[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 156 (Tuesday, October 10, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H9750-H9759]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    EDIBLE OIL REGULATORY REFORM ACT

  The Clerk called the bill (H.R. 436) to require the head of any 
Federal agency to differentiate between fats, oils, and greases of 
animal, marine, or vegetable origin, and other oils and greases, in 
issuing certain regulations, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

                                H.R. 436

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. DIFFERENTIATION AMONG FATS, OILS, AND GREASES.

       (a) In General.--In issuing or enforcing any regulation or 
     establishing any interpretation or guideline relating to a 
     fat, oil, or grease under any Federal law, the head of any 
     Federal agency shall differentiate between--
       (1)(A) animal fats and oils and greases, and fish and 
     marine mammal oils, within the meaning of paragraph (2) of 
     section 61(a) of title 13, United States Code; or
       (B) oils of vegetable origin, including oils from the 
     seeds, nuts, and kernels referred to in paragraph (1)(A) of 
     such section; and
       (2) other oils and greases, including petroleum.
       (b) Considerations.--In differentiating between the class 
     of fats, oils, and greases described in subsection (a)(1) and 
     the class of oils and greases described in subsection (a)(2), 
     the head of the Federal agency shall consider differences in 
     the physical, chemical, biological, and other properties, and 
     in the environmental effects, of the classes.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, 
the Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Burr].


 amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. burr of north 
                                carolina

  Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Burr 
     of North Carolina in lieu of the Committee on Commerce 
     amendment:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Edible Oil Regulatory Reform 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. DIFFERENTIATION AMONG FATS, OILS, AND GREASES.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (c), in 
     issuing or enforcing any regulation or establishing any 
     interpretation or guideline relating to a fat, oil, or grease 
     under any Federal law, the head of any Federal agency shall--
       (1) differentiate between and establish separate classes 
     for--
       (A) animal fats and oils and greases, and fish and marine 
     mammal oils, within the meaning of paragraph (2) of section 
     61(a) of title 13, United States Code, and oils of vegetable 
     origin, including oils from the seeds, nuts, and kernels 
     referred to in paragraph (1)(A) of such section; and
       (B) other oils and greases, including petroleum; and
       (2) apply different standards to different classes of fats 
     and oils as provided in subsection in subsection (B).
       (b) Considerations.--In differentiating between the class 
     of fats, oils, and greases described in subsection (a)(1)(A) 
     and the class of oils and greases described in subsection 
     (a)(1)(B), the head of the Federal agency shall consider 
     differences in the physical, chemical, biological, and other 
     properties, and in the environmental effects, of the classes.
       (c) Exception.--The requirements of this Act shall not 
     apply to the Food and Drug Administration and the Food Safety 
     and Inspection Service.
       (d) Financial Responsibility.--
       (1) Section 1004(a)(1) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 
     U.S.C. 2704(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``for a tank 
     vessel,'' and inserting ``for a tank vessel carrying oil in 
     bulk as cargo or cargo residue (except a tank vessel on which 
     the only oil carried is an animal fat or vegetable oil, as 
     those terms are used in section 2 of the Edible Oil 
     Regulatory Reform Act)''.
       (2) Section 1016(a) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 
     U.S.C. 2176(a)) is amended in the first sentence by striking 
     ``, in the case of a tank vessel, the responsible party could 
     be subject under section 1004(a)(1) or (d) of this Act, or to 
     which, in the case of any other vessel, the responsible party 
     could be subjected under section 1004(a)(2) or (d)'' and 
     inserting ``the responsible party could be subjected under 
     section 1004(a) or (d) of this Act''.

  Mr. BURR (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment in the nature of a substitute be considered as read 
and printed in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Burr] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Oberstar] will each be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Burr].
  Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. BURR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 436, the 
Edible Oils Regulation Reform Act. This legislation will correct an 
unintended and burdensome problem created by certain Federal 
regulations, and so it is very fitting that this legislation is being 
considered today on the new House corrections calendar.
  As my colleagues are aware, there are several environmental laws that 
contain definitions of the term ``oil''. While the legislative history 
of each statute indicates that it was the intent of Congress that the 
term ``oil'' referred to petroleum and petroleum-related products, the 
definitions are fairly broad and Federal regulators have taken the view 
that the term must be interpreted to include all types of oil, 
including vegetable oils and animal fats.

                              {time}  1415

  As my colleagues from other committees will describe in greater 
detail, this has meant that regulations written for the transportation 
and handling of petroleum have also been applied to transportation and 
handling of vegetable oils and animal fats. These same 

[[Page H 9751]]
problems potentially arise when it comes to the storage and disposal of 
oils.
  The legislation before us today would solve this problem by directing 
Federal agencies with regulatory responsibilities to do one simple 
thing: to differentiate between animal fats or vegetable oils and other 
types of oils and greases, including petroleum, when they write 
regulations. This simple correction will prevent unjustified and 
burdensome regulations from being imposed on animal fats and vegetable 
oils, which clearly do not present the same environmental risks as 
other types of oil and greases, including petroleum.
  I want to point out that this legislation has been endorsed by three 
separate committees. It has been reported twice by the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, once by the Committee on 
Agriculture, and once by the Committee on Commerce. It is good 
legislation that makes common sense, Mr. Speaker.
  The amendment I offer today on behalf of the Committee on Commerce 
makes several refinements to the bill as recorded by the Committee on 
Commerce and includes important provisions from other versions of the 
bill.
  The first refinement is to make clear that the requirements of the 
bill do not apply to the Food and Drug Administration and the Food 
Safety and Inspection Service. The problems identified by this 
legislation have not arisen under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic 
Act or statutes administered by the FDA or the FSIS. Rather, they have 
arisen under traditional environmental statutes, such as the Oil 
Pollution Act and other hazardous waste laws.
  When the bill came before the Committee on Commerce, a concern was 
expressed that it was not clear on how the requirement to differentiate 
between different classes of oil might affect FDA's product approvals 
and other regulatory activities, so the committee attempted to exempt 
the FDA from the scope of the bill. The amendment today makes that 
exemption explicit and, with the concurrence of the House Committee on 
Agriculture, also exempts the Food Safety and Inspection Service, which 
conducts business similar to the FDA's.

  The amendment also clarifies that the differentiation required by the 
bill is between animal fats or vegetable oils and other types of oil 
and grease, including petroleum. It is not the intent of the amendment 
to require the heads of Federal agencies to differentiate among 
different types of animal fats and vegetable oils.
  Finally, the amendment includes important provisions on financial 
responsibility under the Oil Pollution Act which were included in the 
versions of the bills adopted by the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure and the Committee on Agriculture.
  In closing, I want to commend my colleagues, the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Ewing], and the gentlewoman from Missouri [Ms. Danner], 
for introducing this legislation and for working hard to move it 
through the process. I also want to commend Speaker Gingrich and 
Committee on Rules Chairman Solomon for putting in place this 
corrections day that allows us to make commonsense changes to Federal 
regulations.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have just seen in my reservation how flawed this 
process is even as a process, and I object to it more as process than 
substance, although the substance is also of concern and I will address 
that in a moment.
  The suspension calendar is truly the more appropriate means of 
addressing noncontroversial issues on which there is a general 
agreement, in fact an overwhelming consensus. But this process of 
corrections day is just fraught with danger and fraught with 
opportunity for special interests.
  It was conceived as a means of correcting regulations that had become 
too burdensome or making adjustments in law that, relatively minor in 
their application, have become too burdensome. Process-wise, it was 
also intended to protect the rights of the committee system.
  But the way it has worked out, the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, which is the committee of primary jurisdiction, it is 
our committee that has handled the Clean Water Act, it is our committee 
that has twice reported this language in two different bills, in 
slightly different form but twice reported to this House and it has 
passed this House. But in the rush to deal with an issue that on its 
face is relatively noncontroversial, the majority has bypassed the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, causing it to waive its 
referral rights, and proceed to get a bill to the floor to justify this 
process.
  If a special interest has a problem, they have an interest, all they 
need to do is get someone in the majority to pay attention to them, 
craft a bill, get it introduced, maybe drag along one from our side, 
and then ram it through in this process. There is no urgency to this 
legislation to justify the trampling of the legislative process as we 
have seen it.
  We dealt with this issue appropriately in the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, in the Clean Water Act amendments 
that we passed earlier this year. We addressed it later in the Coast 
Guard authorization bill, which was an appropriate place. Again it went 
to this body and again the issue passed.
  The regulations DOT issued which caused the concern, caused that 
language to be included in two bills, have been withdrawn. Why do we 
have to have a bill on the House floor under this extraordinary 
procedure to address the issue that is frankly not much of an issue?

