[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 175 (Tuesday, November 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H11807-H11808]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    EDIBLE OIL REGULATORY REFORM ACT

  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 436), to require the head of any Federal 
agency to differentiate between fats, oils, and greases of animal, 
marine, and vegetable origin, and other oils and greases, in issuing 
certain regulations, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments 
thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Clerk read the Senate amendments, as follows:

       Page 2, line 8, after ``to'' insert: ``the transportation, 
     storage, discharge, release, emission, or disposal of''.
       Page 2, line 9, strike out ``any'' the second time it 
     appears and insert ``that''.
       Page 2, line 18, strike out ``such'' and insert ``that''.
       Page 2, line 22, strike out ``different'' the first time it 
     appears.
       Page 2, line 23, strike out ``as provided'' and insert: 
     ``based on considerations''.
       Page 3, line 12, strike out ``carrying oil in bulk as cargo 
     or cargo residue''.
       Page 3, line 13, after ``carried'' insert ``as cargo''.

  Mr. BILBRAY (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the Senate amendments be considered as read and printed in 
the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would 
like to yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray] so that he 
could tell us the changes made in the Senate version as related to the 
original House revision.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. de la GARZA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, the Senate has included the reference in 
the first section A to include the transportation, storage, discharge, 
and release of emissions or disposal thereof, which actually was part 
of our original bill that came out of committee. They have retained the 
other sections, except for in reference to cargo and transportation.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, in behalf of the Committee on Agriculture, we have no 
objection.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, today the U.S. House of Representatives has 
an opportunity to finally remedy one of the unnecessary and illogical 
Federal regulations that led to the creation of corrections day. H.R. 
436, the Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act, which I introduced early 
this year, along with Ms. Danner of Missouri, will restore common sense 
to the Federal regulatory process by requiring Federal agencies to 
recognize the obvious differences between edible oils and toxic oils 
when issuing and promulgating regulations.
  In addition to thanking Ms. Danner, I also want to thank Speaker 
Gingrich, who deserves special credit for establishing the corrections 
day process which allows the Congress to take expedited action to 
correct unnecessary, and sometime foolish, regulations which hurt our 
economy and frustrate the American public. Lastly, I want to thank 
Chairman Bliley, Chairman Roberts, Chairman Shuster, and the 
corrections day task force for all of their cooperation and assistance, 
which has allowed the House to reach this point, adopt H.R. 436, and 
send the bill to the President for his signature.
  The agricultural oils covered by H.R. 436 are nontoxic, natural 
products, like cooking and salad oils, which many of us eat every day. 
Their unnecessarily stringent regulation forces producers, shippers, 
and manufacturers to comply with costly and counterproductive 
requirements, without providing any additional measure of protection to 
the environment or 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 
common sense legislation does not change or weaken the underlying 
principles of the Oil Protection Act of 1990 or other related statutes 
like the Clean Water Act.
  In passing H.R. 436, Congress is sending a strong message to Federal 
regulators. It is the Congress' intent for Federal agencies to 
recognize, and not ignore, the differences between animal fats and 
vegetable oils and all 

