SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
THE FASTENER QUALITY ACT: NEEDED OR OUTDATED?
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1998
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Science,
Subcommittee on Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:45 a.m., in room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Constance A. Morella, Chairwoman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Mrs. MORELLA. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to convene this Technology Subcommittee of the Science Committee hearing. And good morning, and welcome to our hearing today on reassessing the 1990 Fastener Quality Act, entitled ''Fastener Quality Act: Needed or Outdated?''
Today's hearing is the first in a series by the Technology Subcommittee that we will hold on the Fastener Quality Act (FQA). It will be followed up with additional hearings at the start of the 106th Congress in advance of passage of legislation to rewrite the Fastener Quality Act.
On May 13, 1998, the Committee on Science passed H.R. 3824, which was the Fastener Quality Act Amendments of 1998, and that became Public Law 105–234. H.R. 3824 amended the Fastener Quality Act to exempt aviation fasteners, which are already regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration.
And during Committee consideration of the bill, I proposed an amendment that was accepted to delay the implementation of National Institute of Standards and Technology Fastener Quality Act rule until June 1, 1999, or 120 days after the Secretary of Commerce issues a report on changes needed to the law, whichever is later. This reprieve is intended to allow Congress an opportunity to amend the Fastener Quality Act before the current NIST regulations go into effect.
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This hearing begins that effort. It's my firm belief that as currently constituted, the Fastener Quality Act is fundamentally flawed and needs significant changes. I'm hopeful that working with all impacted parties from fastener makers to auto and aviation manufacturers who use fasteners to federal agencies and other fastener consumers that we can come up with a rewrite of the 1990 Act that not only protects public safety, but also does not create the kind of unnecessary bureaucratic red tape associated with the present statute.
H.R. 3824 put off implementation of the Act for 9 months. We must use this time wisely. It's my intention to fix the Fastener Quality Act once and for all. I'm not interested in incremental changes to the Act, but rather I think that we must review which parts of the law are still actually needed and do away with the rest.
While we conduct our review of the Act, my amendment to H.R. 3824 requires the Secretary of Commerce to initiate his own study of needed changes to the Act. The Secretary's report is due to Congress in February of 1999. The amendment specifically designated the Secretary as the author of the report to ensure that it receives the attention that it requires.
And I understand that Ms. Ellen Bloom, the Secretary's Deputy Chief of Staff has been named by the Secretary to lead the Commerce Department's review; and that Dr. James Hill, Chief of NIST's Building Environment Division will be responsible for writing the report.
I look forward to hearing from Mr. Ray Kammer, the Director of NIST, about the Secretary's plans for the study, and receiving assurances from him that the Department of Commerce and the Secretary himself will give the Fastener Quality Act review the attention that it requires.
And, in addition, I look forward to hearing from our panelists on three basic questions: One, what impacts would implementation of NIST's current fastener quality rule have on consumers and manufacturers; two, have fastener failures been a significant problem since passage of the Fastener Quality Act in 1990; and, three, what, if any, regulations are needed to ensure that substandard fasteners do not become a problem in the future?
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I'm hopeful that our distinguished panel can answer these questions and begin to lay the groundwork for reformulating the Fastener Quality Act.
Finally, I'm particularly pleased that two distinguished Members with long histories of working to improve the Fastener Quality Act had planned to join us this morning: Denny Hastert from Illinois, the Chief Deputy Majority Whip, and Chairman of the House Government Reform and Oversight Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice had planned to be with us, and may still show up. And the very distinguished colleague of mine, Congressman Don Manzullo from Illinois, who is the Chairman of the House Small Business Subcommittee on Tax, Finance, and Exports.
And it's now my pleasure to recognize and yield time to our Ranking Member on this Subcommittee, Mr. Barcia?
Mr. BARCIA. I want to join Chairwoman Morella in welcoming everyone to the last Subcommittee on Technology hearing in the 105th Congress.
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 reoccurrence of the old problem. Public Law 105–234 included provisions requiring the Department of Commerce to do a study on this specific issue. And once the study is complete, we will be able to assess whether the problem is permanently under control before we move to relax the Act for non-proprietary fasteners.
Today's hearing will review the Administration's work plan and also provide firsthand testimony regarding the provisions of and need for the Fastener Quality Act. I want to commend Chairwoman Morella for beginning a methodical assessment of this issue.
As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, this is the last hearing of the Technology Subcommittee in the 105th Congress. I'd like to take this opportunity to say what a pleasure it has been to work with Chairwoman Morella and all the other members of this Subcommittee. We've had a very productive legislative session, with a substantial hearing record, and a substantial number of bills passed through the House and bills that have been signed into law. I look forward to a productive 106th Congress with my colleagues on the Science Committee; and I want to thank all the members for their efforts to work together in a bipartisan fashion.
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you for your comments, Mr. Barcia. And that's really very true, this is the last hearing of the Technology Subcommittee of the Science Committee. And I must say because of the bipartisan cooperative spirit and the fact that there have been issues that come within our jurisdiction, about which we think the country depends, that we have had perhaps the most productive Subcommittee of the Science Committee; and probably more productive than many other Committees in Congress. And I think part of it has to do with the membership and makeup of the Committees, and Mr. Barcia certainly is an example of that.
I think before we go to vote that we'll be able to hear from a very important Member of Congress, who is here because he wants to make a statement. So I welcome very much Congressman Don Manzullo from Illinois' 16th District. Thank you.
TESTIMONY OF HON. DONALD MANZULLO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. MANZULLO. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. If I could put a title to this little speech, it would be ''The Fastener Quality Act: Fix it or Forget it.''
My colleagues on the Subcommittee and Madam Chairwoman, I'm pleased to appear before you today and be permitted the opportunity to talk about the Fastener Quality Act. I don't know of any issue that has as great an impact on the future of the fastener business in the District that I represent and across the United States as this one. As a person who has fought hard to protect the livelihood of small fastener manufacturers, I appreciate the opportunity to offer my remarks.
