[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 93 (Tuesday, July 12, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H5661-H5676]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 739, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH
SMALL BUSINESS DAY IN COURT ACT OF 2005; H.R. 740, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY
AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION EFFICIENCY ACT OF 2005; H.R. 741,
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF OSHA CITATIONS ACT
OF 2005; H.R. 742, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH SMALL EMPLOYER ACCESS
TO JUSTICE ACT OF 2005
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 351 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 351
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 739) to amend the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to provide for
adjudicative flexibility with regard to the filing of a
notice of contest by an employer following the issuance of a
citation or proposed assessment of a penalty by the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The bill shall
be considered as read. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order to consider
in the House the bill (H.R. 740) to amend the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 to provide for greater
efficiency at the Occupational Safety and Health Review
Commission. The bill
[[Page H5662]]
shall be considered as read. The amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Education and the
Workforce now printed in the bill shall be considered as
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill, as
amended, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 3. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order to consider
in the House the bill (H.R. 741) to amend the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 to provide for judicial
deference to conclusions of law determined by the
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission with respect
to an order issued by the Commission. The bill shall be
considered as read. The amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Education and the
Workforce now printed in the bill shall be considered as
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill, as
amended, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 4. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order to consider
in the House the bill (H.R. 742) to amend the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 to provide for the award of
attorney's fees and costs to small employers when such
employers prevail in litigation prompted by the issuance of a
citation by the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration. The bill shall be considered as read. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one
hour of debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 5. (a) In the engrossment of H.R. 739, the Clerk
shall--
(1) await the disposition of all the bills contemplated in
sections 2-4;
(2) add the respective texts of all the bills contemplated
in sections 2-4, as passed by the House, as new matter at the
end of H.R. 739;
(3) conform the title of H.R. 739 to reflect the addition
to the engrossment of the text of all the bills contemplated
in sections 2-4 that have passed the House;
(4) assign appropriate designations to provisions within
the engrossment; and
(5) conform provisions for short titles within the
engrossment.
(b) Upon the addition of the text of the bills contemplated
in sections 2-4 that have passed the House to the engrossment
of H.R. 739, such bills shall be laid on the table.
(c) If H.R. 739 is disposed of without reaching the stage
of engrossment as contemplated in subsection (a), the bill
contemplated in sections 2-4 that first passes the House
shall be treated in the manner specified for H.R. 739 in
subsections (a) and (b), and all other bills contemplated in
sections 2-4 that have passed the House shall be laid on the
table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
The resolution before us is the rule for the consideration of a
package of four bills, H.R. 739, 740, 741, and 742. They are pieces of
legislation which passed with a significant bipartisan majority in the
108th Congress and are once again being brought to the floor today to
help reduce the impact of unduly burdensome regulations for American
small businesses and thereby enhancing American competitiveness, and to
restore fairness in applying workplace safety regulations to small
business.
The rule before us, House Resolution 351, provides for the separate
consideration of each of these four bills. Under the rule, each bill
will have its own debate time and the opportunity to be thoroughly
debated and voted on by this body.
Finally, the rule also provides that at the close of consideration of
these measures, the Clerk of the House will be directed to combine the
text of each of these bills that do pass the House under this rule as
one engrossed bill, and send that bill to our friends on the other side
of this Capitol, where they will have a better opportunity this time to
be both deliberative and, hopefully, active at the same time.
While this may seem to be a complicated rule, the effect is quite
simple. The bills brought up for consideration under this rule will
allow small businesses to focus more of their energy on competing in
the marketplace, providing their customers with better goods and better
services and creating new jobs across America, rather than spending
their time paying questionable fines, wrangling with regulators,
worrying about the uncertainties created by an inadequate dispute
process, created by staffing shortages, or having to pay for lawyers'
fees to help fight a just cause with occasionally insensitive, but most
often distant, Federal bureaucracy in Washington, D.C.
The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) and the subcommittee
chairman, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), as well as the hard
work by both Republican and Democratic Members of this committee, are
to be commended in bringing a well-balanced small business fairness
package to the floor today.
The first of these four bills, 739, which is the Occupational Safety
and Health for Small Businesses Day in Court Act, tries to provide
flexibility to employers filing responses to OSHA citations.
We currently have a hard and very arbitrary standard of 15 days to
respond to an OSHA citation, even though in the 1980s, the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure granted employer relief to file a late notice
if there was a mistake, inadvertence, a surprise, or excusable neglect.
This bill simply codifies this commonsense practice. Hard and fast
deadlines in instances sometimes work an injustice, but in any case
they provide only a safe standard for the bureaucrats, but lack the
common sense to help small businesses which were clearly recognized in
the Federal Rules on Civil Procedure.