  The substance of the issue is within the ambit of the Oil Pollution 
Act of 1990. That bill defined oil as including oil of any kind or 
form. At the time we debated that legislation in committee and on the 
floor, it was clearly understood that the definition would include 
vegetable oils and animal fats.
  In the course of implementation of the Oil Pollution Act, there has 
been an increasing desire on the part of a number of interests to have 
edible oils treated differently from oils that are derived from 
petroleum. The snack food industry in particular has been very 
interested in this issue and been very vocal on this issue.
  Edible oils, to be sure, do not pose the same toxic threat to the 
environment as petroleum oils do, but they are not without harm to the 
environment. Edible oils may be the same type as you put on a salad, 
but a spill of 10,000 gallons or more can be very toxic to birds, to 
aquatic animals.
  We need look only to the mid-1960's in my own State of Minnesota when 
a soybean containment tank burst at very, very low temperatures, 
subzero temperatures, 30, 40 below zero. The soybean oil spilled out 
into the Minnesota River, where it could not be reclaimed at those very 
low temperatures in mid-February. It remained there until the spring 
when the migratory waterfowl, notably ducks, got into it and got fouled 
and we lost tens of thousands of migratory birds.
  Edible oils are high in biological oxygen demand. They can and in 
this case did result in fish kill. They resulted in bird kills. They 
are appropriate, therefore, edible oils, for regulation with respect to 
their effect upon or potential effect upon the environment.
  That is why the legislation that we passed in the House addressed 
this issue, to keep a containment process, to keep the management of 
edible oils within the ambit of government regulation, not exclude 
them, but to treat them with the proper concern and respect that ought 
to be considered.
  There is one shortcoming. If you are going to do this process, then 
you really ought to be fair to all industries, and there is the issue 
of silicone fluids. The bill that we are considering today applies to 
all laws but does not include silicone fluids.
  In the course of discussion of this issue in our committee 
deliberations, we included silicone fluids. That leveled the playing 
field. But the present bill does not include silicone fluids.
  Again, the process, had this been brought to the floor as a 
freestanding bill on the Union Calendar, would have been open to 
amendment. If it were brought on the Suspension Calendar, it would have 
been subject to a higher level of consideration, where a Member with 
concern over this issue could have insisted that his or her concerns be 
reflected in the final version of the bill considered on the floor.

[[Page H 9752]]

  That is, both on process and on substance, sort of the essence of the 
concern that I have. I will address further concerns later.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich].
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this time to thank 
chairmen Bliley, Shuster, and Roberts as well as Mr. Ewing and Ms. 
Danner for their hard work to get this bill to the floor so soon. It 
took a great deal of teamwork on their part. With Many other issues 
pressing for attention it has not been easy for them to take the time 
to work on this little bill. Despite the fact this is a small matter, 
the chairmen recognized the need to move without delay.
  H.R. 436 is a perfect example of why we need the corrections process. 
Who could have predicted during the rush to respond to the Valdez 
accident that we would inadvertently impact consumers and farmers the 
way we did by not clearly defining the word oil? It is clearly a silly 
idea to regulative vegetable oil in the same manner as petroleum oil, 
but congress did it. Not intentionally mind you, but through a lack of 
precision in the original bill. Now we have the chance to correct the 
problem.
  This little bill has huge ramifications for the shipping industry, 
farmers, and thousands of other Americans who deal with this commodity 
on a daily basis. I am very happy that through the corrections process 
we can give these Americans much needed relief.
  I know that all my colleagues can see the need for this fix, and hope 
Members will vote accordingly.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 12 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Ewing], and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to 
control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Everett). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my appreciation to the Committee on Commerce, the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the Committee on 
Agriculture and their chairman for helping, along with the gentlewoman 
from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich], for her efforts, and the counsel that 
deals with the correction calendar, for bringing this bill to the 
floor.

                              {time}  1430

  Today the U.S. House of Representatives has an opportunity to remedy 
one of the unnecessary, illogical Federal regulations that led to the 
creation of Corrections Day. H.R. 436, the Edible Oil Regulatory Reform 
Act, which I introduced earlier this year along with the gentlewoman 
from Missouri [Ms. Danner], will restore common sense to the Federal 
regulatory process by requiring Federal agencies to recognize the 
obvious difference between edible oils and toxic oils when issuing and 
promulgating regulations. The Edible Oils Regulatory Reform Act, H.R. 
436, the oils are nontoxic, natural products, like cooking and salad 
oils, which many of us eat every day. There are unnecessarily stringent 
regulations that force producers, shippers, and manufacturers to comply 
with costly and counterproductive requirements without providing any 
additional measure of protection to the environment of enhancing the 
health and safety of our citizens.
  Simply stated, H.R. 436 will require Federal agencies to 
differentiate between edible oils and petroleum-based oils when 
promulgating regulations under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. This 
commonsense legislation does not change or weaken the underlying 
principles or the Oil Protection Act of 1990 or other related statues, 
like the Clean Water Act. It seems clear to everyone except Federal 
regulators that the Oil Pollution Act was designed to reduce the risk 
of, improve the response to, and minimize the impact catastrophic oil 
spills like the one in Prince William Sound, Alaska, not to regulate 
edible agricultural products.

  In fact, vegetable oils have been used to help clean up beaches 
fouled with petroleum, and vegetable oils are being explored as a 
substitute lubricant for machinery in environmentally sensitive areas 
This not only demonstrates the significant difference between the 
vegetable oils and petroleum oils, it highlights the fact that animal 
fats and vegetable oils do not pose the same risks to human health and 
environment and should not be treated the same.
  The version of H.R 436 before the House today is slightly different 
from the introduced version. The modifications add a financial 
responsibility section to the bill which conforms the text of H.R. 436 
with similar legislation introduced in the U.S. Senate. This 
noncontroversial language was accepted by the U.S. Coast Guard and 
approved by the House as part of H.R. 1361, the Coast Guard 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996. The financial responsibility 
relief provided in this section applies only to exclusive shippers of 
those nontoxic oils, and it brings industry, insurance and bonding 
requirements back into line with the value of the product. Like the 
rest of H.R. 436, nothing in this section exempts edible oils from all 
regulatory requirements.
  The net effect will be to place transporters of edible oils on a par 
with other shippers of nontoxic products, and it will allow the U.S. 
agricultural oils to be more competitive in world markets.
  In addition, in H.R. 1361, the House also adopts the edible oil 
differentiation language contained in H.R. 436 as part of H.R. 961, the 
Clean Water Act Amendment of 1995. Although the House has already acted 
twice on this issue in the 104th Congress, H.R. 436 should be adopted 
as a standalone measure because similar language was adopted twice in 
the House and once in the Senate during the 103rd Congress only to see 
the underlying bill die at the end of 1994.
  I know of no objection to the substance of H.R. 436 from any Member 
of this body or from the administration. H.R. 436 passed on a unanimous 
vote in both the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on 
Agriculture. It has also passed the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure.