Before I begin, I want to express my gratitude to you, Madam Chairwoman, and the members of this Subcommittee for the hard work put in on passing P.L. 104—I'm sorry, 105–234, that gives us until next June to examine the FQA's effect on the fastener industry. This law mandates the Department of Commerce to provide us with a report to determine what changes are needed to the FQA. I believe it's important we take the advantage of this opportunity to arrive at a mutual solution.
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Any lasting resolution to modify this Act must address the concerns raised by the small manufacturers within the fastener industry. I have over 75 fastener manufacturers in the District that I represent. Most small firms are in favor of repealing the Act. Rockford, Illinois is the fastener capital of the world. There are more fastener manufacturers per capita in Rockford than any other city in the Nation. Implementation of the Fastener Quality Act and any recommended changes to it are of key importance to northern Illinois and the industry overall.
Fasteners are the sinews of a modern manufacturing nation. Disruption in the supply of fasteners would be the equivalent of a nationwide trucking or rail strike. Amidst an increasingly volatile national economy, this would have a devastating consequence for the country, with reverberations—whatever that word is——
[Laughter.]
Mr. MANZULLO [continuing]. Reverberations throughout industries dependent on supplies of fasteners.
Let me tell you about some of the companies that I represent. We sent out a survey to over 75 companies, and we had a good response. And here's the survey response: 54 percent of the fastener manufacturers still don't know which fasteners are covered by the Fastener Quality Act.
Forty-six percent of the fastener manufacturers are so small, they can't afford to adopt the expensive quality assurance system, though they have their own system of testing and ensuring integrity. Thus, the April regulations permitting larger companies who use QAS to become FQA-certified mean nothing to these small fastener firms.
Ninety-two percent, almost every one of the fastener manufacturers in northern Illinois, do not know what they have to do to fully comply with the FQA regulations.
I have met with, or been contacted by, numerous fastener companies in my District, all of which express concerns reflective in the survey. For example, the Pearson family runs Pearson Fastener, with 35 employees. For years they've been manufacturing fasteners. For the last 8 years, they've been wrestling with the FQA, wondering why existing independent accredited labs cannot continue to test their fasteners instead of the company having to switch to as yet unidentified and accredited labs. Aside from the added costs involved, newly accredited labs may not offer every testing service needed by the diversity of fastener manufacturers in Rockford. For example, Pearson could not get one accredited lab to give them a price quote for a salt spraying test on fasteners they make for outboard engines on motor boats.
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Camcar, a division of Textron, has been making fasteners since 1943. They complained they could not get an approved signatory to sign test reports, as the regulations require. Since no one can observe all the test results, no one is willing to sign off on the reports.
Elco Tool, also of Textron Industries, is a major fastener manufacturer in Rockford, and they state: ''The FQA is a show-stopper to our industry. It penalizes every U.S. fastener company with hundreds of millions of dollars of extra costs in testing and paperwork when the original intent of the Act was to keep out foreign, fraudulent bolts. This particularly affects smaller companies within our industry.''
The problems with the Fastener Quality Act from the perspective of small fastener firms are manifold: ambiguity about which fasteners the Act covers; the availability and proximity of accredited labs; confusion about the definition of certification; prohibitive compliance costs; overregulation of the industry; loss of market share to foreign competitors because the FQA exempts fasteners imported as components of larger parts; and lack of information about required tests of a specialized product are all major concerns of a fastener manufacturer.
It's been 8 years since this law was enacted. During that time, technological advances within the industry have greatly improved testing techniques so that the failure rate for fasteners has been practically eliminated.
What I would suggest is a fivefold approach: One, there should be a clear delineation of what fasteners are covered; two, settlement on the issue of certifying in-house testing processes, and short of this, an agreement on the number, type, and location of accredited labs; three, a clear definition of what constitutes certification; four, a regime or protocol that minimizes compliance and regulatory costs so as not to put small manufacturers of fasteners out of business, nor U.S. fastener manufacturers at a disadvantage with foreign competitors; and five, a thorough dissemination of information that answers the many questions fastener manufacturers will have when any new agreement is reached.
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If a revamped FQA cannot accomplish these things, then I think we have the basis for a document that can work for the fastener industry and ensure safety for the consumer. If, on the other hand, the FQA remains difficult to interpret, costly with which to comply, and threatens the existence of small fastener companies, then let's get rid of this bill and simply repeal it.
Madam Chairwoman, I know we can work together with all interested parties to arrive at an agreeable solution. I thank you and the Subcommittee for giving me, and mostly the manufacturers that I represent, the opportunity to address you today. I trust my remarks will contribute to the overall effort to resolve this matter.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Manzullo follows:]
Insert offset folios 1-8
Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you, Mr. Manzullo. I think your remarks have been excellent, and I appreciate very much that you've given us five points that you think could take that Fastener Quality Act and make it usable and accomplish what it was set out to do. And I note, as you've said, that you represent the ''fastener capital of the Nation,'' Rockford, Illinois. And so the survey that you have shared with us, and the work you've done, I think is appropriate as good background as we move ahead. I thank you for being here.
Mr. Barcia, would you like to make any comments or ask any questions of our first guest?
Mr. BARCIA. No, Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate Mr. Manzullo's comments and don't have any questions at this time, but look forward to the rest of the testimony from the panel.
Mr. MANZULLO. Thank you.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mrs. MORELLA. Thanks very much for being here. And we look forward to working with you, too, as we move ahead. Great.
We have a panel before us and we're going to get started. Actually, the bells we heard were simply the start of debate on the Floor of the House for the resolution that we will later be voting on. But we have a distinguished panel today. The Honorable Raymond Kammer, who is the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. He is here often. We see him often. He's got great history in terms of his work for the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Joining him also is Richard Klimisch. Dr. Klimisch is the Vice President of Engineering Affairs Division of the American Automobile Manufacturers Association. Welcome. Also as a panelist is Mr. Tommy Grant, who is the President of Grant Fastener, Inc. And Mr. Robert Brunner, is it? Mr. Brunner is the Vice President and General Manager of Shakeproof/ITW.
I want to welcome all of you. And it is the policy of this Committee, and all its Subcommittees, to swear in our panelists.
So if you would stand and raise your right hand.
