPA 
     label, not ban, lead fishing sinkers,
       ``(3) EPA states in the proposed rule, `In addition, an 
     accurate number of waterbirds that could receive a lethal 
     dose of lead or zinc from fishing sinkers, or the probability 
     of consuming a lethal dose, cannot be estimated,'
       ``(4) no one has studied the effectiveness of fishing 
     sinkers manufactured from lead-substitute materials which can 
     cost eight to ten times as much and have physical or chemical 
     limitations,
       ``(5) a ban on lead fishing sinkers would put small fishing 
     tackle manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage to major 
     fishing tackle manufacturers who can afford to retool and 
     produce fishing sinkers with lead-substitute materials,
       ``(6) a ban on home manufacturing of lead fishing sinkers 
     would affect up to 1.6 million anglers who make their own 
     sinkers in basements and garages, and
       ``(7) EPA has commented that a ban on lead fishing sinkers 
     could eventually be expanded to all lead-containing fishing 
     tackle, including lures.
       ``(b) Therefore, it is the sense of the Senate that the 
     Administrator should finalize no rule or regulation which 
     requires a nationwide prohibition of the manufacture, sale, 
     or use of fishing sinkers, jigs, or lures containing lead, 
     brass, or zinc, until such time as the Administrator gives 
     priority consideration to alternative means of reducing the 
     risk to waterfowl from lead fishing sinkers, including 
     labeling, public education, and state or regional limits.''

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, in a classic case of big brother gone 
wild, the Environmental Protection Agency on March 9, 1994, promulgated 
a rule to ban the manufacture and sale of lead, zinc, and brass fishing 
sinkers and jigs, which are weighted hooks. This EPA action typifies 
the increasingly intrusive nature of the Federal Government.
  Everyone knows lead is toxic, and everyone can agree that a bird will 
probably die if it ingests a lead sinker. But in this case, EPA cannot 
offer any proof that waterfowl are eating lead sinkers and dying.
  To provide a little history, this proposed ban was developed by EPA 
in response to a Toxic Substances Control Act petition by the 
Environmental Defense Fund [EDF] based on their belief that waterfowl 
are threatened by lead poisoning caused by swallowing fishing sinkers.
  However, it is interesting to note, Mr. President, that in their 
petition the EDF requested that EPA label, not ban, lead fishing 
sinkers. To justify this request, the EDF cited numerous studies 
completed over the last 20 years documenting approximately 60 waterfowl 
deaths from the ingestion of lead fishing sinkers. That is 60 deaths 
from a population in the hundreds of millions.
  This bill, S. 729, originally contained a provision banning lead 
fishing sinkers and jibs. However, the bill's sponsor, Senator Reid, 
dropped that provision during committee markup.
  I would like to outline my many concerns about this proposed action, 
Mr. President.
  First, the EPA simply cannot demonstrate that lead fishing sinkers 
pose a danger to the environment. Their proposed ban is not based on 
hard, scientific facts, but on EPA's beliefs. Few would argue that lead 
in the environment can be hazardous to wildlife. The question then lies 
in the probability that lead fishing sinkers will actually be ingested 
by waterfowl. To conclude that point, I would simply point out two 
statements taken from the proposed rule.

       The number of lead- or zinc-containing sinkers that 
     waterbirds are likely to ingest cannot be quantified.
       In addition, an accurate number of waterbirds that could 
     receive a lethal dose of lead or zinc from fishing sinkers, 
     or the probability of consuming a lethal dose, cannot be 
     estimated.

  Second, the EPA was not asked to ban lead fishing sinkers and jigs. 
The EDF petition simply requested that lead sinkers be labeled as 
potentially hazardous to wildlife if ingested. EPA says a determination 
was made that labeling would not adequately protect the environment. 
However the proposed rule also admits that the presence of an 
environmental hazard cannot be accurately determined.
  Third, EPA says much of the basis behind the fishing sinker ban is 
the availability and cost of alternative materials. Although the EPA 
estimates only a small increase in cost to anglers, how reliable are 
those estimates? To the best of my knowledge, no one at EPA has studied 
the effectiveness of fishing sinkers manufactured from alternative 
materials and they are not endorsed by any major fishing organizations. 
Further, most lead substitutes cost 8 to 10 times as much, and most 
have physical or chemical limitations which make them unsuitable.
  Fourth, while major fishing tackle manufactures can afford to retool 
and produce sinkers with alternative materials, small mom and pop 
tackle manufacturers cannot change so easily or cheaply. This proposed 
ban in effect gives major manufacturers a competitive advantage over 
their smaller competitors. Further, the proposed rule would ban the 
home manufacture of lead fishing sinkers, but offers no reasonable way 
to enforce this ban. It is estimated that up to 1.6 million anglers 
make their own sinkers in basements and garages.
  Finally, Mr. President, there is a great fear that this ban would 
eventually be expanded to all lead-containing fishing tackle, including 
lures. In fact a letter I received from the EPA on this issue states 
that other fishing tackle will be reviewed to determine if it too poses 
a waterfowl hazard.
  American sportsmen are very interested in the protection of 
waterfowl, and if EPA can prove that a real danger exists from the use 
of lead fishing sinkers, American anglers will be the first to change 
to alternative materials.
  But right now, EPA has not proven anything, other than their desire 
to create another unnecessary bureaucratic intrusion into people's 
lives. The intangibility of the benefits and the failure to identify a 
hazard are not sufficient to require 60 million fishermen to switch to 
costly, inefficient alternatives.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH. As the Senator from Nevada has indicated, there is an 
agreement on this amendment. It does clarify the feelings on the 
fishing sinker controversy. It is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1744) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there further amendments?
  If not, without objection the committee substitute as modified and 
amended is agreed to.
  The committee substitute as modified and amended was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and was 
read the third time.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a vote on final 
passage of S. 729 occur without any intervening action or debate upon 
the disposition of the nomination of Sam Brown, or upon the failure to 
invoke cloture on that nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call 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.

                          ____________________