[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 110 (Thursday, August 6, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H7297-H7298]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    FASTENER QUALITY ACT AMENDMENTS

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from 
the Speaker's table 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, with Senate 
amendments thereto, and concur in the Senate amendments.
  The Clerk will read the title of the bill.
  The Clerk read the Senate amendments, as follows:

       Page 3, line 10, strike our ``and''.
       Page 3, after line 10, insert:
       (2) a comparison of the Fastener Quality Act to other 
     regulatory programs that regulate the various categories of 
     fasteners, and an analysis of any duplication that exists 
     among programs; and
       Page 3, line 11, strike out ``(2)'' and insert ``(3)''.
       Page 3, lines 12 and 13, strike out ``paragraph (1)'' and 
     insert ``paragraphs (1) and (2)''.

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendments be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I do not 
intend to object, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) for an explanation of his unanimous consent request.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Barcia) for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3824 requires the Secretary of Commerce to review 
the Fastener Quality Act to assess if its provisions are still needed 
and to report his findings back to Congress.
  The Senate amended H.R. 3824 to require the Secretary to specifically 
consider other regulatory programs which currently regulate fasteners 
in making his determination on the continued need for the Fastener 
Quality Act.
  Mr. Speaker, the Fastener Quality Act was signed into law in 1990. 
This well intended but misguided legislation requires a large 
percentage of metallic fasteners used in this country to be documented 
by a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) certified 
laboratory. Although the legislation has been on the books for eight 
years and counting, difficulty in developing the regulations of the Act 
have delayed NIST from implementing the regulations until this year.
  H.R. 3824, as passed by the Senate, amends the Fastener Quality Act 
by exempting certain fasteners produced or altered to the 
specifications of aviation manufacturers from the new regulations. 
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 exempting certain fasteners used in aviation 
manufacturing from the provisions of the Fastener Quality Act, H.R. 
3824 has two other important functions. First, it delays implementation 
of the NIST Fastener Quality Act regulations until after June 1, 1999. 
Second, the legislation requires the Secretary of Commerce to transmit 
to Congress a report including recommendations or changes to the Act 
that may be warranted due to changes in the fastener manufacturing 
process.
  Delaying NIST's regulations until next year gives us the opportunity 
to take a closer look at the Fastener Quality Act, especially 
considering the scope seems to have grown significantly since the Act 
was crafted over eight years ago. Originally intended to ensure public 
safety, today, if NIST regulations were to be

[[Page H7298]]

implemented, even every-day household products like garden-hose 
fasteners and window fixtures could be forced to comply with the 
additional burdens of the Act. Furthermore, the automotive industry 
projects the cost of compliance for the motor vehicle industry could be 
greater than $300 million a year without necessarily enhancing vehicle 
safety.
  As Chairman of the Committee on Science, I have pledged to hold 
additional hearings on the issue beginning next month. Technology 
Subcommittee Chairwoman Morella will again take the lead on these 
important hearings, and I would like to thank her for all her support 
and hard work to date on this important issue. We may find that changes 
in the fastener manufacturing process have diminished the need for the 
Fastener Quality Act. H.R. 3824 will give us the time needed to ensure 
that costly and redundant regulations do not go into force.
  H.R.3824 passed the House by voice vote on June 16, 1998. It has wide 
bipartisan support and has been endorsed by several business 
associations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. As the Chamber 
concludes in their endorsement letter, ``H.R. 3824 * * * is an 
important step to help ensure that America's manufacturing economy and 
consumers are not harmed by outdated or unnecessary regulations''.
  I strongly urge all my colleagues to support this common-sense 
legislation.
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I 
want to indicate that the minority has been consulted on this unanimous 
consent request and that we have no objection to its consideration.
  Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support swift passage of 
H.R. 3824 so that it may be sent immediately to the President and 
enacted into law before the October 25th implementation date for the 
Fastener Quality Act regulations.
  As chairwoman of the Technology Subcommittee which has held a hearing 
to examine the Fastener Quality Act and Aviation Manufacturing, I can 
report that there is consensus among the aviation industry, FAA and 
NIST that a federal quality assurance process already exists to certify 
the quality and safety of proprietary fasteners manufactured or altered 
specifically for use by aviation manufacturers. Adding another set of 
federal regulations and involving another federal agency in that 
process would hinder the efficiency of aviation manufacturing and add 
to the costs of production, while potentially degrading the level of 
safety currently provided by the FAA.
  In addition to addressing issues raised about the Fastener Quality 
Act's impact on the aviation industry, I am pleased H.R. 3824 also 
includes an amendment that I offered during the Science Committee's 
mark-up of the legislation to delay the implementation of the Fastener 
Quality Act's regulations on all other industries until no earlier than 
June of 1999. The extra time will allow Congress to review the 
industries affected by the Fastener Quality Act and determine what 
changes to the Act may be needed.
  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-layoffs and 
higher prices charged to consumers.
  As Chairman Sensenbrenner mentioned, the Technology Subcommittee 
plans to hold another hearing on this subject after the August recess. 
As chairwoman of the Subcommittee, I will continue to work with NIST, 
the automotive manufacturers and other industries impacted by the 
Fastener Quality Act to avoid promulgating costly regulations which are 
unnecessarily burdensome.
  I would like to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner and Technology Ranking 
Member Barcia for their important work on this critical measure. I urge 
all my colleagues to support this important 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 approved by the House, 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.
  During the consideration of the bill by the other body, the study to 
be conducted by the Secretary of Commerce was amended to include an 
analysis of other regulatory programs which cover fasteners and the 
extent to which there may be duplication between the Fastener Quality 
Act and those programs. The elimination of duplicative programs is an 
important and worthwhile goal, and the Committee on Commerce has no 
objections so that amendment.
  It is my understanding that the Secretary of Commerce has delayed the 
implementation of the rules promulgated pursuant to the Fastener 
Quality Act in anticipation of this legislation. Because of the 
importance of this bill, and the cooperation of Chairman Sensenbrenner 
in addressing our concerns throughout the process, the Committee on 
Commerce has chosen not to exercise its rights to separate 
consideration of the measure. However, we have been involved throughout 
the House's consideration of the legislation, and would urge its 
adoption.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that H.R. 3842 should be sent to the President 
for his signature, and urge my colleagues support this bill as well.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the initial request of 
the gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________