                                summary

  Mr. Speaker, Congress has enacted two principal statutes that address 
the discharge of ``oil'' into the nation's waters--the FWPCA and OPA 
90. Due to the statutes' broad definition of oil and lacking clear 
congressional direction on differentiation, regulatory agencies 
generally have proposed or issued rules that will regulate animal fats 
and vegetable oils to the same degree as toxic oils, for example, 
petroleum oils, without regard for the significant differences between 
them, in spite of scientific and other data justifying differentiation. 
These statutes, however, give the agencies broad regulatory discretion 
so that differentiation can be accomplished without compromising any of 
the objectives or principles of the statutes. As these rules will 
impose costly, inappropriate, and often counterproductive requirements, 
the animal fat and vegetable oil industry has been working towards the 
development of regulations that differentiate animal fat and vegetable 
oils from toxic oils to avoid the imposition of costly requirements 
intended for petroleum-based and other oils that are inappropriate for 
animal fats and vegetable oils.
  Thus, a legislative change is needed to provide direction to 
regulatory agencies by requiring them to differentiate between nontoxic 
animal fats and vegetable oils, on the one hand, and all other oils, 
including toxic petroleum and nonpetroleum oils, on the other hand, 
when promulgating oil pollution prevention and response regulations. 
This can be done without an amendment to these statutes that would 
change or alter the principles contained in them. In particular, 
agencies: First, should provide a category for animal fats and 
vegetable oils separate and apart from all other oils; and second, 
should differentiate these oils from other oils based on a recognition 
of their distinct properties.


                               background

  On August 18, 1990, the U.S. Congress, in direct response to several 
catastrophic U.S. petroleum oilspills, including the Exxon Valdez 
spill, enacted the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 [OPA 90] to reduce the 
risk of oilspills, improve facility and vessel oilspill response 
capabilities, and minimize the impact of oilspills on the environment. 
In enacting OPA 90, Congress amended the Federal Water Pollution 
Control Act to impose certain requirements on the owners and operators 
of vessels carrying ``oil'' and on facilities posing a risk of 
``substantial'' harm or ``significant and substantial harm'' to the 
environment, including requiring owners and operators to prepare and 
submit response plans to various federal agencies by 

[[Page H 9753]]
February 18, 1993, for review and approval, or stop handling oil. Other 
requirements affecting the handling and transportation of oil were also 
enacted.
  Although petroleum oil has been the focus of Congress' attention 
during the enactment of OPA 90, the law's applicability was not limited 
to petroleum oil and, as a result, it applies to all oils, including 
animal fats and vegetable oils. Since enactment, various Federal 
agencies have issued proposed or interim final rules implementing OPA 
90 requirements, which include FWPCA provisions. The principal federal 
agencies and what they are responsible for regulating are as follows:
  U.S. Coast Guard [USCG]: vessels and marine-transportation-related 
[MTR] onshore facilities, including any piping or structures used for 
the transfer of oil to or from a vessel.
  DOT Research and Special Programs Administration [RSPA]: tank trucks 
and railroad tank cars carrying oil.
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: large non-transportation-
related onshore facilities handling, storing, or transferring oil; and, 
the National Contingency Plan [NCP].
  DOI Minerals Management Service [MMS]: offshore facilities, including 
any facility on or over U.S. navigable waters.
  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA]: natural 
resource damage assessment [NRDA] regulations.
  Federal natural resource trustees having an interest in these rules 
include the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and Interior.


                                 issue

  The animal fat and vegetable oil industry handles, ships, and stores 
over 25 billion pounds of animal fats and vegetable oils annually in 
the United States. These agricultural substances are essential 
components of food products produced in the United States. Industry is 
concerned that some of the regulations being developed will regulate 
animal fats and vegetable oils to the same degree or in the same manner 
as petroleum oils, in spite of information collected to date that 
suggests that different or less stringent regulations are appropriate. 
For example, a June 28, 1993 report by ENVIRON Corporation, 
``Environmental Effects of Releases of Animal Fats and Vegetable Oils 
to Waterways'' and an associated Aqua Survey, Inc., study on the 
aquatic toxicity of petroleum oil and of animal fats and vegetable oils 
found that, unlike petroleum oils, the presence of animal fats and 
vegetable oils in the environment does not cause significant or 
substantial harm. That study reached the following conclusions with 
respect to the effects of potential discharges of animal fats and 
vegetable oils:

  They are non-toxic to the environment.
  They are essential components to human and wildlife diets.
  They are readily biodegradable.
  They are not persistent in the environment.
  They have a high Biological Oxygen Demand [BOD], which could result 
in oxygen deprivation where there is a large spill in a confined body 
of water that has low flow and dilution.
  They can coat aquatic biota and foul wildlife--for example, matting 
of fur or feathers, which may lead to hypothermia.
  The animal fat and vegetable oil industry continues to seek data 
regarding the impact of animal fats and vegetable oils on the 
environment that will offer new insights to the appropriate regulation 
of these materials. On the basis of scientific data available to date, 
however, the only potential environmental harm that may result from 
spills of these products is the result of potential physical effects of 
spills of liquids in large quantities. Those potential physical effects 
consist of: First, the fouling of aquatic biota and wildlife that are 
exposed to the liquid products in high concentrations; and, second, the 
potential oxygen deprivation from the biodegradation of high 
concentrations of liquid substances in confined and slow-flowing bodies 
of water. Fouling is not an issue, however, in the case of substances 
that are solids or congeal in the temperature conditions of the natural 
environment. In fact, that vegetable-based oils do not pose the same 
risk to the environment is illustrated by the fact that soybean-based 
solvents have been used to clean up petroleum oil spills. Soybean oil 
ester, through a process called CytoSolTM, was used to clean-up 
fuel oil spilled during the Morris J. Berman spill in Puerto Rico. A 
NOAA marine biologist recognized the use of CytoSolTM as a logical 
application of two environmentally promising technologies. ``Illinois 
Soybean Farmer,'' (March/April 1994).
  Moreover, the likelihood that an animal fat or vegetable oil spill of 
such magnitude will occur is extremely small. The industry's spill 
prevention efforts have resulted in an excellent environmental record 
for these products. For example, a review of the data recorded and 
compiled by the Coast Guard reveals that, from 1986 to 1992, animal 
fats and vegetable oils together accounted for only about 0.4 percent 
of the oil spill incidents in and around U.S. waters--both in terms of 
incidents and their volume. Less than half of those spills were in 
water. Further, these spills were generally very small. Only 13 of 
those spills were greater than 1,000 gallons. Put another way, only 
about 0.02 percent of all oil spill incidents in and around U.S. waters 
over the last seven years were spills of animal fats or vegetable oils 
greater than 1,000 gallons.
  Furthermore, equipment and techniques used to respond to petroleum 
oil spills often will aggravate rather than mitigate the environmental 
impact if used for animal fats and vegetable oils. Attempts to remove 
the small quantities of animal fats and vegetable oils present in a 
typical spill would in most cases cause more environmental harm than 
would the presence of those products in the environment alone. For 
example, in comments filed on RSPA Docket Nos. HM-214 and PC-1, dated 
June 3, 1993, the Department of the Interior recommended the 
establishment of response plan requirements for animal fats and 
vegetable oils comparable to those for other oils. This recommendation 
was based on anecdotal data derived from a discharge of butter from a 
U.S. Government warehouse into Shoal Creek, MD. DOI conceded, however, 
that the principal adverse environmental effects of the Shoal Creek 
incident were caused by the removal efforts themselves.
  In addition to the differences noted above between animal fats and 
vegetable oils and petroleum oils, the animal fat and vegetable oil 
industry is significantly different from the petroleum industry in 
other ways warranting disparate regulatory treatment. For example, 
there are notable differences in the vessel characteristics and 
transfer operations involving animal fats and vegetable oils and those 
involving petroleum oils. Vessels carrying petroleum oils can exceed 
500,000 deadweight tons--the Exxon Valdez was over 213,000 deadweight 
tons. In contrast, vegetable oils typically are carried on small parcel 
tankers ranging from 30,000 to 45,000 deadweight tons. Further, 
differences exist in the size of the tanks carrying these two kinds of 
products. Large tankers carrying petroleum oil may have 10 large center 
tanks and about 15 wing tanks with individual tank capacities reaching 
approximately 592,000 tons or 177,500,000 gallons of oil. Parcel 
tankers carrying vegetable oil typically have about 30 to 35 cargo 
tanks that range from 1,000 to 3,500 tons capacity each. With regard to 
transfer operations, the typical amount of vegetable oil loaded or 
offloaded during a transfer ranges from 500 to 5,000 tons. In contrast, 
a tanker carrying petroleum commonly loads or offloads its entire cargo 
during one transfer operation.
  Similarly, facilities that handle or store animal fats and vegetable 
oils do not share the same characteristics as petroleum refineries and 
other facilities. Facilities that handle animal fats and vegetable oils 
are generally located in or near areas in which agricultural raw 
materials--for example, oilseeds, oil bearing plants, and animals--are 
available. Consequently, unlike petroleum oil facilities, many are 
found in the Midwestern United States relatively far removed from the 
regional oil spill response centers which have evolved over the years 
and which are principally dedicated to petroleum oil spills.

