37 
regulator, a situation similar to that of the now-defunct Atomic 
Energy Commission. There is an obvious conflict of interest inherent in 
this situation. 
In a democratic society, representatives of the citizenry should be 
involved in making decisions about activities of major importance in 
their communities. A clear call for such involvement will not be found 
in the language of this bill. 
The absence of such provisions is totally contrary (to the great strides 
made by the Congress in recent years in mandating citizen participa- 
tion, through designated representatives, in decisions that affect the 
lives of the people. 
II. FEDERAL PREEMPTION OF STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION 
HR. 11192 provides that States and localities may not regulate 
DNA research activity within their jurisdictions unless their require- 
ments and their requirements are “necessary” to protect health or the 
environment. The argument made by proponents of this section is that 
it provides for national uniformity of regulation and gives the correct 
role to an asserted Federal expertise. Proponents of this section also 
argue that without such a restriction, communities might attempt to 
“stop research” unthinkingly. 
We must disagree with these assertions. 
Section 102(b) of HR. 11192, which allows the Secretary by order 
to exempt any DNA research activity from HEW regulations, itself 
allows for inconsistent regulation. In any case, it is not at all clear 
that a State or city should not be allowed to regulate to protect public 
health and the environment because its manner of regulation might be 
inconsistent with that of another governmental body. Indeed, on the 
day following committee action on this bill, the Commerce Committee 
reported out H.R. 10909, the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act, 
which allows States to continue to regulate laboratory activities if 
their standards are at least as stringent as Federal guidelines. No ad- 
ditional requirement that any added regulations be found “necessary” 
by the Secretary is imposed by that bill. The pattern found in the 
Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act is the norm for health-related 
legislation: States and/or communities are free to regulate within 
their borders as long as they meet Federal minimum standards. Such 
a regulatory scheme allows for the utilization of Federal expertise, but 
also gives the people the most directly affected by a given situation 
the ability to impose additional requirements they reasonably 'believe 
are required to adequately protect the welfare of their communities. 
The experience of Cambridge, Mass., where the type of local regula- 
tion was a topic of community wide debate, has shown that local Gov- 
ernment can and Should be allowed to regulate in this research area. 
The outcome was a regulatory scheme that citizen and scientist alike 
can support. Neither the City Council of Cambridge nor the Maryland 
State Legislature, which has also acted in this area, “stopped research” 
by imposing their regulations. They did, however, exercise the powers 
which we allocate as a matter of fundamental principle to representa- 
tive government in our society. 
We attempted in Committee to effectuate our view that State and 
local governments should have the right to impose their own regulation 
[Appendix B — 167] 