{time} 1215
There is no good reason why we should not codify for all what is
occasionally given to some and allow for some discretion in granting
relief to innocent employers for, as the law says, mistake,
inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. There should be no
controversy over this commonsense bill.
The second bill, H.R. 740, the Occupational Safety and Health Review
Commission Efficiency Act of 2005, provides for the addition of two
additional members to the review commission, and the additional human
resources will allow it to complete its work in a timely fashion for
the benefit of both employers and employees. For two-thirds of the life
span of the review commission's existence, the commission has
frequently been paralyzed by vacancies that have resulted in several
critical and well-documented inefficiencies and rendered the entire
regulatory scheme devised by Congress to resolve OSHA disputes as
unworkable. The byproduct of this breakdown delays final adjudication.
It harms real business. It hinders real job creation. There is a simple
and easy way to resolve this particular problem.
The third bill, H.R. 741, the independent review of OSHA citations,
by legislative history and practice, OSHA was designed to be
responsible for rule-making, enforcement and adjudication. But Congress
also established a review commission. Its intention was to give an
independent review of OSHA functions as a check on prosecutorial
excesses by OSHA.
A 1984 court decision extended the concept of administrative
deference to the agency and subsequent court decision which have been
conflicting, have compounded the problem, and conflicted the process of
checks and balances Congress intended. This bill simply restores
responsible checks and balances to the current system by making it
clear that it is the commission's legal interpretation that should be
given proper judicial deference.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the fourth bill, H.R. 742, deals with small
employers' access to justice. This simply provides for a small employer
to have payment of attorney fees when that small employer prevails in
litigation that was prompted by the issuance of a citation by OSHA. The
legislation is simple in its rationale: Small business people should
not be intimidated into blindly following mandates because they do not
think they can afford to fight a case in court in which they would
otherwise prevail. This levels the playing
[[Page H5663]]
field so that small businessmen and businesswomen have an equal chance
with powerful government bureaucracies that have virtually unlimited
legal resources of the Federal Government behind them. This bill helps
the mom-and-pop businesses to be able to have the courage to speak up
for themselves when they are right.
Small businesses still provide a majority of the jobs in this
country, and they feel the economic pressure brought by government
regulations and taxes every day. It is only fair that through these
four bills in these very specific areas that we take care to remove any
economic incentives for the fostering of an insensitive Federal
regulatory bureaucracy.
Mr. Speaker, these are four commonsense good bills which, once again,
enjoyed a bipartisan majority of Members' support in the 108th
Congress.
Our country has had 35 years of experience with OSHA. As documented
in testimony before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce,
modest improvements are needed to restore balance to the regulatory
scheme through these bills as they relate to small business. Last year,
the Office of Management and Budget reported to the Congress the annual
cost of major Federal regulations for the decade from 1992 to 2002 was
somewhere between $38 and $44 billion which means that, for every
dollar we spend for regulation, we also as a government spend $1.50 for
compliance costs and the private sector spends $45 in compliance costs.
The over-regulation of business puts us at a competitive disadvantage
with the rest of the world, places unlimited, unnecessary limits on our
economy and harms the consumer.
I am proud the congressional leadership is continuing to look at ways
to pare back the overwhelming growth in regulation and bureaucracy, and
I urge my colleagues to support the rule for these four bills to keep
American businesses competitive in a global marketplace, to keep jobs
here in America. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the
underlying bills.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) for the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule
and all four of the underlying pieces of legislation that it
encompasses. For those who did not hear me the first time, I said four
pieces of legislation under one closed rule.
This is a quadruple coupon day in the House of Representatives, Mr.
Speaker. Four opportunities to shut off democracy for the price of one.
What is perhaps most offensive about the rule is the fact that not one
amendment was made in order for any of the four bills. Let me repeat
that: Not one amendment was made in order for any of the four
underlying bills.
Closed rules are an affront to our democracy. We should stop it now.
My outrage and the outrage of all on this side of the aisle is as much
about process as it is about policy. Pure partisan politics never
produces sound public policy. And patronizing corporate interests to
pad one's campaign coffers has no place in the people's House. Yet,
that is all the majority seems interested in doing.
The political score Republicans are seeking to settle with their
barrage of anti-working-class legislation is not going to be fulfilled
by stifling debate and blocking Democrats out of the process.
Republicans are calling this the OSHA fairness package. Fair for who?
There are only losers with these bills, Mr. Speaker, and the biggest
victim is the American worker. All four of the underlying pieces of
legislation represent a buffet of rollbacks in our laws governing
working conditions.