Do you swear the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mr. KAMMER. I do.
Mr. KLIMISCH. I do.
Mr. GRANT. I do.
Mr. BRUNNER. I do.
Mrs. MORELLA. The record will indicate an affirmative response.
So if each of you will speak not to exceed 5 minutes so we have a chance to ask a few questions, and get a nice clear record of our proceedings.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We'll start off with you then, Mr. Kammer.
TESTIMONY OF RAYMOND G. KAMMER, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY, GAITHERSBURG, MD
Mr. KAMMER. Thank you. Chairwoman Morella and Mr. Barcia, thank you for inviting me here to testify on the recent changes in the Fastener Quality Act. Let me begin by congratulating the Subcommittee for authoring and legislating P.L. 105–234. I think it was exactly the right thing to do. The Department of Commerce and Secretary Daley welcome this assignment.
Let me tell you a little bit about what we're doing in response to the instructions that you gave us. The study will be conducted with oversight by Ellen Bloom, who is our Deputy Chief of Staff at the Department of Commerce. And we've asked a senior and highly regarded mechanical engineer at NIST, Dr. Jim Hill, to lead the study team. Dr. Hill has heretofore had nothing to do with the development of the fastener quality regulations. Our thought was we needed new eyes and new thoughts on this. Jim Hill will be assisted by the Department's legal staff.
And we've also asked a number of other federal agencies that have knowledge and interest in fasteners to work with us and advise us. Those include the Defense Industrial Supply Center, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
The study team is using three approaches to gather information:
First of all, yesterday, we published a Federal Register notice in which we directed people's attention to this review of the Fastener Quality Act. And we asked:
''Are the conditions that led to the Act in 1990 still valid?''
''Are the definitions of fasteners covered by the Act appropriate?''
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
''Given the change in manufacturing technology over the last 8 years, are there more appropriate methods for sampling, testing, and reporting compliance to standards and specifications?''
Second, we've asked the American Society of Mechanical Engineers to conduct a 3-day workshop in mid-November to document how fastener manufacturer technology has changed since 1990. ASME is just a first-class professional organization; and they have written most of the voluntary standards that obtain to fasteners. So we thought they were a perfect choice. We're very appreciative of their willingness to work, both to do this, and to work within the time frames that we've set. They will report back to us in November in time for us to incorporate in the departmental report their findings.
The third thing we're doing is we've asked staff from NIST that were not previously involved in fastener activities to document other fastener regulatory programs and assist the Department of Commerce team in looking for alternative methods of regulation.
Throughout the study, the departmental team will make every effort to meet with, visit, and be open to comments from interested parties.
We're working vigorously to complete the study. We are actively soliciting and will consider all suggestions for changes in the Act. Our intent is for the study to be comprehensive and candid. It's also our intent for the study to be completed on time. And this is a high priority for the Department and Secretary Daley.
So thank you all for inviting me again, and I'll be available to answer questions.
[The prepared statement and attachments of Mr. Kammer follow:]
Insert offset folios 11-15
Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you very much, Mr. Kammer. Looks like a very logical, well-worked-out approach.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. Klimisch.
TESTIMONY OF RICHARD L. KLIMISCH, VICE PRESIDENT, ENGINEERING AFFAIRS DIVISION, AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. KLIMISCH. Thank you, Chairwoman Morella and Mr. Barcia. I'm Dick Klimisch, and I serve as Vice President for Engineering Affairs for the American Automobile Manufacturers Association, which is a trade association whose members are Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors. And I am accompanied today by Mr. David Varnas of Chrysler Corporation, a fastener engineer, behind me.
The domestic automotive industry is the largest consumer of industrial fasteners in the U.S. economy. In all, more than 45 billion fasteners are used in North American built vehicles each year at an estimated cost of $5 billion. We take very seriously the performance of each of those fasteners. We believe the entire universe of industrial fastener users would agree that the Fastener Quality Act in its present form is unworkable; and would cause great disruption to the U.S. economy without providing any significant public safety benefit.
Although the FQA's perceived goal originally appeared to be simple and clear, efforts to issue regulations to implement it provided many unpleasant surprises. While Congress intended that the law would cover about 1 percent of all fasteners, the law's ambiguity allowed NIST, the Agency charged with implementing the law, to issue rules that covered more than 70 percent of all fasteners. Although Congress intended that law to apply only to fasteners with critical application, NIST and others were unable to agree on the meaning of that term.
In fact, while the FQA has never been implemented, the quality of fasteners, and thus, the public's assurance of safety, has continued to improve. In the late 1970's, end of line testing, which the current FQA mandates, was the predominate method for assessing part quality. Fastener defect rates for all reasons typically were in the range of 65,000 parts per million. In recent years, as the focus has shifted from the after-the-fact detection of errors to prevention of errors, the industry has seen defect rates fall to less than 100 parts per million.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Industry-wide changes implemented to improve fastener quality since the passage of the FQA included the employment of quality assurance systems in the production of fasteners. Where modern statistical process controls are utilized in conjunction with the QAS control plan, most end of line testing of fasteners is redundant. Domestic auto industry's own QAS requirement, known as QS 9000, has proven to be an effective means of assuring highest possible fastener quality without the FQA's duplicative testing and lab certification.
Auto makers, and other regulated industries, believe that other laws, regulations, and federal agencies already serve the same objectives as the FQA. NHTSA, for instance, promulgates motor vehicle safety standards that specify performance requirements for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, which includes fasteners, both original equipment and those sold as replacement parts.
As the Department of Commerce begins its review of the fastener industry, we recommend that it begin by investigating and defining what specific fastener quality problems exist today. And I think Mr. Kammer's outline suggested they were doing that.
We believe it is premature for us to offer to the Committee a legislative proposal. However, we would like to put forth some principles that we believe a replacement law should meet.
First, avoid redundant regulation. We think Congress should avoid subjecting fasteners to multiple regulations, and should give full consideration to existing laws and authority and only fill in any gaps. Second, avoid redundant enforcement. Congress should not create new additional enforcement mechanisms and penalties unique to fasteners. Existing laws, regulations, and agencies can do the job.
