Congressional Record UNUM

E PLURIBUS

United States

of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 104th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION

b This symbol represents the time of day during the House proceedings, e.g., b 1407 is 2:07 p.m.

Matter set in this typeface indicates words inserted or appended, rather than spoken, by a Member of the House on the floor.

H 4917

House of Representatives

Vol. 141 WASHINGTON, MONDAY, MAY 15, 1995 No. 80

The House met at 10:30 a.m. and was

called to order by the Speaker pro tempore [Mr. FUNDERBURK

f].

DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO

TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following communication from the Speaker:

WASHINGTON, DC,

May 15, 1995.

I hereby designate the Honorable DAVID

FUNDERBURK to act as Speaker pro tempore

on this day.

NEWT GINGRICH,

The SPEAKER pro tempore. PursuSpeaker of the House of Representatives.

MORNING BUSINESS

fant to the order of the House of January 4, 1995, the Chair will now recognize Members from lists submitted by

the majority and minority leaders for

morning hour debates. The Chair will

alternate recognition between the parties, with each party limited to not to

exceed 30 minutes, and each Member

except the majority and minority leader limited to not to exceed 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman

from Florida [Mr. M

fICA] for 5 minutes.

SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I come before the House

this morning to set the record straight,

to provide you, Mr. Speaker, and my

colleagues, with correct information on

statements that have been made about

comments that I made on the floor in

the regulatory reform debate which

took place recently in the House of

Representatives during our debate on

the Contract With America, and specifically on the regulatory reform issues that came before this Congress.

In this Congress and during the past

Congress, I have been an outspoken

critic of the manner and conduct of the

regulatory process at the Federal level.

Quite frankly, I came here several

years ago believing that the regulatory

edicts and mandates sent out by the

Federal Government had overreached

their bounds, had imposed undue burdens and costs on our citizens, on our

local governments, on business and industry, and were eating at the very

fabric of productivity and competitiveness in this country.

During the debate on the question of

regulatory reform, I stood at that podium and I talked about several instances of what I considered excess regulation and regulatory overkill.

I used several examples, and two of

the examples I used were actually from

my local dentist, who when I was in his

dental chair and in his dental office

had told me several years ago about

some of the excesses of certain Federal

departments and agencies, and how he

felt imposed upon by those agencies

and how he was constricted by those

agencies, and at least felt the pressures

of those agencies on his practice and on

his professional conduct.

So I made those comments in the

regulatory reform debate in the House,

and shortly thereafter ‘‘ABC News’’

and Peter Jennings and company made

a little series, and I wanted to report

to the House on that series, and also on

the response. The people of the United

States and Congress tuned into the

‘‘ABC News’’ and heard a certain response, and I never got an opportunity.

You know, they interview you for, in

this case, about an hour of tape, and

then they take little segments out, and

then they put on the national news

those segments.

Interestingly enough, and as Paul

Harvey said, there is a little bit more.

Here is the rest of the story. I want to

present that to the House this morning.

Let me quote from the National Review, and I did not prompt their doing

this piece or I did not ask them to look

into this matter. It just appeared, and

some of my constituents sent it to me.

But let me quote exactly from it. I will

read it.

Hot on the heels of the GOP’s capture of

Congress, ABC World News Tonight has unveiled a new segment, ‘‘For the Record,’’ designed to ferret out congressmen who engage

in exaggeration, false statistics, misleading

anecdotes, and other evils. The inaugural

segment focused on Representative John

Mica (R., Fla.), who alleged that certain Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations forbid kids to take pulled

teeth home from the dentist, and that others

compel dentists to keep logs for possession

and disposal of white-out. Wild congressional

exaggeration, right? Actually, OSHA’s Blood

Borne Pathogen Standard labels bodily tissues as biohazards. Teeth are considered tissue, and technically must therefore be

placed in a red bag and picked up by a licensed disposer. Furthermore, because certain brands of white-out contain toluene,

OSHA requires that Manufacturers Safety

Data Sheets be kept in office files. Dr. Edward Stein, a health scientist at OSHA, says

that white-out’s levels of toluene are far

below those which concern OSHA and that

the requirement does not pertain to offices

with fewer than 10 people. However, he concedes that if an individual in an office with

fewer than 10 people filed a complaint about

white-out, OSHA would be free to investigate. As for the teeth? A dentist in the

Northeast refused to return a tooth to a 6-

year-old boy because he was concerned about

the health regulation. OSHA’s unofficial position is that this was unnecessary. However,

the regulation does require such action. For

the Record.

In conclusion, this story by National

Review does set the record straight,

and that is, my colleagues, the rest of

the story.

fRECESS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. There

being no further requests for morning

business, pursuant to clause 12, rule I,

the House will stand in recess until 12

noon.