[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 78 (Tuesday, June 16, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H4585-H4590]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FASTENER QUALITY ACT AMENDMENTS
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the bill (H.R. 3824) amending the Fastener Quality Act to exempt from
its coverage certain fasteners approved by the Federal Aviation
Administration for use in aircraft, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 3824
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT.
Section 15 of the Fastener Quality Act (15 U.S.C. 5414) is
amended--
[[Page H4586]]
(1) by inserting ``(a) Transitional Rule.--'' before ``The
requirements of this Act''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(b) Aircraft Exemption.--
``(1) In general.--The requirements of this Act shall not
apply to fasteners specifically manufactured or altered for
use on an aircraft if the quality and suitability of those
fasteners for that use has been approved by the Federal
Aviation Administration, except as provided in paragraph (2).
``(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to
fasteners represented by the fastener manufacturer as having
been manufactured in conformance with standards or
specifications established by a consensus standards
organization or a Federal agency other than the Federal
Aviation Administration.''.
SEC. 2. DELAYED IMPLEMENTATION OF REGULATIONS.
The regulations issued under the Fastener Quality Act by
the National Institute of Standards and Technology on April
14, 1998, and any other regulations issued by the National
Institute of Standards and Technology pursuant to the
Fastener Quality Act, shall not take effect until after the
later of June 1, 1999, or the expiration of 120 days after
the Secretary of Commerce transmits to the Committee on
Science and the Committee on Commerce of the House of
Representatives, and to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation of the Senate, a report on--
(1) changes in fastener manufacturing processes that have
occurred since the enactment of the Fastener Quality Act; and
(2) any changes in that Act that may be warranted because
of the changes reported under paragraph (1).
The report required by this section shall be transmitted to
the Committee on Science and the Committee on Commerce of the
House of Representatives, and to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation of the Senate, by February 1,
1999.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Barcia) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).
General Leave
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks on H.R. 3824.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
{time} 1500
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. SENSENBRENNER asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, the Fastener Quality Act was signed
into law in 1990. It required all threaded metallic fasteners of one-
quarter inch diameter or greater that reference a consensus standard to
be documented by a National Institute of Standards and Technology's
certified laboratory. Although the legislation has been on the books
for over 8 years, concerns over the bill's impact on the economy have
delayed its implementation of final regulations. NIST regulations are
slated to go into effect on July 26 of this year.
H.R. 3824 amends the Fastener Quality Act by exempting fasteners
produced or altered to the standards and specifications of aviation
manufacturers from the new regulations. Exempting the proprietary
fasteners of aviation manufacturers from the Fastener Quality Act makes
sense, considering aviation manufacturers are already required by law
to demonstrate to the FAA that they have a quality control system which
ensures that their products, including fasteners, meet design
specifications. Subjecting the proprietary fasteners of aviation
manufacturers to a second set of Federal regulations is redundant and
unnecessary. In fact, the FAA has stated that doing so may even
undermine the current level of aviation safety.
In addition to the Fastener Quality Act's impact on aviation
manufacturing, several questions have been raised about the Act's
effect on other industries. For instance, the automotive industry
projects costs of compliance through the motor vehicle industry could
be greater than $300 million a year without necessarily enhancing
vehicle safety.
Furthermore, since 1990, the scope of the Fastener Quality Act seems
to have grown. Originally intended to ensure public safety, today, if
the NIST regulations are to be implemented, even garden hose fasteners
such as those produced by Sheboygan Screw Products, Incorporated, in my
district could be forced to comply with the additional burdens of the
Act. I am not sure what dangers faulty garden hose fasteners may cause,
but I am sure that preventing the public from being susceptible to hose
failures will be expensive.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3824 addresses the concerns by, first, delaying the
regulations issued by NIST under the Fastener Quality Act on this
subject until after June 1, 1999. Second, requiring the Secretary of
Commerce to transmit to Congress a report on changes in fastener
manufacturing processes that have occurred since the enactment of the
Fastener Quality Act and recommend any changes to the act that may be
warranted because of those changes.
