20 
(2) was the inspection carefully limited in time, place 
and scope? ... „ , . 
was the inspection of central importance to a valid t ederai 
purpose? . 
(4) is there a long history of regulation of the in- 
spected industry ?” 
The Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee notes that, “ob- 
viously, the fourth consideration— history of extensive Federal or 
State regulation — is a test that cannot be met.” Additional concern 
has been expressed by some that the authorization of warrantless ad- 
ministrative searches by this bill is not in accord with Fourth Amend- 
ment protections against unreasonable searches or a number of perti- 
nent Supreme Court decisions. 
The committee is not prepared to give an opinion on these matters; 
however, considering the seriousness of the issue it is suggested that 
this particular aspect of the legislation receive further attention by 
the relevant Committees of Congress and by the Commission estab- 
lished in Title II. 
Section 106. Effect on State and Local Requirements 
One of the most discussed and debated subjects by both House 
committees which considered the bill, is the so-called “preemption” 
clause, Section 106 of the bill. 
In essence, t his section states that Federal regulations of recom- 
binant DNA research shall take precedence over any State or local 
regulations on the subject unless (1) the local regulations are more 
stringent than the Federal ones and (2) it can be shown that the 
stronger restriction is “necessary to protect health or the environment.” 
The Committee on Science and Technology made no change in this 
section, the chair having ruled its amendment not germane to the 
committee’s authority under sequential referral rules. 
But the committee did consider the various implications of the sec- 
tion, and it was clear that strong views exist with regard to pre- 
emption along several different lines. 
Clearly there are those on the committee who consider this section 
one of the most important in the bill. They feel that without it, a host 
of varying local controls would spring up which would make useful 
recombinant DNA research almost impossible. They oppose any sug- 
gestions for change which might “water down” the section. 
Some members of the committee might prefer to see the section 
eliminated on grounds that preemption is but another instance of the 
Federal Government interfering in the rights of States and localities 
to make rules which they conceive as necessary for their own safety 
and protection. 
And, also clearly, there are those who would prefer to take a some- 
what in-between, or compromise, position. For the most part those who 
espouse this procedure have concentrated on the proposal that the word 
“necessary” in Sec. 106(b) (2) be eliminated in favor of “reasonable.” 
This, they argue, would provide a more flexible formula for permit- 
ting local regulations to prevail — based upon “reasonable” require- 
ments for local control rather than “necessary” ones. They believe the 
change would further allow a greater voice in the situation for States 
and localities regardless of which set of regulations governs. 
[Appendix B — 208] 