Mr. Speaker, do we have an overwhelming epidemic in this country of
ridiculous and overzealous workplace lawsuits that I do not know about?
The judicial process for violations and workplace health and safety
standards has been in place for nearly 30 years. It is fair, and most
importantly, it protects the rights of workers. Yet, two of the
underlying bills affecting OSHA standards are coming as a direct result
of recent court rulings that Republicans and their corporate friends do
not agree with. The other two are aimed at stacking the OSHA commission
with anti-worker commissioners and creating a system where only those
who can afford legal representation will be permitted to file a
complaint with the Workplace Safety and Health Board.
Mr. Speaker, I do not like the new policy of this Congress which can
best be described as ``when the courts rule against you, legislate
against the courts.''
Why are we stifling Members from offering thoughtful amendments? Just
one example, if I may. The ranking Democrat on the Committee on
Education and the Workforce, my good friend, the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller), a man who served in this body for 30
years and is known throughout the country as a champion for working-
class Americans, Republicans denied him the opportunity to offer a
substitute to one of the underlying bills that came out of his
committee.
Had the majority made the Miller substitute in order, the House could
have done something today that would have actually benefited working-
class Americans. We could have had a real debate about increasing the
minimum wage to a meager $7.25 an hour.
Realize, this is an amount that while above the current level of
$5.15 is significantly below the much needed living wage that is needed
to pull someone making the minimum wage 40 hours a week above the
poverty line. In blocking the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller) from offering his amendment, Republicans are again proving that
they are anything but the people's party. Perhaps the majority is
blocking what it knows it cannot defeat, or better yet, perhaps the
majority is just protecting its members from taking a vote that will
show their true colors. Shame on them and shame on this body if it
allows this assault on American workers to continue. None of us in this
body would want to live on $5.15 an hour. None of us would want to work
three jobs just to make ends meet. None of us would want to work three
jobs and still have no health care. Yet, that is what we are asking,
no, requiring millions of our fellow citizens to do.
When the opportunity to increase the minimum wage presents itself,
Republicans blocked House Members from voting on it. At least in the
other body, while the leadership opposed an increase in the minimum
wage, they at least permitted a vote. Protecting the rights of those
most in need is the cornerstone of our great democracy. I refuse to
remain silent while those on the other side of the aisle seek to
dismiss this cardinal American value.
I urge my colleagues to reject the closed rule and oppose the
underlying pieces of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am appreciative of being able to talk about the four
bills dealing with regulatory reform, all of which have had full debate
in the committee this year, as well as full debate in the committee
last year. And the Committee on Rules did approve every amendment that
was germane. Unfortunately, of the three amendments that were present,
none of them were germane to the topic of regulatory reform.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Norwood), the subcommittee chairman, to address this rule.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but add or repeat so our
Members know, the amendments that were not accepted from the Democrats
had nothing to do with these bills. They were simply not germane, and I
know that upsets them, but those are the rules of House.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule which provides the House
an opportunity today to address four very important bills. These
measures in my view are very modest reforms. They have been narrowly
drafted to make needed changes in our law, actually for about 34 years,
while avoiding the possibility of any reduction in the current levels
of workplace protections.
Now, I believe that our committee, at least most of our committee,
believes that. As such, a structured rule providing for consideration
of these four
[[Page H5664]]
measures on their merits in my view is entirely appropriate.
As I will detail later in the debate on these bills, we need to
implement these changes because small employers ought to be devoting
more of their time and attention to creating new jobs and less on
dealing with government lawyers intent on manipulating legal
technicalities. And that, in fact, is going on. With that, I will
briefly summarize each of these bills for my colleagues.
The first measure for consideration under this rule is H.R. 739, the
Occupational Safety and Health Small Business Day in Court. In almost
every other court in this Nation, a party that acts in good faith but
nonetheless misses a lead deadline that results in a legal default can
ask the court to have the case heard on its merits. Currently, there is
doubt over whether the Occupational Safety and Health Review
Commission, the agency specifically and importantly created by Congress
to hear each legal dispute between an employer and OSHA, has the
statutory flexibility to grant this type of relief.
All H.R. 739 does is to provide flexibility that almost every other
court in the Nation exercises. We use identical terminology to that
used in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 60(b), a rule used
by nearly every other court in the Nation.
The second bill provided for under the rule is H.R. 740, the
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission Efficiency Act of
2004. Under current law, two members of a three-member panel are needed
to constitute a quorum. For 20 percent of its existence, this agency
has lacked even a quorum of two. OSHRC has had a full complement of
members seated and active for only about one-third of its history. That
does not work. That does not work for anybody.