Delaying NIST regulations until next year gives us the opportunity to
take a closer look at the Fastener Quality Act, especially considering
it was crafted over 8 years ago. As Chairman of the Committee on
Science, I have pledged to hold additional hearings on this issue in
the coming months. We may find that changes in the fastener
manufacturing products have diminished the need for further regulations
in this area, or even that this act should be repealed.
H.R. 3824 was reported by the Committee on Science on May 13, 1998.
It has wide bipartisan support and it has been endorsed by several
business organizations, including the United States Chamber of
Commerce. Original cosponsors of this legislation include the
gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and the gentleman from Utah
(Mr. Cook).
In addition, I wish to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis);
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia); the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Traficant); the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle); the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Hastert); the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon)
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter); the other gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Weller); and the third gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Manzullo) for endorsing this bill and helping promote its speedy
passage. I would also like to thank the Committee on Commerce chairman,
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) and the ranking member, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), as well as the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure chairman, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the ranking member, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), for discharging the bill to enable its
passage before the July 26 regulatory deadline.
Mr. Speaker, at this point I would insert our committee's exchange of
correspondence into the Record, and I strongly urge all of my
colleagues to support this common sense regulation.
Committee on Commerce,
Washington, DC, June 3, 1998.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman, House Committee on Science,
Washington, DC.
Dear Jim: On May 13, 1998 the Committee on Science ordered
reported H.R. 3824, a bill amending the Fastener Quality Act
of 1990 (15 U.S.C. Sec. 5401 et al.) to exempt from its
coverage certain fasteners approved by the Federal Aviation
Administration for use in aircraft. As you know, the
Committee on Commerce was named as an additional committee of
jurisdiction and has had a longstanding interest in the issue
of fastener quality and the Fastener Quality Act. This
interest goes back to the 100th Congress, at which time the
Committee undertook an investigation of counterfeit and
substandard fasteners. This investigation resulted in the
issuance of a unanimously approved Subcommittee report
entitled ``the Threat from Substandard Fasteners: Is America
Losing Its Grip?'' which ultimately led to the approval by
our respective committees of the Fastener Quality Act of
1990.
H.R. 3824, as ordered reported, would amend the Fastener
Quality Act in two ways. First, the bill exempts fasteners
approved for use in aircraft by the Federal Aviation
Administration from the requirements of the Act. Secondly, it
delays implementation of the final regulations until the
Secretary of Commerce and the Congress have had an
opportunity to consider developments in manufacturing and
quality assurance techniques since the law was enacted.
Because of the important and timely nature of these
amendments to the Fastener Quality Act, I recognize your
desire to bring this legislation before the House in an
expeditious manner. I also understand that you
[[Page H4587]]
have agreed to address several technical issues raised by
this Committee in a manager's amendment to be offered on the
Floor. Therefore, with that understanding, I will waive
consideration of the bill by the Commerce Committee. By
agreeing to waive its consideration of the bill, the Commerce
Committee does not waive its jurisdiction over these
provisions. In addition, the Commerce Committee reserves its
authority to seek conferees on these and any other provisions
of the bill that are within the Commerce Committee's
jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference that may be
convened on this legislation. I would seek your commitment to
support any request by the Commerce Committee for conferees
on amendments to the Fastener Quality Act or related
legislation.
I would appreciate your including this letter as a part of
the Committee's report on H.R. 3824 and as part of the record
during consideration of this bill by the House.
Sincerely,
Tom Bliley,
Chairman.
____
Committee on Science,
Washington, DC, June 4, 1998.
Hon. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.,
Chairman, House Committee on Commerce,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bliley: Thank you for your letter of June 3
regarding H.R. 3824, the recently passed Science Committee
amendments to the Fastener Quality Act (FQA) of 1990 (15
U.S.C. Sec. 5401 et seq.).
