[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.

                          ____________________