Third, target fraud. Congress should determine whether the predominant risks from substandard fasteners stem directly from fastener fraud and target resources towards this problem.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Fourth, preserve international trade. The current laws cause great concern with our trading partners who view it as a trade barrier. The law should provide even-handed treatment for domestic and foreign suppliers.
Fifth, recognize the effectiveness of private industry quality assurance systems. Recent experience has proven that the marketplace does, in fact, act as the most potent driver of quality, especially where a closed loop of fastener purchasing exists and quality assurance systems are in place.
I wanted to mention that automakers' own safety checks have proven to be very effective. For instance, Ford Motor Company discovered a defect in the design of lug nuts it uses on some models, and immediately recalled the vehicles without prompting from the government. This happened recently.
It is important, however, to note that the lug problem would not have been avoided by the Fastener Quality Act because the lug nuts in question actually met the specification to which they were manufactured. The problem was in the specification and design, not in quality.
The sixth principle is allow for future quality improvements. Any fastener law should not hinder the development and employment of new technology and quality assurance methods that may be unforeseen today. We think that's very important.
Seventh, reduce record keeping. Finally, Congress should not require additional record keeping beyond that which is currently required by other laws and regulations.
In closing, let me emphasize that our reputation is on the line with every one of the fasteners that can be found in every vehicle our members build. Madam Chairwoman, the problems with the current law are well-documented and we believe that attempting to implement it in its present form would be unrealistic. We look forward to working with you in developing replacement legislation that recognizes our collective commitment to protect the public interest and the safety of fasteners.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I'd just like to add, in answer to your questions, the first one, that we believe the impacts since the law has placed is a relatively high cost but there would be no benefit from the FQA.
Second, we don't believe fastener failures have been a significant problem in this time period since 1990.
And, finally, with regard to the regulations, we would just offer the principles that I've just mentioned.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement and attachments of Mr. Klimisch follow:]
Insert offset folios 16-29
Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you very much, Mr. Klimisch—Dr. Klimisch. I noticed that you gave us a very lengthy testimony that we have, and I want you to know that every part will be included in the official record. And I appreciate that very much. I also want you to know I drive a Ford. My husband drives a Chrysler. And we also have a Chevrolet. Now how about that?
[Laughter.]
Mrs. MORELLA. But thank you very much. I know the kind of work that has gone into it because of the importance to your profession.
I'm very pleased now to recognize Mr. Grant, who is going to give us a unique point of view. Mr. Grant?
TESTIMONY OF TOMMY GRANT, PRESIDENT, GRANT FASTENER, INC., HOUSTON, TX
Mr. GRANT. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Tommy Grant and I'm from Grant Fasteners in Houston, Texas. I'm a distributor. I'm also a Chairman of the Fastener Quality Association, an association of quality minded from various sectors of the fastener industry.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What I want to say in here today is that, you know, you're hearing that things have changed in the last 10 years. They haven't. I've been talking to the big three automakers. One of the big three automakers told me that they want the law to go forward. I've talked to the iron and steel workers and the contractors' unions. They want the law to go forward. I've talked to one of the largest fastener manufacturers, foremost in this country, and some of the smallest fastener manufacturers in this country. They want the law to go forward. I've talked to distributors, some small, one that has 50,000 customers. They want the law to go forward.
Hopefully, you have been provided with a copy of my formal testimony. What I would like to tell you now is this. Here's a bolt that was sold in 1996, and it's worse than a bolt that was sold in 1987 that killed Calvin Davis, the ironworker that was working at the Saturn plant in Springhill, Tennessee. This bolt was sold as an A325 hex-head cap screw, and this bolt—an A325 is a machine bolt. It's a bolt. It is used in structural buildings and bridges. This is neither. This is just a piece of metal that has had a nut welded on the end of it.
This bolt was going to be used in Cleveland, Ohio at a park where they were going to mount an F–16 jet as a display. And this was going to be the mounting bolts between the structure and the jet. Now, you know how children are, and people are, adults are, they're going to get around it and want to look up close to the F–16. Luckily, this bolt can't hurt anybody. I've got it in my hand.
The next thing I want to talk to you about is some direct tension indicator washers. These things came in here this just year. And these ones are worse than the ones that came in here in the 1980's that got the government ducked out in a lot of their projects in building and bridges. And these things are just trash. These washers are to take a bolt, like a structural bolt, and when you tighten it up, these washers collapse and they put the bolt in proper tension. Well, these washers won't tension anything. So, consequently, if you were to have any stress relaxation or backing off of the bolt, you can have a catastrophic failure on a bridge.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I also want to bring up here. Last week in Houston, Texas, I went into a hardware store and I bought three bolts, out of the bins of the hardware store. These bolts are counterfeit. They're are grade 5's. They have no manufacturer symbols in them. And this was supposed to be cleaned up 10 years ago. But I just went in and picked them out. All three of them. I've got the bill of sale and everything here.
Now, where are these bolts used? They're used in your Chevrolet, your Chrysler, your Ford. They're used in brush hogs. They're used in all kind of machinery, tractors, ditch witches. They're used in race cars. These things can break and cause catastrophic failure in an automobile accident.
I want to read you a couple of statements here if you don't mind. This is from the Ironworker's Institute. And this just came out. This was sent to me on October 1st. They represent 10,300 erection contractors and 126,000 ironworkers. And he wrote in here about the article about Calvin Davis who was killed in 1987. He was tightening up a structural bolt at the Springhill, Tennessee, plant where they built the Saturn plant. And the bolt broke. It was under spec, and he went off the side of the building. And it says here:
''This was a very sad Christmas for the family of this young ironworker who left a wife and two preschool daughters to mourn his unnecessary death. Reports from the job site indicate the bolts were manufactured in Spain, shipped into Houston via Brazil and found their way to the job in Tennessee.
We do want to go to any more houses of American workers 2 days before Christmas and have to tell the families that they have become widows and single parent orphans for their Christmas present.
Tommy, please do your best to see what you can do to return the law of the jungle with substandard—to not return to the law of substandard—of the jungle with substandard and counterfeit fasteners.''
