[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 80 (Monday, May 15, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H4917]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT

  Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I come before the House this morning to set the record 
straight, to provide you, Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues, with correct 
information on statements that have been made about comments that I 
made on the floor in the regulatory reform debate which took place 
recently in the House of Representatives during our debate on the 
Contract With America, and specifically on the regulatory reform issues 
that came before this Congress.
  In this Congress and during the past Congress, I have been an 
outspoken critic of the manner and conduct of the regulatory process at 
the Federal level. Quite frankly, I came here several years ago 
believing that the regulatory edicts and mandates sent out by the 
Federal Government had overreached their bounds, had imposed undue 
burdens and costs on our citizens, on our local governments, on 
business and industry, and were eating at the very fabric of 
productivity and competitiveness in this country.
  During the debate on the question of regulatory reform, I stood at 
that podium and I talked about several instances of what I considered 
excess regulation and regulatory overkill.
  I used several examples, and two of the examples I used were actually 
from my local dentist, who when I was in his dental chair and in his 
dental office had told me several years ago about some of the excesses 
of certain Federal departments and agencies, and how he felt imposed 
upon by those agencies and how he was constricted by those agencies, 
and at least felt the pressures of those agencies on his practice and 
on his professional conduct.
  So I made those comments in the regulatory reform debate in the 
House, and shortly thereafter ``ABC News'' and Peter Jennings and 
company made a little series, and I wanted to report to the House on 
that series, and also on the response. The people of the United States 
and Congress tuned into the ``ABC News'' and heard a certain response, 
and I never got an opportunity. You know, they interview you for, in 
this case, about an hour of tape, and then they take little segments 
out, and then they put on the national news those segments.
  Interestingly enough, and as Paul Harvey said, there is a little bit 
more. Here is the rest of the story. I want to present that to the 
House this morning.
  Let me quote from the National Review, and I did not prompt their 
doing this piece or I did not ask them to look into this matter. It 
just appeared, and some of my constituents sent it to me. But let me 
quote exactly from it. I will read it.

       Hot on the heels of the GOP's capture of Congress, ABC 
     World News Tonight has unveiled a new segment, ``For the 
     Record,'' designed to ferret out congressmen who engage in 
     exaggeration, false statistics, misleading anecdotes, and 
     other evils. The inaugural segment focused on Representative 
     John Mica (R., Fla.), who alleged that certain Occupational 
     Safety and Health Administration regulations forbid kids to 
     take pulled teeth home from the dentist, and that others 
     compel dentists to keep logs for possession and disposal of 
     white-out. Wild congressional exaggeration, right? Actually, 
     OSHA's Blood Borne Pathogen Standard labels bodily tissues as 
     biohazards. Teeth are considered tissue, and technically must 
     therefore be placed in a red bag and picked up by a licensed 
     disposer. Furthermore, because certain brands of white-out 
     contain toluene, OSHA requires that Manufacturers Safety Data 
     Sheets be kept in office files. Dr. Edward Stein, a health 
     scientist at OSHA, says that white-out's levels of toluene 
     are far below those which concern OSHA and that the 
     requirement does not pertain to offices with fewer than 10 
     people. However, he concedes that if an individual in an 
     office with fewer than 10 people filed a complaint about 
     white-out, OSHA would be free to investigate. As for the 
     teeth? A dentist in the Northeast refused to return a tooth 
     to a 6-year-old boy because he was concerned about the health 
     regulation. OSHA's unofficial position is that this was 
     unnecessary. However, the regulation does require such 
     action. For the Record.

  In conclusion, this story by National Review does set the record 
straight, and that is, my colleagues, the rest of the story.


                          ____________________