  In addition to the need for differentiation, there is also a need for 
financial responsibility regulations under OPA 90 that reflect the 
actual risk associated with spills of animal fats and vegetable oils. 
Under current financial responsibility rules, which were intended to 
address the problem of petroleum oil pollution from tankers and 
handling facilities, are not limited to tank vessels carrying petroleum 
oil, but unfortunately apply to all tank vessels regardless of the 
cargo carried. Specifically, the definition of tank vessel is not cargo 
linked; therefore, by operation of law, every tank vessel, regardless 
of its cargo, has the same liability and financial responsibility 
requirement as a petroleum oil tanker. Other vessels, on the other 
hand, are subject to half the limitation amounts applicable to tank 
vessels.
  The higher amounts applicable to tankers reflect the fact that the 
risks of pollution related to enormous quantities of petroleum oil 
carried on tankers as cargo vastly outweigh the potential harm from 
other vessels whose spills of petroleum oil are limited to bunker fuel 
or lubricating oil used in the propulsion and other mechanical systems 
of the ship. However, considering the animal fat and vegetable oil 
industry's excellent spill prevention record and the significantly 
lower risk of environmental harm posed by a spill of these nontoxic, 
readily biodegradable agricultural products, the risk of harm presented 
by vessels carrying animal fats and vegetable oils is similar to that 
of other non-petroleum-carrying vessels and the liabilities and 
financial responsibility amounts should be placed at the appropriate 
level.


                      differentiated rules needed

  Unfortunately, there has been an overabundance of supposition and 
anecdotal data cited to date to give support to treating these nontoxic 
substances in the same manner as 

[[Page H 9754]]
petroleum oils. Reliance upon such information underscores the dangers 
of imposing regulatory requirements on the industry in a manner not 
specifically mandated by Congress and without adequate scientific 
foundation. In fact, no documented scientific data support treating 
these nontoxic animal fats and vegetable oils in the same manner as 
petroleum.
  To the contrary, the significant differences between animal fats and 
vegetable oils and other oils, warrant regulation of these substances 
in a different manner. Identical requirements would represent a 
misapplication of limited industry resources. In addition, requiring 
tank vessels whose only oil cargo is animal fat or vegetable oil to 
provide the same amount of financial responsibility as tank vessels 
carrying petroleum oil fails to recognize the risk of harm presented by 
these vessels and imposes an unnecessary burden on owners and 
operators.
  Unfortunately, agencies have been attempting to achieve 
differentiation through vague regulatory language that requires further 
administrative or judicial interpretation to decipher and through 
discussions in the preambles to regulations published in the Federal 
Register. These techniques are examples of regulations that are not 
clear on their face and in need of revision. Not only should available 
scientific information be used to differentiate, but so should basic 
common sense. Many existing regulatory regimes go into detail to create 
separate categories for classes or types of oils--petroleum, edible, et 
cetera. Thus proven scientific and regulatory structures already exist 
that could form the basis of or model for a similar approach for 
regulations issued to implement the pollution prevention statutes.
  Differentiation in rules is also warranted in view of President 
Clinton's Executive Order on Regulatory Planning and Review enunciates, 
and requires agencies to adhere to, certain principles of regulation. 
Executive Order No. 12,866, 58 Fed. Reg. 51,735, 51,736 (1993). Among 
those principles are the following:
  In setting regulatory priorities, each agency shall consider, to the 
extent reasonable, the degree and nature of the risks posed by various 
substances or activities within its jurisdiction.
  Each agency shall base its decisions on the best reasonably 
obtainable scientific, technical, economic, and other information 
concerning the need for, and consequences of, the intended regulation.
  Each agency shall identify and assess alternative forms of regulation 
and shall, to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, 
rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that 
regulated entities must adopt.
  Each agency shall avoid regulations that are inconsistent, 
incompatible, or duplicative of its other regulations or those of other 
Federal agencies.
  Each agency shall tailor its regulations to impose the least burden 
on society, including individuals, businesses of differing sizes, and 
other entities, including small communities and governmental entities, 
consistent with obtaining the regulatory objectives, taking into 
account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs 
of cumulative regulations.


                               conclusion

  The animal fat and vegetable oil industry continues to seek data to 
better understand the environmental risks associated with the 
transportation, handling, and storage of animal fats and vegetable 
oils. On the basis of scientific data currently available, however, 
there is no rational basis for regulating nontoxic animal fats and 
vegetable oils in the same manner as petroleum oils. In fact, it is 
very likely that imposing certain regulatory requirements on animal 
fats and vegetable oils based solely on requirements developed for the 
petroleum oil, for example, removal and response strategies and 
techniques, could lead to greater damage to the environment than the 
actual impact of a discharge of these substances themselves. Moreover, 
these requirements would add to the cost of these agricultural 
products. A category for animal fats and vegetable oil should be 
implemented that is separate and distinct from all other oils, 
including petroleum oil. In addition, regulations should take into 
account the differences in the physical, chemical, biological, and 
other properties, and the environmental effects of these oils. Further, 
regulatory principles should be followed which clearly permit 
regulatory regimes to reflect the economic impact on the industry 
regulated.
  In fact, judging from the bipartisan mix of cosponsorship, H.R. 436 
enjoys broad support and is absolutely not controversial.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Missouri 
[Ms. Danner] for her assistance and leadership as well as the chairman, 
the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], the chairman, the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the chairman, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], and the Correction Day task force for their 
input and cooperation on this issue.
  It is time to finally solve the problem. I believe that it is the 
delay in passage of legislation such as this, as we did in the 103d 
Congress and the 104th Congress, that is the irritation among our 
constituents for nonaction. It is time that we pass this bill and made 
it law.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support H.R. 436.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. de la Garza].
  (Mr. de la GARZA asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and 
I thank the manager of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in supporting and 
bringing to the floor H.R. 436, the Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act. 
H.R. 436 would require Federal agencies to differentiate between edible 
oils, animal fat and vegetable oil, and petroleum-based oil products 
when issuing regulations under Federal laws that deal with a fat, 
grease or oil.
  Mr. Ewing, Ms. Danner, and the cosponsors of the bill are to be 
congratulated for once again attempting to correct the oversight 
contained in the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. The work of our former 
colleague, new Secretary Jill Long Thompson should also not be 
overlooked as similar legislation passed the House twice last year 
under her leadership, only to die in the Senate.
  The substitute language adopted in the Agriculture Committee has the 
broad intent of covering all Federal law and also contains specific 
changes to the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to ensure that animal fat and 
vegetable oil are classified separately from petroleum-based products 
based on differences in physical, chemical, biological or other 
properties.
  The substitute being offered here on the floor would exempt the Food 
Safety and Inspection Service as well as the Food and Drug 
Administration from the provisions of this bill, which causes the 
Agriculture Committee some concern because we only saw the language 
yesterday, but for the sake of moving this important piece of 
legislation, we do not intend to object to the exemption. We will work 
with our colleagues in the other body should any concerns be brought to 
our attention in regard to this particular provision.
  The Oil Pollution Act was passed in response to the Exxon Valdez 
oilspill in Prince William Sound. It contained specific requirements on 
the handling and transportation of oil, but Congress did not 
differentiate between the various types of oil in the legislative 
language. Studies to date show the only potential environmental harm 
from animal fat or vegetable oil spills to be the physical effects of a 
spill of liquid in large quantities.
  This legislation would require that the liability for a tank vessel 
carrying animal fat or vegetable oil would be limited to the greater of 
$600 per gross ton of the tank vessel, or $500,000 under the Oil 
Pollution Act.
  I am also pleased that report language was added to address concerns 
expressed by the fledgling biodiesel industry to ensure that their 
products would be included under this legislation as long as they do 
not contain petroleum or toxic additives. Biodiesel products include 
such things as greases, hydraulic fluid or solvents that are much 
friendlier to the environment than traditional petroleum-based 
products.
  There is language in H.R. 961, the House-passed version of Clean 
Water Act amendments, which would require differentiation among animal 
fat and vegetable oils in all water pollution laws.
  H.R. 436 has bipartisan support with 80 sponsors here in the House 
and a broad list of outside groups who have also supported its passage. 
I encourage my colleagues to support its passage.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Missouri [Ms. Danner].
  (Ms. DANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. DANNER. Mr. Speaker. in the wake of the Exxon Valdez oilspill, 
the Congress passed legislation known as the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. 
This law created important environmental regulations aimed at reducing 
the risk of oil spills.
  But while the Oil Pollution Act was designed to prevent environmental 