Even now, the commission can be paralyzed only with two members if
there is not complete agreement as to all points. To remedy the
situation, H.R. 740 proposes, increases the membership of OSHRC from
three members to five. This change is modeled on other government
agencies and, in particular, the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review
Commission.
H.R. 740 also incorporates a new provision that permits the President
to invite an incumbent member of OSHRC whose term has expired to hold
over until a replacement can be confirmed by the Senate.
{time} 1230
Now, this just makes sense if you want OSHRC to work, and I do. There
are some cases that have been over there for 8 years, for pity's sake.
Now, my friends on the other side may say, oh, all they are trying to
do is to pack the commission because there is a Republican President.
Well, these commissioners do not serve for life. You will have an
opportunity sometime in the future maybe to put your own commissioner
on there, but we need to get these things resolved. This will solve
that.
The next measure to be considered under the rule is H.R. 741, the
Occupational Safety and Health Independent Review of OSHA Citations Act
of 2005. This one is important, in my view. H.R. 741 simply reinstates
congressional intent, and we will say that over and over in the next 4
hours, because an activist judge changed the law of 1971.
The legislative history of the OSH Act clearly indicates that back in
1970 Congress realized that in granting extraordinary and unprecedented
authority to OSHA, the agency would need some mechanism to make sure
that the authority was not abused. If you study the history on this a
little bit, Senator Javitz noted the future of the OSH Act depended on
this compromise that created an independent review at the time it was
passed, with a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate and a
Republican President.
This bill never would have passed had not this review been put in
there. H.R. 741 simply restores congressional intent by ensuring that
this review is, in fact, an independent one and not dictated by OSHA.
The last measure considered under the rule is H.R. 742, the
Occupational Safety and Health Small Employer Access to Justice Act.
This measure simply levels the playing field for small employers by
encouraging OSHA to better assess the merits of the case before
bringing the full force and power of government litigation against
small businesses.
To empower small business employers to seek their day in court, H.R.
742 simply provides that if OSH loses, very small employers can recover
their attorneys' fees and costs. This remedial measure is important
because it has become crystal clear that failings in current law
prevent almost any recovery of attorneys' fees in the OSHA environment.
I think there has been one and a half a year for the last 24 years.
Mr. Speaker, the rule under consideration provides for ample debate
on each of these measures. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to support both this rule and each of the bills we will consider
under it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), a
champion of worker rights.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman
for yielding me this time, for his leadership on the Committee on
Rules, and for being such a stalwart on behalf of worker protections.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to defeat the previous question on the
rule and allow this body to have an up-or-down vote on an increase in
the minimum wage. By refusing to take up this bill over the past 9
years, the leadership of the House must take responsibility for what
effectively is a repeal of the national minimum wage.
American workers are long overdue a raise. Real wages are declining
for the first time in more than a decade, while prices of health care,
gasoline, and other necessities are rising, making it even more urgent
that we raise the minimum wage now. The minimum wage has been stuck at
$5.15 an hour since 1997. That is $5.15 an hour since 1997, and that is
what this Congress has done to the American worker.
Every American deserves a decent wage for the work they do, and most
Americans agree that we should raise the minimum wage. They see it as a
matter of fairness for their fellow workers. Unfortunately, the
Republican Congress disagrees, and the Republican Congress disrespects
workers and violates the will of the people when it refuses to increase
the minimum wage. We ought to respect workers by guaranteeing them a
fair wage. Work should be the path out of poverty, but millions of
Americans work full time every day all year long and still live at
poverty because they work at the Federal minimum wage.
The failure of Congress has pushed millions of America's most
vulnerable workers into poverty or near poverty. The Fair Minimum Wage
Act of 2005 we present today as an alternative to these bills which
roll back health and safety protections would in fact raise the minimum
wage to $7.25 an hour in three steps, $5.85, 60 days after enactment of
the bill; $6.55 one year later; and $7.25 one year after that.
This would reverse the trend we now see where the number of Americans
in poverty has increased by 4.3 million since President Bush took
office. Nearly 36 million people live in poverty, including 1 million
children.
A recent report by the Center of Economic Policy Research shows that
most minimum wage workers make a significant contribution to total
family income. Half of them are between the ages of 25 and 54. Many
workers find themselves trapped in minimum wage jobs; more than one-
third of 25-to-50-year-old workers in minimum wage jobs are still
earning a minimum wage after 3 years.