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I also have a letter here from Mary Joe Davis, the widow of the ironworker. She read about me in People magazine. And this was dated December 2, 1988.
She said: ''My husband will have been gone a full 2 years on December 22nd. And with interested persons, such as yourself, we can keep him and the reason for this accidental death in the public eye, and hopefully get full support for your efforts.''
I have a letter here from one of the largest fastener manufacturers in this country: ''The Industrial Fasteners Group of SPS Technology strongly supports this Act as it protects the public from damage to life and property caused by defective fasteners.''
I have a letter here dated September 28th from General Motors: ''It is absolutely imperative that all efforts be taken to assure that your industry is required by law to adhere to stringent material, manufacturer, and dimensional guidelines. It would be a travesty to think that an issue so closely linked to safety should not be taken very seriously. It is through the continued efforts of persons such as yourself that we owe our appreciation.''
My final comment here is that if this law does not go forward, it will only encourage a more dangerous situation than we've had before by sending the wrong message to the cheaters.
Is there anyone else here today who is going to speak for the health and safety of the public?
Thank you.
[The prepared statement and attachments of Mr. Grant follow:]
Insert offset folios 30-66
Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you very much, Mr. Grant. We appreciate getting your point of view. We will be asking you a few questions too.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And now our final witness, Mr. Brunner?
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT E. BRUNNER, VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, SHAKEPROOF/ITW, ELGIN, IL
Mr. BRUNNER. Madam Chairwoman, I would like to thank you and the Subcommittee for holding this timely and important hearing today on the question of whether the Fastener Quality Act is needed or outdated.
My name is Robert Brunner, and I am the Vice President and General Manager of the Shakeproof Automotive Products Division of Illinois Tool Works, Inc. I have been asked to represent the Industrial Fastener Institute (IFI) before this Committee today, and to present its views on the question of whether the FQA is needed or outdated.
Currently the IFI represents 148 companies that manufacture and sell about 85 percent of domestically produced fasteners in North America. We believe that the study Congress directed the Department of Commerce to perform, which calls for the identification of changes that have occurred in the fastener industry, is urgently needed and will demonstrate that the present FQA is both unworkable and unnecessary in today's private sector fastener environment.
We stand ready to assist the Commerce Department in assessing the changes that have occurred in the industry; and hope that the Department will work closely with industry in conducting the study and in drafting its report and recommendations to Congress.
We also feel it is important that Congress schedule additional hearings on the FQA once it receives the Commerce Secretary's report and recommendations so that Congress can have the opportunity to explore options to the Act with industry and other effected interests before taking action.
To this end, the fastener industry has formed a coalition of interests representing fastener manufacturers and users and distributors, including importers, to speak collectively on these issues. We feel this coalition will provide the Administration and Congress the best available evidence that the Act as currently constructed is unworkable and unnecessary in today's private sector fastener environment.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Many of these issues to be addressed by the coalition are outlined in my written statement, and will be more fully developed over the next several weeks for submission to the agency as part of its required study under P.L. 105–234.
Allow me to list nine reasons why IFI believes the FQA is not workable in its current form, and, in our opinion, no longer needed to assure the quality of private sector fasteners sold in the United States: one, problems originally addressed by the 1990 Fastener Quality Act should no longer exist; two, the FQA exceeds Congressional intent to limit the scope of fasteners covered; three, the FQA fails to recognize modern manufacturing methods, and current statutory language does not permit the Agency the flexibility to resolve the problem; four, the paperwork burdens imposed by the Act are overwhelming and do not recognize modern electronic commerce; five, implementation of the FQA may result in $1 billion worth of grandfathered fasteners being unsalable; six, the requirements for implementing the FQA, based upon obtaining sufficient numbers of accredited laboratories are unworkable; seven, the FQA is perceived in Europe and elsewhere as an impediment to trade; eight, end-use fastener traceability is a fallacy; and nine, the FQA imposes a disproportionate financial burden on small businesses.
Of these nine reasons, the first is most critical. We commend the Committee to call upon the federal agencies identified in the 1988 Committee report, ''The Threat from Substandard Fasteners: Is America Losing its Grip?'' and determine what changes they have made to their purchasing and quality assurance practices since the mid-1980's. There is no reason, we believe, why they should not take on the same mantle of responsibility for quality assurance that private industry users have adopted.
Further, we commend the Committee to evaluate the accessibility, disposition, and diligence of federal agencies with prosecutorial authority for the types of fraud identified in that report.
Beyond the nine fundamental issues identified above that make the FQA unworkable, is the concern that the FQA creates a competitive advantage for foreign fastener manufacturers and their customers. The FQA as currently written embodies an unfair trade practice aimed at more than just U.S. fastener manufacturers. Currently fasteners imported into the United States, as part of sub-assemblies or assemblies, like, for example, a transmission, are not fasteners within the meaning of the Act and the regulations. These fasteners are therefore exempt from the costly testing, certification, and paperwork provisions imposed by the Act.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In summary, the IFI believes that the Fastener Quality Act is misdirected and unworkable in its current form, and we believe is no longer necessary in the private sector. Today, we are again at a crossroads with the FQA. The agency has done everything it can legally do to make the FQA to work and yet it does not work for the reasons cited above.
Over the next several months, IFI and others who comprise the industry coalition working on this issue, will document in considerable detail all that is wrong with the Act. We expect that from this effort a realization that the current Act is unworkable will become clear to everyone involved and that a much simpler approach, based upon proven, proactive, private sector initiatives is preferable.
On behalf of the IFI, I wish to thank the Committee for its invitation to raise our concerns in this forum. And I hold myself available to answer any questions that the members may have.
[The prepared statement and attachments of Mr. Brunner follow:]
Insert offset folios 67-93
Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you, Mr. Brunner. I appreciate the testimony of all of the witnesses. I want to acknowledge that we've been joined by Ms. Rivers, who is a very dedicated member of this Subcommittee, and one who cares very much about this issue.
And for all of you, you have given us some splendid testimony for our record. It really gives us a good opportunity to move ahead, each and everyone of you.
