[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 172 (Thursday, November 2, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S16617-S16620]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    EDIBLE OIL REGULATORY REFORM ACT

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 436 just received from 
the House.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will state the bill by title.

       A 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 PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate 
consideration of the bill?
  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.


                           Amendment No. 3044

     (Purpose: To make minor and technical changes, and for other 
     purposes)
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole], for Mr. Chafee, for 
     himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Pressler, Mr. Lugar, and Mr. Harkin, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3044.
     
[[Page S 16618]]

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 2, line 8, after ``to'' insert ``the 
     transportation, storage, discharge, release, emission, or 
     disposal of''.
       On page 2, line 9, strike ``any'' and insert ``that''.
       On page 2, line 18, strike ``such'' and insert ``that''.
       On page 2, line 22, strike ``different'' the first place it 
     occurs.
       On page 2, line 23, strike ``as provided'' and insert 
     ``based on considerations''.
       On page 3, line 12, strike ``carrying oil in bulk as cargo 
     or cargo residue''.
       On page 3, line 13, after ``carried'' insert ``as cargo''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3044) was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the Senate recently received from the 
House H.R. 436, the Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act. The bill would 
amend the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, or OPA-90. As chairman of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee, which has exclusive 
jurisdiction over OPA-90, I support the Senate's passage of H.R. 436 by 
unanimous consent without delay.
  As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee at the time 
the committee reported the bill that became OPA-90, I am well 
acquainted with the statute. As many of us will recall, the Congress 
enacted OPA-90 in the aftermath of the catastrophic Exxon Valdez 
oilspill in Prince William Sound, AK.
  One of the key elements of OPA-90 requires all vessels to demonstrate 
a certain minimum level of financial responsibility to cover the costs 
of cleanup and damages in the event of an oil-spill. The intent behind 
this requirement is to ensure that an entity that discharges oil into 
our natural environment pay for the costs and damages arising from the 
spill--not the U.S. taxpayer. This intent remains sound and should 
continue to inform the application of the statute.
  In passing OPA-90, however, Congress did not intend to abandon the 
use of common sense. As the act currently stands, there is no 
distinction made in the financial responsibility requirements for oil-
carrying vessels, regardless of the kind of oil being carried. 
Therefore, a vessel carrying sunflower oil is held to the same 
requirements under OPA-90 as a carrier of deep crude.
  H.R. 436 simply recognizes that vegetable oils and animal fats are 
different from petroleum oils. Most important, they are different in 
ways that make it less likely that a spill of vegetable oil or animal 
fat will cause the same kind of environmental damage as would a 
petroleum oilspill. For example, vegetable oils and animal fats contain 
none of the toxic components of petroleum oil.
  This is not to suggest that a spill of vegetable oil or animal fat 
will have no adverse environmental impacts. Experience has shown to the 
contrary, especially in the case of the Blue Earth River spill in 
Minnesota in the mid-1960's. Here it is important to note that H.R. 436 
would not provide an exemption for carriers of vegetable oil or animal 
fats. They still would be subject to a mandatory minimum financial 
responsibility requirement under OPA-90.
  Thus, H.R. 436 will lend more rationality to the application of OPA-
90 while maintaining the fundamental integrity of the act's purpose and 
approach. I commend my colleagues in the House for recognizing an 
opportunity to improve the implementation of an environmental statute.
  Finally, as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, 
let me say that I appreciate the willingness of all Senators to 
expedite action on this bill. Without unanimous consent, H.R. 436 would 
have been referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. My 
review of the bill has convinced me that it is a straightforward, 
commonsense piece of legislation on which committee hearings are 
unnecessary and to which I can lend my support.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the 
passage of H.R. 436, the Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act. Passage of 
this measure is long overdue.
  The problem this measure would address is how Federal agencies 
regulate the shipment of edible oils, as compared with toxic oils. 
Action is needed because agencies currently do not make a distinction 
between these two kinds of oils. Unless we pass H.R. 436, we face a 
potential loss in agricultural exports and diminished farm income.
  This issue is not new to this body. Last year, I joined Senator Lugar 
and Senator Harkin in sponsoring similar legislation that passed the 
Senate but did not become law.
  As a result, earlier this year, I joined Senator Lugar and 14 other 
Senators in introducing S. 679, the Senate counterpart to H.R. 436. By 
passing H.R. 436, we immediately can clear this bill for the 
President's signature.
  The bill is simple and very straight-forward. Under H.R. 436, 
regulatory agencies would be required to establish separate standards 
governing shipments of edible oilseeds and shipments of toxic oils, 
such as petroleum. Presently, Federal agencies enforce the Oil 
Pollution Act of 1990 in a manner that treats animal fats and vegetable 
oils in the same way as toxic oils.
  Mr. President, this kind of enforcement was never congressional 
intent. The bill we are considering today would state clearly to 
Federal agencies that edible oils are not to be treated in the same 
manner as toxic oils. However, let me be clear. Under no circumstance 
would this bill change the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 as it relates to 
toxic oils.
  This bill has strong support. I ask unanimous consent that a list of 
organizations supporting the measure be printed in the Record at this 
point.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