[[Page H 11808]]
other oils, including toxic petroleum oil. Specifically, H.R. 436 
requires Federal agencies charged with regulation of the 
transportation, storage, discharge, release, emission, or disposal of 
oil to establish a separate class for animal fats and vegetable oils 
and to consider the differences in characteristics of these edible oils 
and other types of oils.
  While an agency may consider the characteristics of animal fats and 
vegetable oil and determine that for a particular regulation no 
differentiation is required, the agency may only do that where there 
are no differences in the characteristics that are relevant to that 
regulation. For example, in the case of regulations dealing with oil 
spill response, common sense dictates that the non-toxic, 
biodegradable, and nonpersistent characteristics of animal fats and 
vegetable oils be recognized and reflected in the oil spill response 
regulations. It seems clear to everybody except Federal regulators that 
the Oil Pollution Act was designed to reduce the risk of, improve the 
response to, and minimize the impact of 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 
fowled with petroleum, and vegetable oils are also being explored as 
substitute lubricants for machinery in environmentally sensitive areas. 
This not only demonstrates the significant difference between vegetable 
oils and petroleum oils, it highlights the fact that animal fats and 
vegetable oils do not pose the same risk to human health and the 
environment, and should not be treated the same way.
  The financial responsibility relief provided in H.R. 436, as amended, 
applies only to exclusive shippers of animal fats and vegetable 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 par with 
other shipments of nontoxic products, and it will allow U.S. 
agricultural oils to be more competitive in world markets.
  Although the House has already acted three times on this issue in the 
104th Congress, H.R. 436 should be adopted as a stand-alone measure 
because similar language was adopted twice in the House and once in the 
Senate during the 103rd Congress, only to see the underlying bills 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 voice votes in both the Commerce and Agriculture Committees, 
and in the House on October 10. In fact, judging from the bipartisan 
mix of cosponsors, H.R. 436 enjoys broad support and is absolutely non-
controversial.

  Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of the Members--from both 
sides of the aisle--who have worked hard to see H.R. 436 enacted, for 
their input and cooperation on this issue. It is time to finally solve 
this problem.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support H.R. 436.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 436, the Edible 
Oil Regulatory Reform Act, as amended by the Senate. The legislation 
passed the House, as part of the Corrections Day Calendar, on October 
10, 1995. The Senate passed the bill with minor amendments on November 
2, 1995.
  The bill embodies the overwhelming sentiment that Congress can and 
should interject common sense into various Federal regulations.
  H.R. 436, requires that Federal regulations differencies between 
animal fats and vegetable oils on the one hand, and petroleum products 
on the other. It does not exempt animal fats and vegetable oils from 
any regulatory requirement. The bill simply requires Federal regulators 
to consider the different physical, biological, and chemical properties 
of these oils as opposed to petroleum based oils.
  The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has already passed 
language very similar to H.R. 436 in two separate contexts: section 413 
of H.R. 1361, the Coast Guard Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996, 
and section 506 of H.R. 961, the Clean Water Amendments of 1995. Both 
bills subsequent passed the House of Representatives by wide margins.
  Over the last several years, the Committee has gathered testimony and 
other data indicating that the need for this legisaltion stems 
primarily from the current or proposed regulations under the Oil 
Pollution Act of 1990 and the Clean Water Act--statutes which are under 
the jurisdiction of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
  When Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, in the wake of 
the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the focus was on crude oil and other 
petroleum products, not on animal fats or vegetable oils. Although the 
definition of oil under both the Oil Pollution Act and the Clean Water 
Act can be read to include these products, regulating them under 
standards developed for petroleum oils make no sense. This is a prime 
example of the kind of regulation run amok that has given rise to the 
corrections calendar.
  This is a common sense reform. It does not say that animal fat and 
vegetable oil should be exempt from regulation. It merely requires 
Federal agencies to take a second look at these substances and regulate 
them according to their relative threat to the environment.
  We believe substances that are biodegradable, nonpersistent in the 
environment, and are essentially components of human and wildlife diets 
should not be treated the same as crude oil. It's that simple. In 
addition, these products are shipped in much smaller quantities than 
petroleum based products and they have a safety record that is the envy 
of the marine industry. Only 4 tenths of 1 percent of the spills from 
1986-1992 were from animal fats or vegetable oils.
  I would also add a note of thanks to the bill's primary sponsors, 
Representative Ewing and Representative Danner, and other supporters, 
for their efforts. Because it was drafted in a generic, agency-wide 
manner, H.R. 436 was initially referred to the Commerce and Agriculture 
Committees. All of us know, however, that the primary purpose of the 
bill is to address problems under the Oil Pollution Act and the Clean 
Water Act, which are under the jurisdiction of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee. Therefore, I also want to thank the 
leadership of both Committees for their cooperation in getting this 
important legislation to the House floor, through the other body, and--
I hope--on its way to the President.
  I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________