I wanted to ask just a couple of questions, and I guess I would start off with the idea that since 1990, when the FQA was passed into law, have there been any significant changes or any big problems that we've encountered?
I know, Mr. Grant, you spoke of that situation in 1987 and read the letter in 1988, but I just wondered have there been any mis-marked fasteners that you've heard of? Has there been any trend towards that? Have there been any problems since it hasn't been implemented?
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GRANT. Yes, there are problems. These bolts here, these are some—I say, you know, these could be back from in the 1980's. These could have slipped in here just recently.
There are problems. The thing about it—after the law was signed, after the law was signed by Bush in 1990, we quit documenting. We didn't feel that we had to keep documenting accidents and tragedies and stuff like this.
You know, I'm used as a consultant to federal investigators. And right now, at NASA in California, there are ongoing fastener investigations at this time.
To give you an example, here are just a couple—5 weeks ago, I ordered some bolts through an ASTM spec. They were going to cost me $21 a piece. My employee went over to pick them up, and he noticed the company just poured them out of an imported generic stainless steel box. And he said, ''I'm not going to take them.'' And they were going to go over—they told them they were going to go over and just stamp B–8 on them, which made them meet the spec.
And when he came back to the office, we canceled that order. And I called the man that sold this guy the bolts, and I said, ''If I was to buy these bolts from you, what would they cost me?'' And he said, ''They'd be 86 cents.'' So, you know, it's happening to me. I can imagine how widespread it still is. And another thing. These people—you know, some of the letters I have here are from small manufacturers and they're not big houses; and they want the law to go forward because they know that there's a lot of smaller manufacturers or small manufacturers that are still cheating in the country.
Mrs. MORELLA. So you see, Mr. Grant, the potential is there? Just nothing has happened, but the possibility exists, as you see it.
I'm going to ask the rest of panel if they'd all very quickly respond to that kind of question. Have you seen any changes or any major problems since 1990?
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Klimisch then?
Mr. KLIMISCH. Yes, I guess the trend—QS–9000, really has only got started in the last 3 or 4 years. And, as I said, we're down to a 100 part per million defects. And we expect that to go to 10 probably within the next decade. The prevention system is really working very well, and that trend is pretty overwhelming. And we think putting the resources on to these quality assurance systems is the right thing to do, and it's working very well.
Mrs. MORELLA. Have you heard of any significant failures or anything, Mr. Kammer, since 1990?
Mr. KAMMER. No, I haven't. We're going to be gathering information in a systematic way though as a result of the study. One, we've just published the Federal Register notice, as you know, and we're asking for comment on that.
Second, we've asked ASME to give us a review of changes in practice in the industry; and we expect to learn things such as what Dr. Klimisch is telling us.
And then, third, we've asked four other federal agencies to work with us. Those four agencies buy an incredible number of fasteners and they should be a very rich source of information as to what the quality of the fasteners is.
Mrs. MORELLA. Would you agree, Mr. Brunner?
Mr. BRUNNER. Madam Chairwoman, I do agree. I have not heard of any significant fastener failures resulting in loss of life or significant injury. The few fastener failures I have heard about have been reported to appropriate federal agencies, and have been prosecuted to the extent that was possible.
Mrs. MORELLA. Okay. I'm going to ask you all, gentlemen, one other question. If the FQA were to be implemented as it is, what changes would you expect to see throughout commerce, both in the United States and abroad? Anybody want to start off? Mr. Grant? Good.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GRANT. Would you run that question by me again?
Mrs. MORELLA. Sure, I would. I'm curious about if we implemented the FQA right now, as it is, would there be changes in our commerce here and overseas? Would there not be? And what are the changes that you think would take place?
Mr. GRANT. Well, there would definitely be changes. There would be some businesses that would increase. Your labs, for instance, would have to expand to take on the testing that's required. There would be some manufacturers that would fold up and go out of business.
If the law was implemented—you know, we know that—and Dr. Demming is part of this, and the American Society of Quality Control is also a part of this, that 30 percent of the sale of fasteners is quality cost. Now, I'd like to take that in perspective. We use $7 billion a year in fasteners in the United States. So let's say that 20 percent is quality cost, that's $1.4 billion a year of quality costs that are being passed on to the consumer.
Now, how is it passed on to the consumer? Ford Motor Company has a wheel problem. They say it wasn't a nut problem. They say it was a design problem, but I had to take my 1997 Ford truck. What did that cost me to take it back into the dealership, take my employees and have them follow me in there. Ford, also about the same time that they had their wheel nut problem had some Winstar minivans that the two bolts that hold the brake calibers on the front-end would back out and the front brakes could lock on their Winstar minivan. That was 205,000 vehicles.
So the point is, as these products, they might not be injuring people, but you're working around you're house, you're working on your lawn mower, and you have fasteners that are not spec and they break, you got to get in the car, go down to the hardware store and get some more. These are quality costs.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So as to how it's going to affect commerce, it's going to make the overseas manufacturers straighten up. And it's going to stop this stuff of the junk coming into this country because their costs are going to increase because they're going to have to comply. They're going to have to go out now and hire people and put them in those labs. You can go over into Taiwan right now, and I've never been there, but this was told to me by the people that support me that have been there, the lab equipment is there but they don't know how to operate the lab equipment. So they're making fasteners today that are coming to this country, and there is no testing done on them period, whatsoever.
And I would like to—go ahead, that's fine.
Mrs. MORELLA. Well, I was just going to say that I'd like to hear from the others also with relationships to how it affects commerce?
Mr. KLIMISCH. We think that, obviously, it would be very disruptive and would add some costs, but we don't think there would be any benefits from this. There would be some problems. The Europeans will retaliate with a similar kind of approach and it's all wasted. And it's not going to solve any of the problems.
And I think, finally, that it would probably hurt the small manufacturers as opposed to helping them to add this burden to them. And I just hope the law can be more——
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Brunner, you want to comment on that?
Mr. BRUNNER. Yes, Madam Chairwoman. In terms of public safety, I see no change. In terms of business costs, I see them increasing. In terms of the economy, I see that it would be damaged because there would be periodic supply interruption due to the way the law is presently constructed. And, finally, to Mr. Grant's point earlier, small businesses, there are many small guys out there who don't have the financial wherewithal to build laboratories to support the law; and they may well go out of business as well.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Kammer, want to comment?