      Organizations Supporting Animal Fat/ Vegetable Oil Amendment

       American Bakers Association.
       American Crop Protection Association.
       American Feed Industry Association.
       American Frozen Food Institute.
       American Meat Institute.
       American Soybean Association.
       Beer Institute.
       Biscuit and Cracker Manufacturers' Association.
       Chicago Board of Trade.
       Chocolate Manufacturers Association.
       Corn Refiners Association.
       Flavor & Extract Manufcturers' Association.
       Food Industry Environmental Council.
       Food Marketing Institute.
       Fragrance Material Association.
       Grocery Manufacturers of America.
       Independent Bakers Association.
       Institute of Shortening and Edible Oils.
       Intenational Dairy Foods Association.
       National American Wholesale Grocers Assn.
       National Association of Margarine Manufacturers.
       National Broiler Council.
       National Cattlemen's Association
       National Confectioners Association.
       National Corn Growers Association.
       National Cotton Council of America.
       National Cottonseed Products Association.
       National Council of Farmer Cooperatives.
       National Fish Meal & Oil Association.
       National Fisheries Institute.
       National Food Processors Association.
       National Grain and Feed Association.
       National Grain Trade Council.
       National Industrial Transportation League.
       National Institute of Oilseed Products.
       National Oilseed Processors Association.
       National Pasta Association.
       National Pork Producers Council.
       National Renderers Association.
       National Soft Drink Association.
       National Sunflower Association.
       National Turkey Federation.
       North American Export Grain Association.
       Snack Food Association.
       U.S. Canola Association.

  Mr. PRESSLER. The need for H.R. 436 is compelling. Without action, we 
are diminishing inadvertently agricultural exports. In addition, 
existing regulations could have a chilling effect on the development of 
new crops and new uses of crop production.
  Farm exports are nearing all time highs. The future for oilseeds is 
equally bright. However, current enforcement of the Oil Pollution Act 
works against this progress. It has become clearly evident that 
existing regulations would seriously impact exports of U.S. 
agricultural commodities, especially vegetable oils and animal fats. 
Unless we pass this bill, the U.S. animal fat and vegetable oil 
industries are faced with lost export sales of more than $125 million. 
It is a critical time for oilseed crushers, who are operating at peak 
capacity with the new oilseed crop. Losing export markets could lead to 
an oversupply situation that could cut the 

[[Page S 16619]]