[[Page H 9755]]
harm from petroleum oil spills, it was applied by many Federal agencies 
to animal fats and vegetable oils.
  The result of these errant regulations are lower profits for 
producers in the agricultural sector, higher costs to shippers and 
users of vegetable oils, and in the final analysis, higher costs for 
virtually all processed food items we consume.
  Because of the sweeping definitions in the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, 
Federal agencies have failed to make the sensible, logical, and obvious 
distinctions between toxic and edible oils.
  Now it is necessary for Congress to direct the Federal agencies to 
start regulating those oils separately. The Edible Oil Regulatory 
Reform Act is intended to stop Government from regulating these oils in 
the same manner as petroleum.
  Federal agencies must consider differences in the physical, 
biological, chemical makeup of the oils and the possible effects of 
spills on the environment.
  Mr. Speaker, laws and regulations must have purpose. They should meet 
the simple standard of either protecting the public good from realistic 
threats or generally improving people's lives. Above all, our laws must 
be reasonable.
  Congress wisely started the corrections day process so we could more 
easily repeal regulations that fail this elementary standard.
  I think the vast majority of Americans would agree that regulating 
corn oil, for example, and petroleum in identical fashion is by no 
means reasonable.
  In fact, this legislation enjoys support from both Republicans and 
Democrats, producers and consumers, and the administration and 
Congress. I'm pleased to be a part of this truly non-partisan effort.
  I would like to extend appreciation to the Members who worked on this 
legislation, particularly my friend from Illinois, Tom Ewing, who has 
been instrumental in bringing this legislation to the floor.
  Americans have repeatedly called upon Members of Congress to 
eliminate burdensome Federal regulations and work together to make a 
real difference in people's lives. Today we are answering that call.
  Mr. Speaker, I have some additional information I would like to 
include as part of the Record at this point.

Requirement for Differentiation Between Animal Fats and Vegetable Oils 
                and Other Oils Under Certain Regulations


                                summary

       Congress has enacted two principal statutes that address 
     the discharged of ``oil'' into the nation's waters--the FWPCA 
     and OPA 90. Due to the statutes' broad definition of oil and 
     lacking clear Congressional direction on differentiation, 
     regulatory agencies generally have proposed or issued rules 
     that will regulate animal fats and vegetable oils to the same 
     degree as toxic oils (e.g., petroleum oils) without regard 
     for the significant differences between them, in spite of 
     scientific and other data justifying differentiation. These 
     statues, however, give the agencies broad regulatory 
     discretion so that differentiation can be accomplished 
     without compromising any of the objectives or principles of 
     the statues. As these rules will impose costly, 
     inappropriate, and often counterproductive requirements, the 
     animal fat and vegetable oil industry has been working 
     towards the development of regulations that differentiate 
     animal fat and vegetable oils from toxic oils to avoid the 
     imposition of costly requirements intended for petroleum-
     based and other oils that are inappropriate for animal fats 
     and vegetable oils.
       Thus, a legislative change is needed to provide direction 
     to regulatory agencies by requiring them to differentiate 
     between non-toxic animal fats and vegetable oils, on the one 
     hand, and all other oils, including toxic petroleum and non-
     petroleum oils, on the other hand, when promulgating oil 
     pollution prevention and response regulations. This can be 
     done without an amendment to these statutes that would change 
     or alter the principles contained in them. In particular, 
     agencies (1) should provide a category for animal fats and 
     vegetable oils separate and apart from all other oils and (2) 
     should differentiate these oils from other oils based on a 
     recognition of their distinct properties.


                               background

       On August 18, 1990, the U.S. Congress, in direct response 
     to several catastrophic U.S. petroleum oil spills, including 
     the EXXON VALDEZ spill, enacted the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 
     (OPA 90) to reduce the risk of oil spills, improve facility 
     and vessel oil spill response capabilities, and minimize the 
     impact of oil spills on the environment. In enacting OPA 90, 
     Congress amended the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 
     impose certain requirements on the owners and operators of 
     vessels carrying ``oil'' and on facilities posing a risk of 
     ``substantial'' harm or ``significant and substantial harm'' 
     to the environment, including requiring owners and operators 
     to prepare and submit response plans to various federal 
     agencies by February 18, 1993, for review and approval, 
     or stop handling oil. Other requirements affecting the 
     handling and transportation of oil were also enacted.
       Although petroleum oil has been the focus of Congress' 
     attention during the enactment of OPA 90, the law's 
     applicability was not limited to petroleum oil and, as a 
     result, it applies to all oils, including animal fats and 
     vegetable oils. Since enactment, various federal agencies 
     have issued proposed or interim final rules implementing OPA 
     90 requirements (which include FWPCA provisions). The 
     principal federal agencies and what they are responsible for 
     regulating are as follows:
       U.S. Coast Guard (USCG): vessels and marine-transportation-
     related (MTR) onshore facilities, including any piping or 
     structures used for the transfer of oil to or from a vessel.
       DOT Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA): 
     tank trucks and railroad tank cars carrying oil.
       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: large non-
     transportation-related onshore facilities handling, storing, 
     or transferring oil; and, the National Contingency Plan 
     (NCP).
       DOI Minerals Management Service (MMS): offshore facilities 
     including any facility on or over U.S. navigable waters.
       National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): 
     natural resource damage assessment (NRDA) regulations.
       Federal natural resource trustees having an interest in 
     these rules include the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, 
     and Interior.


                                 issue

       The animal fat and vegetable oil industry handles, ships, 
     and stores over 25 billion pounds of animal fats and 
     vegetable oils annually in the United States. These 
     agricultural substances are essential components of food 
     products produced in the United States. Industry is concerned 
     that some of the regulations being developed will regulate 
     animal fats and vegetable oils to the same degree or in the 
     same manner as petroleum oils, in spite of information 
     collected to date that suggests that different or less 
     stringent regulations are appropriate. For example. a June 
     28, 1993 report by ENVIRON Corporation, ``Environmental 
     Effects of Releases of Animal Fats and Vegetable Oils to 
     Waterways'' and an associated Aqua Survey, Inc. study on the 
     aquatic toxicity of petroleum oil and of animal fats and 
     vegetable oils found that, unlike petroleum oils, the 
     presence of animal fats and vegetable oils in the 
     environment does not cause significant or substantial 
     harm. That study reached the following conclusions with 
     respect to the effects of potential discharges of animal 
     fats and vegetable oils:
       They are non-toxic to the environment.
       They are essential components to human and wildlife diets.
       They are readily biodegradable.
       They are not persistent in the environment.
       They have a high Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD), which 
     could result in oxygen deprivation where there is a large 
     spill in a confined body of water that has low flow and 
     dilution.
       They can coat aquatic biota and foul wildlife (e.g., 
     matting of fur or feathers, which may lead to hypothermia).
       The animal fat and vegetable oil industry continues to seek 
     data regarding the impact of animal fats and vegetable oils 
     on the environment that will offer new insights to the 
     appropriate regulation of these materials. On the basis of 
     scientific data available to date, however, the only 
     potential environmental harm that may result from spills of 
     these products is the result of potential physical effects of 
     spills of liquids in large quantities. Those potential 
     physical effects consist of (1) the fouling of aquatic biota 
     and wildlife that are exposed to the liquid products in high 
     concentrations; and, (2) the potential oxygen deprivation 
     from the biodegradation of high concentrations of liquid 
     substances in confined and slow-flowing bodies of water. 
     Fouling is not an issue, however, in the case of substances 
     that are solids or congeal in the temperature conditions of 
     the natural environment. In fact, that vegetable-based oils 
     do not pose the same risk to the environment is illustrated 
     by the fact that soybean-based solvents have been used to 
     clean up petroleum oil spills. Soybean oil ester, through a 
     process called CytoSol TM, was used to clean-up fuel oil 
     spilled during the MORRIS J. BERMAN spill in Puerto Rico. A 
     NOAA marine biologist recognized the use of CytoSol TM 
     as a ``logical application of two environmentally promising 
     technologies.'' Illinois Soybean Farmer, p. 12 (March/April 
     1994).
       Moreover, the likelihood that an animal fat or vegetable 
     oil spill of such magnitude will occur is extremely small. 
     The industry's spill prevention efforts have resulted in an 
     excellent environmental record for these products. For 
     example, a review of the data recorded and compiled by the 
     Coast Guard reveals that, from 1986 to 1992, animal fats and 
     vegetable oils together accounted for only about 0.4 percent 
     of the oil spill incidents in and around U.S. waters (both in 
     terms of incidents and their volume). Less than half of those 
     spills were in water. Further, these spills were generally 
     very small. 