Mr. KAMMER. Yes, as you recall from history, there's been a number of times when we came close to implementing and then postponed. And one of the principle motivators for postponing each time was the absence of a sufficient number of accredited labs. And that would make it very hard for the people that were aware of the Act to comply.
I was also very struck by Mr. Manzullo's survey, which I was unfamiliar with, where he said about half of the manufacturers in his area were not aware of the Fastener Quality Act. Well, if you aren't aware of it, and it goes into implementation, I think I'd be obliged to put you out of business if you weren't complying. And that strikes me as an unintended consequence that we probably should try to avoid.
Mrs. MORELLA. It was a very interesting survey. I'm going to just ask one final question and then recognize Ms. Rivers. I guess, Mr. Grant, since you present the other side, and we welcome hearing that. You were instrumental in the crafting the FQA in 1990, with what you know now during that period of time, if you were to change the bill or if you would rewrite the bill today, what changes would you make to it?
Mr. GRANT. I wouldn't change it. I would go back to the original intent of the bill when it was first passed. It needs to be implemented. Dr. Demming, there's only one award-winning fastener manufacturer in the world that has won the Dr. Demming award. And it's in Japan and it's called Kyowa. And they have SPC. They have all the floor testing as the product is moving through, but they do final testing inspecting.
Because what happens on all these SPC's and QS–9000 and ISO's, all they do is they assure that you're capable of making the fasteners correctly. But you need to ensure that capability was met. And the only way you can do that is at the end of the process, at the end of final testing and inspecting.
And I don't see at this point in time, you know, we're talking about financial hardships on people. I'm a small distributor. You know, I've been told by importers I was going to be put out of business. I'm not going out of business. I'm still here. So I wouldn't change it. I'm sorry.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mrs. MORELLA. Just recognizing also in the survey that had been taken, just really one final question. I'll turn to Ms. Rivers and we're going to adjourn our hearing early today. I just wondered what role will the automobile manufacturers, I'm thinking of international as well as domestic, play in the study, I mean our foreign manufacturers? Will they be represented on a study panel? And then has NHTSA said that they will cooperate or participate in any way?
Mr. KAMMER. To answer your last question first, yes, we've invited NHTSA and they've agreed, which we're very appreciative of.
Second, we have actually sent the Federal Register notice to a number of international groups that have expressed interest in this that we were in contact with previously; and invited their input through the Federal Register notice process.
And as far as the ASME review of changes, we want to make sure that all parties that are engaged in commerce in the United States are represented, so it would be very appropriate for them to participate.
Mrs. MORELLA. Good, glad to hear it. I'm now pleased to recognize Ms. Rivers?
Ms. RIVERS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I don't have a lot of questions, and I apologize for not getting here earlier. Things are a little crazy here on the Hill today as you might well guess. But I will read all of your testimony because this is something I'm interested in. I know that folks are often concerned when they testify in front of a Committee what the bias of the individual members are. I promise you I did not come to Congress with a preconceived notion on the Fastener Quality Act.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. MORELLA. That wasn't one of your platforms?
Ms. RIVERS. However, I have had concerns raised with me from both sides. And so I'm very interested in what you have to say and where we'll go with this.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I have a question actually for the Chair because I'm trying to understand how this Committee is going to move forward with the testimony we're hearing today and other information we may have, given that the Commerce Committee is also engaged currently in an evaluative exercise. Who actually has the overriding jurisdiction for this issue?
Mrs. MORELLA. Well, NIST is under our jurisdiction, and NIST is involved with the Department of Commerce and would be the implementing agency to do this. And because we have initiated the hearings to begin with; and have promised to have some others to look into whether or not there should be implementation of the Act, then I think that we have a kind of assumed the initiative on it. And because we have the jurisdiction as well as the legislation that became law to delay the implementation.
We are also, if you recall from the bill that became law, we have also asked the Secretary of Commerce to work on his interpretation of the law. And, Mr. Kammer from NIST is undergoing a survey.
So I think it falls within our jurisdiction. I have no problem with Commerce looking at it. I recognize that Mr. Dingell is the one who introduced the bill to begin with, but I think we've taken the initiative because we have found that it was necessary to further look into this law that had never been implemented.
Ms. RIVERS. And I will say again that I will read your testimony because I am very interested. I just wanted to raise one point with Mr. Grant. I wanted clarification because you mentioned the 1997 Ford trucks. My husband drives one and thousands of my constituents build them. And my recollection was that the problem was not one of faulty fasteners, but fasteners that were incorrectly lubricated and couldn't be tightened adequately. Would this particular bill have made a difference in that situation?
Mr. GRANT. You know, what I'm hearing is that it was a design problem, but yet it was a plating problem of lubricity, whether it was either too dry or to loose, that allowed it to back off.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Let's talk about that——
Ms. RIVERS. I want to go back to that. I just want to know if, in fact, this law would have prevented—if this had been implemented a year previous to this incident, that this law, with its elements as written, would have prevented that 1997 Ford truck recall?
Mr. GRANT. It very well could have prevented 1,700,000 from getting out there because they might have done a little bit of testing in plating areas, and to make sure that everything was appropriate.
Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Klimisch, maybe you could speak to that too?
Mr. KLIMISCH. Absolutely not. It would not have avoided that problem at all. The problem was one of specification. The bolts, in fact, met the specification. They were different bolts with different surface treatments, and this Act wouldn't have avoided that at all. Many of the problems Mr. Grant brings up are, in fact, specification or design problems or incorrect fasteners. And the Fastener Quality Act will have no effect on those.
Ms. RIVERS. So if the wrong bolts are used, this is going to keep that from happening?
Mr. KLIMISCH. Absolutely not.
Ms. RIVERS. Okay. Those were my questions. Thank you.
Mrs. MORELLA. I have one final question to Mr. Kammer. We could go on for a long time, but we'll have more hearings. In your opinion, would you consider the problem with substandard fasteners to be a failure in the fastener manufacturing process or a problem associated with the illegal mislabeling of fasteners?