I appreciate your willingness to work with us to examine
the need to amend the FQA.
As you note in your letter, the Committees on Commerce and
Science have long shared jurisdiction over FQA. By agreeing
to the expeditious consideration of H.R. 3824 on the House
floor, the Committee on Commerce does not waive any of its
jurisdictional rights. Should the Committee on Commerce seek
conferees on provisions of the bill within its jurisdiction,
I will support such a request.
The Committee on Science will include this exchange of
letters within the report of the Science Committee and will
work with you to ensure that the technical amendments to the
bill requested by your Committee are included in the bill
when H.R. 3824 is brought before the full House for its
consideration.
I look forward to continuing to work with you on this and
other matters.
Sincerely,
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman.
____
Committee on Science,
Washington, DC, June 4, 1998.
Hon. Bud Shuster,
Chairman, House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Shuster: Thank you for helping expedite
consideration of H.R. 3824, the recently passed Science
Committee amendments to the Fastener Quality Act (FQA) of
1990 (15 U.S.C. Sec. 5401 et seq.), by agreeing not to
request a sequential referral on the bill. I agree that
through this action the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure does not waive any of its jurisdictional
rights associated with the bill.
Additionally, the Committee on Science will include this
exchange of letters within the report of the Science
Committee.
I look forward to continuing to work with you on this and
other matters.
Sincerely,
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman.
____
Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC, June 5, 1998.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on Science,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that the Committee on
Science recently ordered reported H.R. 3824, a bill amending
the Fastener Quality Act to exempt from its coverage certain
fasteners approved by the Federal Aviation Administration for
use in aircraft.
In recognition of your Committee's desire to move this
legislation expeditiously through the House of
Representatives, the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure agrees to waive its referral of the bill.
However, this action should not be construed as waiving or
otherwise diminishing the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure's jurisdiction over the bill or issues
associated with H.R. 3824. In addition, should a conference
on H.R. 3824 or a similar measure become necessary, I would
ask you to support the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure being represented on the conference committee.
Finally, I ask that you make this letter a part of the
Committee on Science's report on the bill.
Once again, it has been a pleasure working with you and
your staff, and I look forward to seeing H.R. 3824 scheduled
for Floor consideration very soon.
With warm personal regards I am
Sincerely,
Bud Shuster,
Chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Committee on Science
leadership, especially the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner); the ranking Democratic Member, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Brown); and the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on
Technology (Mrs. Morella); as well as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Dingell), the principal author of the Fastener Quality Act, for their
diligence in bringing House Resolution 3824 to the floor on an
expedited basis.
Through today's action, we in the House are showing that we are ready
and willing to do our part in making these corrections, and we hope
that the Senate will find a way to bring their bill to the floor as
soon as possible. We on the House side stand ready to do all that is
necessary to clear this legislation for the President in advance of the
July 4th district work period.
It is clear from our subcommittee hearing, and from extensive
conversations we have had with a cross-section of manufacturing
companies, that it would be unwise to allow regulations implementing
the Fastener Quality Act to go into effect without a careful review of
how that act relates to the current state of manufacturing. In fact,
the automobile industry has estimated that they will incur more than
$300 million in annual compliance costs should this legislation fail to
be signed by the President before the July 26 implementation date.
The primary purpose of the Fastener Quality Act was to avoid
disasters caused by the counterfeiting of bolts by unscrupulous
manufacturers. Unlike the proprietary fasteners of auto or aircraft
manufacturers, many of these fasteners were not easily traceable from
their end use back to their manufacturer.
However, while it has been argued that an increasingly competitive
marketplace has made the Fastener Quality Act unnecessary, we know of
no current study showing the extent to which protections, other than
the Fastener Quality Act, are now in place to prevent a recurrence of
the old problem. In fact, many of the countries that exported defective
fasteners in the 1980s are currently in economic turmoil and their
current economic situation may cause them to once again exhibit
unscrupulous behavior and flood American markets with counterfeit
fasteners.