[[Page H 9756]]
     Only 13 of those spills were greater than 1,000 gallons. Put another 
     way, only about 0.02 percent of all oil spill incidents in 
     and around U.S. waters over the last seven years were 
     spills of animal fats or vegetable oils greater than 1,000 
     gallons.
       Furthermore, equipment and techniques used to respond to 
     petroleum oil spills often will aggrevate rather than 
     mitigate the environmental impact if used for animal fats and 
     vegetable oils. Attempts to remove the small quantities of 
     animal fats and vegetable oils present in a typical spill 
     would in most cases cause more environmental harm than would 
     the presence of those products in the environment alone. For 
     example, in comments filed on RSPA Docket Nos. HM-214 and PC-
     1, dated June 3, 1993, the Department of Interior recommended 
     the establishment of response plan requirements for animal 
     fats and vegetable oils comparable to those for other oils. 
     This recommendation was based on anecdotal data derived from 
     a discharge of butter from a U.S. government warehouse into 
     Shoal Creek, Maryland. DOI conceded, however, that the 
     principal adverse environmental effects of the Shoal Creek 
     incident were caused by the removal efforts themselves.
       In addition to the differences noted above between animal 
     fats and vegetable oils and petroleum oils, the animal fat 
     and vegetable oil industry is significantly different from 
     the petroleum industry in other ways warranting disparate 
     regulatory treatment. For example, there are notable 
     differences in the vessel characteristics and transfer 
     operations involving animal fats and vegetable oils and those 
     involving petroleum oils. Vessels carrying petroleum oils can 
     exceed 500,000 deadweight tons (the EXXON VALDEZ was over 
     213,000 deadweight tons). In contrast, vegetable oils 
     typically are carried on small parcel tankers ranging from 
     30,000 to 45,000 deadweight tons. Further, differences exist 
     in the size of the tanks carrying these two kinds of 
     products. Large tankers carrying petroleum oil may have 10 
     large center tanks and about 15 wing tanks with individual 
     tank capacities reaching approximately 592,000 tons or 
     177,500,000 gallons of oil. Parcel tankers carrying vegetable 
     oil typically have about 30 to 35 cargo tanks that range from 
     1,000 to 3,500 tons capacity each. With regard to transfer 
     operations, the typical amount of vegetable oil loaded or 
     offloaded during a transfer ranges from 500 to 5,000 tons. In 
     contrast, a tanker carrying petroleum commonly loads or 
     offloads its entire cargo during one transfer operation.
       Similary, facilities that handle or store animal fats and 
     vegetable oils do not share the same characteristics as 
     petroleum refineries and other facilities. Facilities that 
     handle animal fats and vegetable oils are generally located 
     in or near areas in which agricultural raw materials (e.g., 
     oilseeds, oil bearing plants, and animals) are available. 
     Consequently, unlike petroleum oil facilities, many are found 
     in the Midwestern United States relatively far removed from 
     the regional oil spill response centers which have evolved 
     over the years and which are principally dedicated to 
     petroleum oil spills.
       In addition to the need for differentiation, there is also 
     a need for financial responsibility regulations under OPA 90 
     that reflect the actual risk associated with spills of 
     animals fats and vegetable oils. Under current financial 
     responsibility rules, which were intended to address the 
     problem of petroleum oil pollution from tankers and handling 
     facilities, are not limited to tank vessels carrying 
     petroleum oil, but unfortunately apply to all tank vessels 
     regardless of the cargo carried. Specifically, the definition 
     of tank vessel is not cargo linked; therefore, by operation 
     of law, every tank vessel, regardless of its cargo, has the 
     same liability and financial responsibility requirement as a 
     petroleum oil tanker. Other vessels, on the other hand, are 
     subject to half the limitation amounts applicable to tank 
     vessels.
       The higher amounts applicable to tankers reflect the fact 
     that the risks of pollution related to enormous quantities of 
     petroleum oil carried on tankers as cargo vastly outweigh the 
     potential harm from other vessels whose spills of petroleum 
     oil are limited to bunker fuel or lubricating oil used in the 
     propulsion and other mechanical systems of the ship. However, 
     considering the animal fat and vegetable oil industry's 
     excellent spill prevention record and the significantly lower 
     risk of environmental harm posed by a spill of these non-
     toxic, readily-biodegradable agricultural products, the risk 
     of harm presented by vessels carrying animal fats and 
     vegetable oils is similar to that of other non-petroleum-
     carrying vessels and the liabilities and financial 
     responsibility amounts should be placed at the appropriate 
     level.


                      Differentiated Rules Needed

       Unfortunately, there has been an overabundance of 
     supposition and anecdotal data cited to date to give support 
     to treating these non-toxic substances in the same manner as 
     petroleum oils. Reliance upon such information underscores 
     the dangers of imposing regulatory requirements on the 
     industry in a manner not specifically mandated by Congress 
     and without adequate scientific foundation. In fact, no 
     documented scientific data support treating these non-toxic 
     animal fats and vegetable oils in the same manner as 
     petroleum.
       To the contrary, the significant differences between animal 
     fats and vegetable oils and other oils, warrant regulation of 
     these substances in a different manner. Identical 
     requirements would represent a misapplication of limited 
     industry resources. In addition, requiring tank vessels whose 
     only oil cargo is animal fat or vegetable oil to provide the 
     same amount of financial responsibility as tank vessels 
     carrying petroleum oil fails to recognize the risk of harm 
     presented by these vessels and imposes an unnecessary burden 
     on owners and operators.
       Unfortunately, agencies have been attempting to achieve 
     differentiation through vague regulatory language that 
     requires further administrative or judicial interpretation to 
     decipher and through discussions in the preambles to 
     regulations published in the Federal Register. These 
     techniques are examples of regulations that are not clear on 
     their face and in need of revision. Not only should available 
     scientific information be used to differentiate, but so 
     should basic common sense. Many existing regulatory regimes 
     go into detail to create separate categories for classes or 
     types of oils (petroleum, edible, etc). Thus proven 
     scientific and regulatory structures already exist that could 
     form the basis of or model for a similar approach for 
     regulations issued to implement the pollution prevention 
     statutes.
       Differentiation in rules is also warranted in view of 
     President Clinton's Executive Order on Regulatory Planning 
     and Review enunciates, and requires agencies to adhere to, 
     certain principles of regulation. Exec. Order No. 12,866, 58 
     Fed. Reg. 51,735, 51,736 (1993). Among those principles are 
     the following:
       In setting regulatory priorities, each agency shall 
     consider, to the extent reasonable, the degree and nature of 
     the risks posed by various substances or activities within 
     its jurisdiction.
       Each agency shall base its decisions on the best reasonably 
     obtainable scientific, technical, economic, and other 
     information concerning the need for, and consequences of, the 
     intended regulation.
       Each agency shall identify and assess alternative forms of 
     regulation and shall, to the extent feasible, specify 
     performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior 
     or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt.
       Each agency shall avoid regulations that are inconsistent, 
     incompatible, or duplicative of its other regulations or 
     those of other Federal agencies.
       Each agency shall tailor its regulations to impose the 
     least burden on society, including individuals, businesses of 
     differing sizes, and other entities (including small 
     communities and governmental entities), consistent with 
     obtaining the regulatory objectives, taking into account, 
     among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs 
     of cumulative regulations.