value of the U.S. soybean crop by more than $1 billion.
  New crops and new industrial uses for agricultural raw materials mean 
greater demand for farm commodities. New industrial crops allow farmers 
to diversify their farming systems and income sources, improve crop 
rotations and reduce reliance on government commodity programs.
  Jobs and income would be generated as new crops are taken from the 
farm gate to the processors and on to the wholesalers and retailers. 
The predominant post-farming activity would be in the transportation, 
manufacturing, distribution and support sectors of farm states.
  New crops to grow in South Dakota are likely to be edible oilseeds. 
The most likely candidates are crambe, industrial rapeseed and canola. 
They could compliment South Dakota's production of sunflowers, which is 
a major industry in my state. Production in 1994 was valued at nearly 
$150 million. Most of the sunflower production in South Dakota is for 
oil, and at least 40 percent of the sunflower production in South 
Dakota is exported.
  In summary, Mr. President, there is a great need for this bill to 
become law. The bill simply would put common sense into existing 
regulations and would help those regulations come into line with 
Congressional intent. And the winners out of all this are our farmers 
and ranchers. I urge passage of H.R. 436.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am pleased to support passage of 
legislation to encourage regulatory common sense. Senators Pressler, 
Harkin, and others joined me in introducing the Senate version of the 
Edible Oil Regulatory Reform At (S. 679) on April 5. I am pleased that 
the House approved its version of this bill (H.R. 436) on October 10, 
and urge my colleagues to support Senate passage.
  This legislation will correct two problems: First, the regulation of 
edible oils in a manner similar to toxic oils like petroleum, and 
second, the requirement that Certifications of financial Responsibility 
[COFR] accompanying vessels carrying edible oils equal those of vessels 
carrying toxic oils. This bill is similar to legislation which passed 
Congress last year, but was not given final approval.
  In response to the Exxon Valdez oil-spill in 1990, Congress passed 
the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which requires several Federal agencies 
to enhance regulatory activities with regard to the shipping and 
handling of hazardous oils.
  In 1993, the Transportation Department proposed regulations to guard 
against oil spills, and require response plans if spills did occur. DOT 
proposed to treat vegetable oils--that is, salad oils--in the same way 
as petroleum. Among other things, salad oils would have been officially 
declared hazardous materials, with all the regulatory requirements and 
extra costs which that designation entails.
  This was a classic example of regulatory overreaching. Vegetable oil, 
of course, is different from petroleum. Vegetable oil processors 
thought it entirely appropriate that they undertake response plans to 
guard against major spills.
  The industry did not argue that they should be example from 
regulation. The industry argue that regulators should take into account 
obvious differences--in toxicity, biodegradability, environmental 
persistence and other factors--between vegetable oils on the one hand, 
and toxic petroleum oils on the other.
  Secretary Pena eventually agreed with us and prompted modification of 
DOT's position. However, he does not have jurisdiction over all 
agencies with a role in regulating oil spills. More recently, the 
industry has been working with other agencies which have a role in 
regulating oils and ensuring adequate financial responsibility in the 
event of a spill.
  No one is any longer proposing to call salad dressing or mayonnaise 
hazardous material, but agencies are requiring that spill response 
plans for vegetable oils be quite similar to those for petroleum.
  The most recent problem arose in December, 1994, when Coast Guard 
regulations subjected vessels carrying vegetable oil to the same 
standard of liability and financial responsibility as supertankers 
carrying petroleum. On December 28, 1994, the Coast Guard began 
requiring the same standard--a $1,200 per gross ton or $10 million of 
financial responsibility--on vessels carrying vegetable oil and 
petroleum oil in U.S. waters or calling at U.S. ports. On July 1, 
similar standards were phased in on barges operating on U.S. navigable 
waterways.