Therefore, I feel the study contained in the act is necessary to give
us the assurance that the problem is permanently under control before
we relax the act for nonproprietary fasteners.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), who is the
chair of the subcommittee that helped develop this bill.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as an original cosponsor of
H.R. 3824 and a very strong proponent of its speedy enactment. I want
to very much thank the Committee on Science chairman the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner); the ranking member the gentleman from
California (Mr. Brown); and indeed the ranking member on the
Subcommittee on Technology (Mr. Barcia). We have all worked together
very closely on this bill, because it is important.
Last month, the Subcommittee on Technology held a hearing to examine
the 1990 Fastener Quality Act in aviation manufacturing. There was wide
agreement by the aviation industry, the FAA, and NIST, that passage of
the aviation exemption found in H.R. 3824 would save aviation
manufacturers and their consumers money, while enhancing public safety.
In addition to addressing issues raised about the Fastener Quality
Act's impact on the aviation industry, I am pleased that H.R. 3824 also
includes an amendment that I offered during the Committee on Science's
markup of the legislation, in cooperation with the Subcommittee on
Technology's ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia),
to delay the implementation of the Fastener Quality Act's regulations
on all other industries until June of 1999, or 120 days after the
Secretary of Commerce issues a report on changes needed to the law,
whichever is later.
Under the amendment, the Secretary of Commerce is required to submit
to
[[Page H4588]]
Congress a report on the improvements that have taken place over the
last 9 years and the manner in which fasteners are manufactured. Based
on these improvements and any other relevant information derived from
the Secretary's review, or the Committee on Science's hearing record,
the Secretary must make recommendations to Congress on how best to
alter the 1990 act. Mr. Speaker, it is my expectation that the
Secretary will find that substantive and important changes to the act
are needed in order to ensure that our Nation's economy does not suffer
from outdated regulations.
Following the Secretary's report, Congress will have 120 days to act
on the recommended changes or proposed alternative provisions. To
ensure that we are ready when the time comes, the Subcommittee on
Technology will begin to hold hearings this summer on the need to
further revise the Fastener Quality Act.
Without the delay in implementation of the regulations, several
industries, including the automotive manufacturing industry, may suffer
production delays that will impede product delivery and increase costs.
As we all know, increases in production costs result in job lay-offs
and higher prices charged to consumers.
Over the next year, I look forward to continuing my work with the
automotive manufacturers, the fastener manufacturers, and countless
other businesses, both large and small, which are impacted by the
Fastener Quality Act. Working together, I am certain that we can remove
the act's most burdensome and redundant provisions without in any way
jeopardizing public safety.
The General Aviation Manufacturers of America, Aerospace Industries
Association of America, American Automobile Manufacturers Association,
the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, the National
Air Transportation Association, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and
others, have all endorsed H.R. 3824, and indeed, it has bipartisan
support from the Committee on Science, and I am pleased the Committee
on Commerce has passed it forward. I urge all of my colleagues to
support this very important legislation.
I reiterate my thanks to Chairman Sensenbrenner, Ranking Member
Brown, my Technology Ranking Member Barcia and my appreciation to our
capable staffs. On the majority side, thanks to Jeff Grove, Richard
Russell, Mike Bell, and Barry Beringer, and on the minority side, Jim
Turner and Rob Ryan.
Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I too would like to compliment the
gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) for her bipartisan approach
towards solving this particular problem, but in general also the very
fair and impartial fashion that she conducts business before our
Subcommittee on Technology, and that also is extended to the chairman
of the full committee the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner),
who I consider certainly a privilege to be able to work with both of
those, as well as the ranking Democrat, the outstanding gentleman from
California (Mr. Brown).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Kildee), a good friend and colleague of mine from my home State.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, as cochairman of the Congressional Automotive Caucus, I
rise in support of H.R. 3824, the Fastener Quality Act Amendments of
1998. Mr. Speaker, I proudly represent a district with strong ties to
the automotive industry. Automakers are committed to quality, and
recent history proves quality is the number 1 concern for workers,
management, and suppliers. This commitment has not only improved sales,
but it has improved pride.