                               conclusion

       The animal fat and vegetable oil industry continues to seek 
     data to better understand the environmental risks associated 
     with the transportation, handling, and storage of animal fats 
     and vegetable oils. On the basis of scientific data 
     currently available, however, there is no rational basis 
     for regulating nontoxic animal fats and vegetable oils in 
     the same manner as petroleum oils. In fact, it is very 
     likely that imposing certain regulatory requirements on 
     animal fats and vegetable oils based solely on 
     requirements developed for the petroleum oil (e.g. removal 
     and response strategies and techniques) could lead to 
     greater damage to the environment than the actual impact 
     of a discharge of these substances themselves. Moreover, 
     these requirements would add to the cost of these 
     agricultural products. A category for animal fats and 
     vegetable oil should be implemented that is separate and 
     distinct from all other oils, including petroleum oil. In 
     addition, regulations should take into account the 
     differences in the physical, chemical, biological, and 
     other properties, and the environmental effects of these 
     oils. Further, regulatory principles should be followed 
     which clearly permit regulatory regimes to reflect the 
     economic impact on the industry regulated.
                                                                    ____



                              Office of Management and Budget,

                                 Washington, DC, October 10, 1995.

                   Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 436--Differentiate Between Petroleum and Animal and Vegetable Oils 
                    (Ewing (R) IL and 83 cosponsors)

       The Administration has no objection to House passage of 
     H.R. 436.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, under the amendment, there are separate requirements. 
There is a requirement for separate regulations for edible and 
nonedible oils under any Federal law.
  I would like to inquire of the gentleman from North Carolina: What 
laws have been researched to determine the application of this 
language? Could the gentleman tell us which laws specifically are 
affected?
  Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Those pertinent to the transportation and handling of oil have been 

[[Page H 9757]]
  looked at as it relates to this bill, and disposal, excuse me.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Is that the only Federal law? It says ``any Federal 
law.''
  Mr. BURR. As it relates to this amendment, sir, the transportation, 
the disposal has been looked at relative to the change for edible oils. 
The two committees of jurisdiction have also looked at it.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I submit there are more laws that would be affected by 
this provision. The oil pollution law, for example, has two 
applications to the Clean Water Act and to the transportation of oils. 
So we are talking about the Coast Guard. We are talking about rail. We 
are talking about pipeline transportation. Is that what the gentleman 
has in mind?
  Mr. BURR. If the gentleman will yield further, I would remind the 
gentleman that this amendment deals with the differentiation. There is 
no exemption, exclusion. It deals with the differentiation.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I understand that. But what I am trying to get at is 
the scope of this provision. I think it should be clear on the record 
what it is, which laws are being affected by this process we are 
engaged in here.

  Mr. BURR. If the gentleman will yield further, three committees have 
looked at this issue.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. That is not my question. I did not ask how many 
committees. I asked how many laws. The gentleman does not have a 
catalogue of laws affected by this provision?
  Mr. BURR. If the gentleman will yield further, the gentleman is 
asking me for statutory jurisdiction of each of these committees of 
which I am not a member. I would suggest it does affect the Oil 
Pollution Act, which we are here to address, and certainly it does make 
common sense for us to address a differentiation between vegetable oils 
and petroleum-based products.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Reclaiming my time, it is not the differentiation that 
concerns me. It is to be clear about the scope of impact of this 
legislation. I would suggest that when the gentleman asks unanimous 
consent for leave for Members to submit additional comments for the 
Record, that he or the committee chairman submit for the Record the 
list of those laws that will be affected by this legislation so that 
the public, in evaluating, and other Members, in evaluating this 
legislation would know which laws specifically are affected by that 
very broad language.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I would certainly request of the Committee on 
Commerce for that listing and also make the request of the other two 
committees.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina. 
I think that would be very important and very useful.
  When the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Mr. Speaker, 
considered this legislation, we considered specific laws. The bill 
before us is a broad sweep and says all laws. It just sort of cast a 
wide net out upon the waters and said anything that we did not think of 
specifically, we just cast this language out. That is, I suggest, not 
very appropriate legislation, it is not very carefully crafted 
legislation, and it is again a reason for being concerned with this 
process.
  I am a very strong believer in processes protecting rights of 
individuals and rights of the Members of this body, protecting rights 
of various interests and the broad public interest, and I think this 
process here is truly a disservice to that process.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. BURR. Is the gentleman suggesting that we only use common sense 
in some cases?
  I hear the gentleman's concern with process, but I would question 
that the gentleman is more concerned with process than outcome, and, in 
fact, the common sense comes into play, and the majority of Americans 
say there should be a differentiation between the two.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Reclaiming my time, the issue again, I state very 
clearly, is not differentiation. The issue I am raising here is what 
are the laws under which differentiation is to take place. There is no 
listing. There is a broad, sweeping grant of authority, and that is the 
matter that concerns me.
  Yes, there should be a differentiation. But under which laws? How 
broadly? How narrowly? How specifically is this language to be drawn? 
How specifically is it to be targeted?
  As my colleagues know, we did that in the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure. We were very careful about it. This bill is just a 
broad, sweeping generalization. I do not think it is appropriate to do 
that. We must be more specific about the laws that are going to be 
affected.
  Now, as to the matter of differentiation, that is a matter of 
substantive debate, and we could have a discussion on whether the 
edible oil industry is appropriate in their concern that the oil they 
produce should not be considered in the same breath with the toxic 
effects of certain petroleums or petroleum derivatives, and that is an 
entirely different matter.
  But, as I said in my opening remarks, we have had our own experience 
in Minnesota where with the soybean oil spill there were toxic effects. 
Nontoxic substances in high amounts can have toxic effects. They ought 
to be considered separately and appropriately.
  In addition, just because one industry or one sector says we do not 
want to be included with everybody else that has toxic oils, and ours 
are not from one standpoint, is no reason to bring a special bill to 
the House floor for a special purpose. We had the opportunity to 
consider this issue when the House took up the Clean Water Act. The 
degree of specificity provided in that legislation, in both the Oil 
Pollution Act and the Clean Water Act, where relief was provided, did 
not raise any kind of debate, did not ask for any kind of 
consideration, and I do not think it is appropriate, and that is the 
basis of my objection.
  The matter of differentiation, simply because it has taken a long 
time for the appropriate agency of Government to issue regulations 
under previously existing laws, is no reason to bring a special bill to 
the House floor. It is difficult, going back to the gentleman's point 
about differentiation, it is difficult to know whether such 
differentiation is appropriate when we do not know specifically in this 
bill the laws to which that differentiation should be applied.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. BURR. In fact, in the bill itself I think the gentleman would see 
that what we have done is we have allowed the heads of Federal agencies 
to consider differences in physical, chemical, biological, and other 
properties, and the environmental effects of the classes. To some 
degree we have empowered the heads of these agencies to make the 
determination in the best interests of this country. I do not think the 
gentleman would disagree with that interest.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I just say that when language in a bill says any 
Federal law, it is incumbent upon the author of such language to be 
specific, to say what those laws are. I do not think that we should ask 
the public to accept something so broad and sweeping they have no idea 
of what its implications and what its applications are.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Burr] for yielding this time to me. I compliment the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Burr], the gentleman from Virginia 
[Mr. Bliley], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing], and the 
gentlewoman from Missouri [Ms. Danner] for their hard work on this 
bill, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 436, the Edible Oil 
Regulatory Reform Act. This commonsense, risk-based approach to 
regulation embodies what the Speaker had in mind when he established 
the Corrections Day Calendar. This well-crafted, noncontroversial bill 
simply requires 

