Congressional Record, Volume 141 Issue 156 (Tuesday, October 10, 1995)

[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

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 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,'' (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

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.

____________________}}}}