Few can deny the changes in the auto industry over the past decade.
Faced with increasing competition overseas, the Big Three have worked
hard to improve efficiency and service. I am concerned that dedicated
workers be valued and protected during times of change. I am also
impressed with innovative developments in inventory and supply.
One innovation is QS-9000, a quality assurance system that provides
high-quality parts to the auto industry. Furthermore, it ensures safety
by mandating consistent, measurable production standards.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology has interpreted
FQA to require lot testing of fasteners supplied to the auto industry,
and implementation of this requirement is set to begin later this
summer. Unfortunately, a shortage of certified laboratories currently
exists, threatening to delay parts supply to vehicle assembly lines
nationwide. With passage of H.R. 3824, this implementation will be
postponed, and a near-term crisis can be avoided.
Mr. Speaker, working together, government and industry will continue
to ensure quality and safety. At the same time, we will promote the
long-term health of an industry that produces high-quality vehicles and
high-quality jobs.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), a member of the
Committee on Science.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank first of all the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for yielding me this time,
and for his leadership on this. I also want to say a special ``thank
you'' to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) for her
leadership on this issue.
{time} 1515
I rise in support of H.R. 3824, but I want to talk just for a few
moments about the history and how the United States got into this
business.
About 10 years ago, there was a walkway at a hotel down in Kansas
City that collapsed. Many believed that the reason was faulty
fasteners. It is interesting that that was the motivation of getting us
into the business of regulating the manufacture of fasteners. The truth
of the matter is when the final study was done, it was not the result
of faulty fasteners even in the first place.
Mr. Speaker, let me just read a paragraph from a letter from Mr.
Bruce Josten from the United States Chamber of Commerce. This is the
middle paragraph:
``The Fastener Quality Act sought to ensure the quality of industrial
fasteners by requiring uniform inspections and testing by the National
Institute of Standards and Technology accredited laboratories. Despite
its enactment in 1990, its emanating regulations have not been
implemented due to the enormous difficulty in fulfilling the Act's
requirements and its attendant burdens and costs to manufacturers,
particularly small businesses and consumers.''
Mr. Speaker, that is what a lawyer would say, and what I would say,
is a $20 solution to a $2 problem. And frankly I am delighted that we
have this bill before us today. I think it is a good step in the right
direction. But even better news is that the chairman of the Committee
on Science and the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Technology have
agreed that this is a good starting point and that we ought to have
hearings to talk about repealing this legislation altogether.
When this bill was first introduced eight years ago, the National
Institute of Standards and Technology opposed this bill, and they
oppose it still.
So this is a step in terms of common sense. I support the bill, and I
do support having additional hearings geared towards ultimately
eliminating this needless regulation.
Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Brown), the very distinguished former chair of the
House Committee on Science, as well as the current ranking member of
that committee, who of course has a very long period of service in
terms of science issues on the committee.
(Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia) for being so generous in yielding
time to me. I was only going to make a short 1-minute statement, so now
I will have to speak for the whole 5 minutes, I guess.
Mr. Speaker, let me first confirm what the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Barcia) has said earlier about the high degree of cooperation that
we have enjoyed in the committee from the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner), chairman of the full committee, and the gentlewoman
from
[[Page H4589]]
Maryland (Mrs. Morella), chairman of the subcommittee. It has been a
pleasure to work with both of these distinguished Members in connection
with this bill.