  Prior to December 28, a COFR requirement of $150 per gross ton 
applied to all vessels regardless of the hazardous nature or toxicity 
of the cargo. The vegetable oil industry does not seek a return to this 
earlier standard, but seeks regulation under a $600 per gross ton COFR 
requirement that Coast Guard regulations apply to vessels carrying 
other commodities. It is worth noting that this new financial 
responsibility standard for edible oil would be four times the COFR 
required on toxic petroleum oils prior to December 28, 1994.
  Application of the most stringent standard to vessels carrying 
vegetable oil adds to the cost of transporting U.S. vegetable oil to 
foreign markets. The additional costs of these burdensome regulations 
are passed back to farmers in reduced prices for commodities. Consumers 
may also bear a burden in higher food prices. In addition, there have 
been instances in 1995 where this unjustified additional cost has made 
U.S. vegetable oil uncompetitive and has resulted in lost exports.
  H.R. 436 would not exempt vegetable oil shipments from COFR 
requirements or regulation. It would only apply a more appropriate 
standard of financial responsibility to vegetable oil, similar to that 
applied to vessels carrying other commodities.
  The scientific data collected to date indicate that the animal fats 
and vegetable oils industry has an excellent spill history justifying 
differentiation of these edible materials from toxic oils. 
Specifically, these products account for less than one half of one 
percent of all oil spills in the U.S. In addition, most spills of these 
products are less than 1,000 gallons.
  The industry seeks a separate category for vegetable oils. This is as 
much because of scientific differences in the oils as it is for 
economic reasons. There is no reason why non-toxic vegetable oils must 
be in the same category as toxic oils.
  Second, the industry seeks response requirements that recognize the 
different characteristics of animal fats and vegetable oils within this 
separate category. A separate category without separate response 
requirements reflecting different toxicity and biodegradability is 
nothing more than a hollow gesture.
  The Senate and House of Representatives last year passed virtually 
identical legislation on different legislative vehicles to ensure that 
both of these objectives are accomplished. Under H.R. 436, the 
underlying principles of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 would remain 
unchanged with the language to require differentiation of animal fats 
and vegetable oils from other oils. The House approved this language 
twice last year as part of H.R. 4422 and H.R. 4852. The Senate passed 
the bill as S. 2559. Since final action on this legislation was not 
completed in the last Congress, it is before the Senate again.
  This bill does not tell the Coast Guard or any other agency what it 
must put into regulations. The legislation simply says that in 
rulemaking under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act or the Oil 
Pollution Act of 1990, these agencies must differentiate between 
vegetable oils and animal fats on one hand, and other oils including 
petroleum on the other.
  The bill specifies that the agencies should consider differences in 
the physical, chemical, biological or other properties and the effects 
on human health and the environment effects of these oils.
  This bill does not exempt vegetable oils from the Oil Pollution Act 
of 1990. It is a modest effort to encourage common sense in an area of 
regulation that has not always been marked by that characteristic. I 
hope my colleagues will support the legislation.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased that we have been able to 
work out the details on this legislation to clear the way for its 
passage today. It seems that we have been working on this issue for 
quite a long time, and it is gratifying to reach this resolution. 
Certainly this bill will provide a significant measure of regulatory 
relief to 

[[Page S 16620]]

those in the food and agriculture industry who have been affected by 
the imposition of regulations on the storage, transportation, and 
handling of edible oils that are really designed for hazardous 
petroleum oils.
  Senator Lugar and I introduced legislation to resolve this instance 
of unnecessary regulation a year and a half ago. Unfortunately, we were 
not able to get the measure passed in the same bill by both the House 
and Senate last fall, although it did pass both houses in different 
bills. I was pleased to join Senator Lugar again this year in 
reintroducing the legislation along with Senator Pressler. I am also 
grateful for the help provided by Senator Chafee and Senator Baucus in 
working out modifications to the bill to ensure that it will adequately 
address the problems we are seeking to solve without potentially 
creating unintended or unforeseen problems.
  This legislation is simply designed to bring common sense to Federal 
regulations involving the transportation, handling, and storage of 
edible oils. Common sense tells us regulations pertaining to these 
substances need not, and should not, be as stringent as those 
applicable to other oils, such as petroleum oils or other toxic oils, 
which pose a far more significant level of health, safety, and 
environmental risk in the event of a spill, discharge, or mishandling. 
Animal fats and vegetable oils are essential components of food 
products that we consume every day. The scientific evidence indicates 
they are not toxic in the environment, are essential nutritional 
components, are biodegradable, and are not persistent in the 
environment.
  Regrettably, a commonsense approach to regulation of animal fats and 
vegetable oils has been more difficult to achieve than one might think, 
as the experience under implementation of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 
demonstrates. Although some of the problems have been worked out, there 
still exists in the industry substantial uncertainty whether regulators 
will properly differentiate edible fats and oils from petroleum and 
other toxic oils. This legislation will resolve the uncertainty and 
eliminate the costs associated with this kind of unnecessary 
regulation.
  The bill will not exempt edible oils from regulation, but will only 
require that regulators differentiate animal fats and vegetable oils 
from other oils, including petroleum oil, considering differences in 
physical, chemical, biological, and other properties, and in the 
effects on human health and the environment, of the classes of oils. 
The bill will do no more than alleviate the substantial threat of 
overregulation of animal fats and vegetable oils in ways that clearly 
could not have been intended by Congress. It will bring some 
reasonableness and clarity to issues that are now characterized by 
confusion and uncertainty.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be 
deemed read the third time and passed, as amended, the motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to 
the bill appear at the appropriate place in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  So the bill (H.R. 436), as amended, was passed.

                          ____________________