[[Page H 9758]]
Federal agencies to differentiate between animal fats and vegetable 
oils on the one hand and petroleum-based on the other.
  The Clean Water Act and the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 are the two 
primary statutes addressing discharge of oil into the Nation's waters 
impacted by this bill and to a lesser extent the Hazardous Materials 
Transportation Act. Due to these statutes' broad definitions of oil and 
the lack of explicit guidance from Congress, the regulatory agencies 
have not adequately differentiated between animal fats and vegetable 
oils and other oils, including petroleum. Regulations that do not make 
these commonsense differentiations could impose costly, unnecessary 
burdens on handlers, transporters, and others involved in the edible 
oil industry.
  The animal fat and vegetable oil industry handles, ships, and stores 
over 25 billion pounds of product annually in the United States. These 
agricultural substances are essential components to our Nation's 
economy and diet.
  The record is filled with documented examples and justifications for 
treating animal fat and vegetable oil differently from other types of 
oil. For example, these edible oils simply do not present the same type 
of risk to the environment that other oils do.
  When Congress enacted the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, it did not 
intend to apply the same response planning, liability, financial 
responsibility, and cleanup requirements to edible oils to the same 
extent as to crude oil and petroleum-based substances.
  Comparable versions of H.R. 436 have already passed the House in two 
bills this year: H.R. 1361, the Coast Guard authorization bill for 
fiscal year 1996 and H.R. 961, the clean water amendments of 1995.
  Both versions moved through the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee, the committee on which I served which the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] chairs, the committee with jurisdiction over 
the Oil Pollution Act and the Clean Water Act. The committee has an 
extensive record of testimony and other data affirming the need for the 
legislation.
  The bill before us combines the views of the three committees 
involved: the Committee on Commerce, the Committee on Agriculture, and 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  It includes a broad mandate for common sense: generally all Federal 
agencies are required to differentiate between animal fat and vegetable 
oils on the one hand and petroleum-based oils on the other.
  It includes provisions to take into account the special nature of 
food and drug regulations that do not relate to environmental 
discharge.
  H.R. 436 is an important, noncontroversial solution to a regulatory 
situation that needs correction, and I urge my colleagues to support 
the bill.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa 
[Mr. Latham].
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina 
[Mr. Burr] for yielding this time to me, and I especially want to thank 
the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Ewing], and the gentlewoman from Missouri [Ms. Danner], for putting 
this excellent bill forward. I am very, very proud to be a cosponsor.
  Mr. Speaker, as a member of both the Committee on Agriculture and the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, this particular bill 
has great significance to me, and I am very, very proud once again to 
be a cosponsor. One of the reasons that last year I ran for Congress as 
a farmer and a small business person myself was because of the 
sometimes outrageous regulations that are placed on farmers and small 
business people seeing the direct effect of what those regulations have 
on people who are working very, very hard every day, striving to 
improve the lives for themselves and for their children. That is one 
reason that I am so supportive also of Correction Days, because it does 
give us an opportunity to right some of these wrongs which have been 
put on the American public and which have no benefit to the American 
people, but cause great restrictions as far as common sense in the 
business and workplace. My district in northwest Iowa produces a 
tremendous amount of soybeans. We have the largest soybean crush in the 
United States, any district in the United States. We produce more 
soybean oil than any other district, and that is why I am so proud that 
H.R. 436 simply requires, once and for all, for Federal agencies to 
tell the difference between what is a nontoxic vegetable oil or animal 
fats and petroleum-based oils when writing regulations, and we should 
keep in mind that this does not exempt vegetable oils or animal fats 
from regulations and spill plans. The oils covered by this bill are 
nontoxic, edible, natural, and biodegradable, and I think the folks at 
home should realize when they are cooking every day the oil that they 
get out of the bottle that they are frying their food in, this is what 
we are talking about. This is not the sludge or the crude from the 
Exxon Valdez or something like this. These are edible oils that are 
used every day in the kitchen in our homes and we eat every day. This 
should be very, very noncontroversial.
  I think this bill symbolizes the commonsense reforms to the 
environmental regulations of the Republican Congress that we are trying 
to put forth today. This bill removes unnecessary costs of burdensome 
shipping standards which should not apply to nontoxic products such as 
vegetable oils and animal fats.
  This type of regulation in the past is part of the absurdity that we 
have had in our regulatory parts of this Government, and it is really 
hard for me to believe that it takes an act of Congress to state that 
vegetable oil is not toxic and should not be held to the same standard 
as crude oil. American farmers have suffered from increased shipping 
rates and loss of foreign markets due to these crazy regulations, and I 
ask for everyone to support 436, which is common sense. It brings back 
some sanity to this Government.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to observe that for all the hoopla over 
Corrections Day created by the majority, that in 10 months we have 
considered San Diego sewage and edible oils, one of which is being 
resolved by the Environmental Protection Agency on its own, and the 
other of which is being resolved by the Department of Transportation, 
and regulations that agency has issued, which is part of two other 
bills which have passed the House. This is a large waste of the body's 
time and a process that is inappropriate for the consideration of such 
subjects.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I would make this comment to my colleague, that in my 9 
short months here in Washington, I have learned that sometimes a little 
nudge is what is needed to get the process started. I hope this nudge 
of Corrections Day will enable us to eliminate those things that to the 
American people are common sense, that we should change and clarify.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Ewing].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Everett). The gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Ewing] will close debate.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me, and for giving me the opportunity to close on this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, it is so simple, we should not have to be here. Yet we 
are here today because it has not been done. That is what the American 
people are unhappy about: Two Congresses, multiple bills, and we still 
have the regulatory rock around our necks. It is hard on agriculture, 
it does not hurt the environment, and yet, it even increases costs to 
consumers across this country.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EWING. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the gentleman 
that the process has worked as far as the substance of the gentleman's 
issue is concerned. This body has acted in last Congress and this 
Congress. It is the other body that has not acted. I suggest the 
gentleman direct his anger to the other body.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, then, why the 
objection to do it? We need to do it, get it out 

[[Page H 9759]]
there is an individual bill so it will not die as part of some other 
legislation. The people of this country cannot understand how we can be 
so bureaucratic. It is time for a change. The Corrections Day Calendar 
is a good calendar, and I would certainly encourage people of get 
behind this bill. Let us show the American people we do care about what 
they are concerned about, that we do care and that we can make 
government effective, efficient, and responsible.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my strong 
support for two bills we are considering today, both of which were 
introduced by my good friend and colleague Representative Hutchinson.
  H.R. 1384 makes an important contribution to veterans health care by 
helping ensure that the VA health care system can retain the best 
health personnel. Unfortunately, existing VA regulations actually 
create a disincentive for many health care professionals to work in the 
VA health care system.
  By restricting nurses, physician assistants, and dental auxiliaries 
from obtaining additional work outside the VA, we are forcing these 
personnel to make a choice between remaining in the VA, or leaving the 
system altogether. Many of these employees feel that they must obtain 
income from secondary sources in order to support their families and 
make ends meet. They should be allowed to do so, while still serving 
the VA. We should not risk losing talented people in the VA health care 
system simply because of an outdated regulation that no longer serves a 
useful purpose.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1536, 
which will extend the VA's authority to use local salary data to 
determine the salary levels of nurse anesthetists. This provision is 
necessary to ensure that nurse anesthetists are fairly compensated for 
their services, in the same manner that compensation for regular nurses 
is determined through the Veterans Affairs Nurse Pay Act of 1990.
  As a member of the Veterans' Subcommittee on Hospitals and Health 
Care, I was pleased to support both of these bills at both the 
subcommittee and the full committee level. I want to thank Chairman 
Hutchinson for his diligent work on these legislative initiatives, and 
urge all my colleagues to give their full support to these two 
measures.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the previous question 
is ordered.
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Burr].
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and (three-fifths having voted in favor 
thereof) the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________