I will confess that I have not been particularly deeply involved in
the drafting of this legislation but, of course, I fall back on the
fact that 10 years ago I was deeply involved and that qualifies me to
say anything I wish today.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3824 because I feel that it is
the only practical short-term solution to the problem of revisiting the
Fastener Quality Act. Our committee record on these revisions of the
Fastener Quality Act was developed rapidly and is of necessity fairly
narrow in scope. This effort was triggered, of course, by the
announcement already referred to by the National Institute of Standards
and Technology that the long-delayed regulations to implement the
Fastener Quality Act would take effect on July 26, 1998, and the
universal agreement that the law should be changed to exempt certain
aircraft industry fasteners from the Act's coverage. Therefore, time
was of the essence if the Congress was to intervene legislatively in
advance of that date.
The committee scheduled just one panel of witnesses which was largely
drawn from the aerospace community, and with the exception of one
witness from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, did
not have the expertise to discuss the impact of the Fastener Quality
Act beyond aircraft manufacture.
The committee became aware that the auto industry, and perhaps other
manufacturers, also faced potential adverse impacts from the scheduled
July implementation of the Fastener Quality Act regulations.
Mr. Speaker, the original Fastener Quality Act was based on extensive
investigative, legislative and judicial records of defective fasteners,
largely of overseas origin, which had turned up in tanks, submarines,
aircraft carriers, planes of all types, bridges, and even nuclear power
plants.
Of course, as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) mentioned,
there was considerable public attention given to the quality of
fasteners by such events as the Kansas City bridge failure. I have
forgotten exactly what it was that caused that failure, but it at least
focused attention on the problem of fasteners.
The Committee on Energy and Commerce conducted an 18-month
investigation during the 100th Congress, including five open and two
closed hearings. It also involved numerous Federal Agencies and
resulted in dozens of criminal prosecutions, civil actions and
debarments. The situation cried out for legislative action.
We face a much different situation in 1998 than we did in 1990. Eight
years have passed since the Act was put in place without implementing
regulations. The problems now seem much less daunting. During the
1990s, some industries had developed their own quality assurance
systems which appeared to provide protections to the public comparable
to those under the Fastener Quality Act, but at less cost. Even NIST,
the agency charged with regulating fasteners, seems to have some second
thoughts about the breadth of the Act, but no one had done a careful
analysis either of the extent to which the Fastener Quality Act is
still necessary and still serves its original purpose.
The committee solution is the best possible under the circumstances.
The delay will permit the Secretary of Commerce to study the extent to
which the problems being addressed still exist, including the potential
for defective fasteners from overseas once again penetrating the U.S.
markets. It will also permit the Secretary to get an expert opinion on
the degree of compatibility between the Fastener Quality Act and modern
business practice and to make suggestions on how to update the Act.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important
legislation.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to represent the fastener
capital of the United States, Rockford, Illinois. There are more
fastener manufacturers per capita in Rockford than any other city in
the Nation.
The implementation of the Fastener Quality Act is of key importance
to the livelihood of northern Illinois, but its impact reaches far
beyond our congressional district. In fact, a disruption in the supply
of fasteners to our industry would be the equivalent of a nationwide
trucking or rail strike.
With the release of the latest set of regulations by the National
Institute of Standards and Technology last April, I surveyed the
fastener manufacturers in northern Illinois for their input, listening
to people such as the Pearson family who have been manufacturing
fasteners for years and have been wrestling with the Fastener Quality
Act.
Mr. Speaker, let me review for the benefit of my colleagues the
results this survey: 54 percent of the fastener manufacturers still do
not know which fasteners are covered by the Fastener Quality Act; 46
percent of the fastener manufacturers are so small they cannot afford
to adopt the expensive quality assurance system, even though they have
their own system of testing and ensuring quality. Thus, the April
regulations permitting larger companies which use QAS to become
Fastener Quality Act certified means nothing to these small fastener
manufacturing firms; 92 percent, almost every one of the fastener
manufacturers in Illinois, still do not know what they have to do to
fully comply with the Fastener Quality Act regulations.