Mr. KAMMER. In the late 1980's, when I was testifying on this and we had done a, at that point at least in time, a pretty systematic survey of what was out there. My conclusion was that it was a fraud issue as opposed to a manufacturing issue. And one wonders if people are capable of mis-marking a bolt, are they also willing to misrepresent their quality statements on pieces of paper? I suspect they would be. Fraud was the concern that I had at the time as opposed to manufacturing.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mrs. MORELLA. So this leads us to the possibility that we should be exploring replacing FQA with fraud laws or better enforcement or something of that nature?
Mr. KAMMER. I certainly think that's one of the questions that we have to pursue in the study now.
Mrs. MORELLA. Yes. Would anyone else like to comment on that? Do you feel outnumbered, Mr. Grant?
Mr. GRANT. Back in the early 1980's, I met with Bill Archer, Congressman Archer, in the Federal Building in Houston, and explained the fastener problem to him at that time. And he said, ''Tommy, there are fraud laws against this.''
Mrs. MORELLA. Maybe they could be strengthened though. I know we have fraud laws, but maybe they could be strengthened.
I'm going to ask unanimous consent that Congressman Hastert's statement, he's not here, but the statement that he is submitting be included in the record. As I mentioned, the entirety of all of your statements will be.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hastert follows:]
Insert offset folios 9-10
Mrs. MORELLA. Do you have any final points that you'd like to make, and I would also ask you indulgence if other members of the Committee want to submit questions. And I have a few more questions I wanted to ask you. If you would respond to them?
Mr. BRUNNER. Madam Chairwoman, I would be more than happy to do so.
Mrs. MORELLA. Splendid. And any other final comments you would like to make? Mr. Grant?
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GRANT. I'm picking up some indication in here today that this law is going to hurt the small people. I'm a very small distributor, and it's not going to hurt me. It's going to make my business better. It's very easy to implement. It's not going to be any problem. The thing about it is the manufacturer—the standards today that we have on the books, say that the manufacturers are responsible for the final testing and inspecting. And what I'm picking up here today is there's a possibility that these fastener manufacturers don't want to do the final testing and inspecting.
Thank you.
Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you. Mr. Klimisch, did you want to add anything else? We appreciate your being here.
Mr. KLIMISCH. Just thank you for your attention to this. We appreciate that, and we are anxious to get this resolved.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Kammer?
Mr. KAMMER. Thank you once again for having this hearing.
Mrs. MORELLA. You're all very important to the resolution of the FQA or any amending that needs to be done; and I very much appreciate the excellent testimony.
We've actually been joined by somebody who has been very important to the Technology Subcommittee, our Vice Chair, Mr. Gutknecht. And I don't know, Mr. Gutknecht, before I adjourn, do you want to make any comments? I know he has been following this issue, but we've had so many things on the Floor and meetings today.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Well, thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I apologize for being late. Yes, we've got two or three meetings going on at the same time. This is an issue that I have a very intense interest in. I'm sorry, I was getting a briefing here on exactly what the testimony was, and I apologize for being late. I would hope that at some point in the future, we could have another hearing because my own opinion is, and I'm perfectly willing to listen to experts, that this was another example that we sometimes see here at the federal level where we have a classic $20 solution to a $5 problem. I think there is a problem out there. I'm not certain that this particular set of regulations is the solution to those problems.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I appreciate the fact we had the hearing, and I am very, very sorry that I couldn't get here earlier. And I appreciate hearing, and hopefully, perhaps in the next Congress, we can do the same and bring some kind of resolution to this matter.
Mrs. MORELLA. We shall. We shall follow through on this. And any questions you may have, we can submit to the panel.
Thank you all very much for being here and for your testimony.
The Technology Subcommittee is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[The following material was received for the record:]
Insert offset folios 94-107
51–985CC
1998
THE FASTENER QUALITY ACT: NEEDED OR OUTDATED?
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
OCTOBER 8, 1998
[No. XX]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin, Chairman
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York
HARRIS W. FAWELL, Illinois
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
JOE BARTON, Texas
KEN CALVERT, California
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan**
DAVE WELDON, Florida
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
MATT SALMON, Arizona
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota
MARK FOLEY, Florida
THOMAS W. EWING, Illinois
CHARLES W. ''CHIP'' PICKERING, Mississippi
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
MERRILL COOK, Utah
PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR., Washington
TOM A. COBURN, Oklahoma
PETE SESSIONS, Texas
VACANCY
GEORGE E. BROWN, Jr., California RMM*
RALPH M. HALL, Texas
BART GORDON, Tennessee
JAMES A. TRAFICANT, Jr., Ohio
TIM ROEMER, Indiana
JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida
.L.YNN N. RIVERS, Michigan
ZOE LOFGREN, California
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina
NICK LAMPSON, Texas
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon
LOIS CAPPS, California
BARBARA LEE, California
BRAD SHERMAN, California
VACANCY
TODD R. SCHULTZ, Chief of Staff
BARRY C. BERINGER, Chief Counsel
PATRICIA S. SCHWARTZ, Chief Clerk/Administrator
VIVIAN A. TESSIERI, Legislative Clerk
ROBERT E. PALMER, Democratic Staff Director
Subcommittee on Technology
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland, Chairwoman
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
THOMAS W. EWING, Illinois
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
MERRILL COOK, Utah
JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan
BART GORDON, Tennessee
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
.L.YNN N. RIVERS, Michigan
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina
VACANCY
*Ranking Minority Member
**Vice Chairman
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
October 8, 1998:
Donald Manzullo, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois
Raymond G. Kammer, Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD
Richard L. Klimisch, Vice President, Engineering Affairs Division, American Automobile Manufacturers Association, Washington, DC
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Tommy Grant, President, Grant Fastener, Inc., Houston, TX
Robert E. Brunner, Vice President and General Manager, Shakeproof/ITW, Elgin, IL
APPENDIX
Statement of the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc.
Statement of Caterpillar, Inc.
Statement of McCoy Bolt
(iii)