Finally, every fastener manufacturer in the Sixteenth Congressional
District agreed there will not be enough labs up and running on July 26
to certify products coming off the assembly line as Fastener Quality
Act approved.
That is why I am pleased to join my colleagues, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and the gentlewoman from Maryland
(Mrs. Morella), chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Technology, in
cosponsoring and strongly supporting H.R. 3824. I recommend and
strongly urge my colleagues to vote for it.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Utah (Mr. Cook), a member of the Committee on Science.
Mr. COOK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3824, the Fastener
Quality Act amendments.
Mr. Speaker, as a freshman Congressman one of my overriding desires
is to cut government waste, duplication of effort, and bureaucracy,
which is exactly what this bill does.
H.R. 3824 ensures that America's manufacturing economy and American
consumers are not harmed by outdated or unnecessary regulations. The
bill will help business be more competitive with foreign manufacturers
while keeping safety standards for consumers that we have come to
expect.
The Fastener Quality Act was intended to make structures more safe
and it was a good idea. Unfortunately, it set up two government
bureaucracies with the same regulation to oversee manufacturing of
nuts, bolts, studs and screws.
For example, aviation manufacturers are already subject to the
Federal quality assurance programs of the Federal Aviation
Administration and, therefore, the fasteners they manufacture already
meet or exceed the quality standards of the Fastener Quality Act.
Requiring another government agency other than the FAA to certify
aviation industry nuts, bolts, studs, and screws would be a waste of
taxpayers' dollars. It would create an enormous duplication of effort
and would create significantly higher airline ticket prices.
In the motor vehicle industry, the safety of fasteners is assured and
monitored by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration
in compliance with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.
Auto manufacturers already have ample incentive and regulation to use
the highest quality fasteners possible.
The auto industry has concluded that the annual cost of duplicative
regulations would be $317 million, which would be directly passed on to
consumers, yet automobiles would be no safer because current Federal
regulations and recall authority ensure a high level of safety.
Manufacturers have made tremendous strides in improving the safety of
their products, not because of some
[[Page H4590]]
government bureaucracy mandates but because a market-driven economy
rewards well-built products.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 3824, which will
reduce unnecessary regulation.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I was surprised when several of my
constituents contacted me about a little-known law passed eight years
ago which has not yet been implemented. The original intent of this
law, the Fastener Quality Act of 1990, was to regulate and test certain
critical nuts, bolts, and similar fasteners. Yet, eight years later,
the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), which is
the agency responsible for implementing this law, has not done so. In
the years that this law languished, the fastener industry and other
regulatory federal agencies have taken steps to meet and surpass the
original safety goals of the 1990 law. Unfortunately, this late attempt
to impose these new requirements unnecessarily duplicates superior
quality efforts already underway in the industry and the regulatory
community.
Originally, the law was supposed to cover a specific number of
critical fasteners used in such things as public buildings, bridges,
and airliners. NIST since has expanded the scope of the original law to
cover nearly half of all nuts, bolts, and other fasteners made or used
in this country.
For example, an employer in my district supplies fasteners to the
automotive industry. They are a certified QS 9000 facility, which means
they meet strict quality standards and continually test their product
at all stages of the manufacturing process. They meet the standards set
by their customers and those set by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, which already regulates safety standards for these
products. Under this 1990 law, they are additionally required to employ
another separate, specially accredited lab to test their products, over
and above the steps the company is already taking to ensure the safety
and quality of their product.
This employer meets the standards provided for by their customer, the
industry, and the industry safety regulator, in addition to maintaining
a certified QS 9000 facility and providing for continual in-process
testing of their products. Application of this 1990 law does not meet
the demands of today's manufacturing processes, and would impose
additional and costly requirements that duplicate these efforts and do
not increase the public safety. Additionally, there are not enough
accredited labs to do this testing. In my district, this means this
same employer would have to shut down for six months until an
accredited laboratory is available to duplicate the strong quality
control efforts already being made by this manufacturer.
The legislation we are considering today requires the Secretary of
Commerce to first study this issue and report to Congress on the best
way to address the public safety intent of the original legislation in
light of changes in manufacturing processes since passage of the
original act. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3824 will provide Congress the
opportunity to rationally address the public safety aspect to fasteners
in the context of today's modern manufacturing processes without
imposing duplicative, unnecessary, or confusing new programs on
responsible American manufacturers. I urge my colleagues to support
this common-sense legislation.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3824, a
bill amending the Fastener Quality Act. The Committee on Commerce was
named as an additional committee of jurisdiction on this bill and has
had a longstanding interest in the issue of fastener quality and the
Fastener Quality Act. This interest goes back to the 100th Congress, at
which time the Committee undertook an investigation of counterfeit and
substandard fasteners. This investigation resulted in the issuance of a
unanimously approved Subcommittee report entitled ``The Threat from
Substandard Fasteners: Is America Losing Its Grip?'' which ultimately
led to the approval by our respective committees of the Fastener
Quality Act of 1990.
H.R. 3824, as reported, would amend the Fastener Quality act in two
ways. First, the bill exempts fasteners approved for use in aircraft by
the Federal Aviation Administration from the requirements of the Act.
Secondly, it delays implementation of the final regulations until the
Secretary of Commerce and the Congress have had an opportunity to
consider developments in manufacturing and quality assurance techniques
since the law was enacted.
While the Commerce Committee was generally pleased with the
legislation reported by the Science Committee, we asked for several
technical clarifications in the Manager's amendment under consideration
today. First, we asked that language be clarified to ensure that all
regulations issued pursuant to the Fastener Quality Act be place don
hold until the Secretary of Commerce can deliver his report to
Congress. Secondly, we asked that the report be delivered to both the
Science Committee and the Commerce Committee directly so that we can
continue our cooperative role in protecting American consumers from
substandard fasteners. I appreciate Chairman Sensenbrenner's
willingness to listen to the concerns of Members of the Commerce
Committee.
Due to Chairman Sensenbrenner's cooperation and the need to ensure
enactment of this legislation prior to the July 26 effective date of
the current regulations, the Commerce Committee has chosen not to
exercise its right to a referral. I have been assured by Chairman
Sensenbrenner of his continued cooperation through this process, and
look forward to working with him should this legislation be the subject
of a House-Senate conference committee.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 3824, and urge my colleagues
support this bill as well.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3824, a bill
to amend the Fastener Quality Act of 1990. I am pleased that a proposed
rule to implement this Act has been repeatedly delayed over the last
few years. The proposed rule's effectiveness remains unproven and it
would impose tremendous costs on industry which would, in turn, be
passed on to the consumer. In my judgment, compliance with the proposed
rule would not only result in a loss of jobs and productivity, but also
would seriously interrupt deliveries to numerous industry sectors for
which fasteners are an integral part of their product. These major
industries, the aerospace, automotive, and heavy industries, should be
strengthened, not weakened, by our laws. I am greatly concerned about
the financial costs that would be borne by these industries to
implement regulations, the effects of which have not been ascertained.
For this reason, I strongly support passage of H.R. 3824 to ensure
that the implementation of the Fastener Quality Act rule be delayed by
one year. During this time the Commerce Secretary and the National
Institute of Standards & Technology would be required to review current
law and regulations and recommend changes to make regulations
consistent with current industry practices. I believe that a thorough
review of current policies will reveal duplicitious regulations. The
reports submitted to Congress as a result of H.R. 3824 would take into
account technological advances that have occurred since the passage of
the Fastener Quality Act in 1990 and precipitate the necessary changes
to ensure its effectiveness as intended by Congress. I urge my
colleagues to support the passage of this bill.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3824, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________