Another report from the Children's Defense Fund finds that the annual
income of a single parent working full time at minimum wage covers only
40 percent of the estimated cost of raising two children; 7\1/2\
million workers will directly benefit from minimum wage increases. More
than 84 percent of those workers are 20 years old or older, 45 percent
are married or have children, 60 percent work full time, 59 percent are
white, 13 percent are black, and 23 percent are Hispanic, with 57
percent women and 94 percent, of course, not protected by union
representation.
In the past 8 years, Members of Congress have had a COLA seven times.
In those same 8 years, minimum wage workers have not gotten a single
raise. They continue to earn $10,700 a year for working all year, all
day long.
[[Page H5665]]
Mr. Speaker, we should vote against the previous question so that we
will have an opportunity to offer this up-or-down vote on the minimum
wage, one that is sorely overdue and one that has been kept from the
American public, despite its overwhelming support by the Republican
leadership of this Congress.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume to note that, though I appreciate the very articulate remarks
of the gentleman from California about the issue at hand, which is a
significant issue we should somehow debate, I remind him that we are
talking here about reform of a regulatory process of OSHA. The
gentleman's comments are not germane to this particular bill. There
will be a point in time for that discussion, but we should not cloud
what this bill is actually doing.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Davis) to hopefully clarify this.
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of
this rule and the underlying legislation. I want to take this
opportunity to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Norwood), for 10 years of leadership in this body on a very critical
and important issue.
The opposition today just simply neglects the reality that these
bills do not affect safety at all. Rather, they will improve the
climate of business, and they will improve the opportunity for safety
because all small business owners know that good safety makes good
business, and safety is not what this is about.
OSHA was founded to establish a common guideline to improve safety
and, hence, to improve competitiveness nationally. But it has mutated
into an organization that is seen in the business community, frankly,
with fear, as one that comes with retribution, of uncertainty and
subjectivity in enforcement. Each piece of legislation being considered
today makes commonsense and practical reforms to the Occupation Safety
and Health Administration and to the Occupational Safety and Health
Review Commission to restore original intent of the act from 34 years
ago. Moreover, it will restore the context and the spirit of the
original intent of the law.
Mr. Speaker, I have spent most of my professional life in
manufacturing, working with small manufacturers who were competing in
the global economy and dealing with compliance issues. I have seen this
lost original intent firsthand. What was intended to provide that
commonsense standard is now a confusing mass of regulations that create
cost, that cost us jobs, and that damage competitiveness without
affecting one aspect of safety. Indeed, 50 percent of the regulations
that OSHA can shut down a business with have nothing to do with safety,
but paperwork compliance.
I have watched subjectivity and enforcement where one of my clients,
who had never had a lost day for a safety violation, was violated
repeatedly because this perfect facility had railings that were 34''
instead of 36'' tall all around their machining center, costing them
tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.
Another client, who had over 100 identified safety violations that I
personally noted in my report to their corporate parent, was never
violated because of personal relationships and subjectivity in that
particular locale. This is a travesty and misses the entire point
because the workers in the one location were adversely affected by a
lack of context and enforcement.
Ironically, the fiercest opponents of this small business-friendly
agenda have never created a job, have never met a payroll, and have
never sacrificed personally to ensure their employees have had their
benefits and had their salaries. I have done that, the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Norwood) has done that, and those who are supporting this
legislation in many cases have themselves.
OSHA serves an important function, but I remember one thing one of my
supporters, Riley, said, who started a business from scratch and has
the great loyalty of hundreds of his employees in his small business:
he believes that nobody should run a Federal regulatory agency or even
serve in Federal elected office unless they have created one job,
because it changes your world view and your outlook regardless of
party.
OSHA was created to protect the safety of the workforce and not to
strangle small business. This legislation represents four commonsense
solutions for fine-tuning OSHA to improve protection for our workers,
while reducing unnecessary burdens on small business.
H.R. 739 allows the review commission to waive the hard 15-day rule
appeals deadline for cause. As my colleague previously mentioned, it
removes ambiguities in the current law and brings context to specific
situations so that there can be a climate of dialogue and compliance.
Most small businesses cannot afford to maintain in-house compliance
professionals, and an OSHA citation can be intimidating and confusing,
regularly causing small businesses to miss that 15-day window
inadvertently. This resolution simply permits a waiver for demonstrated
causes or mistake.
H.R. 740 increases the number of commissioners on the review
commission, not to stack the deck, but to allow the backlog of cases to
be able to be removed so these businesses can get back to creating
jobs, generating growth in our economy, and ultimately providing a
future for the generation following behind us.
Currently, there are citations on appeal that have been unresolved
for 8 years. We cannot compete in a climate like this. Stalemate serves
no one.
H.R. 741 clarifies the original congressional intent by affirmatively
declaring that a review court must defer to the review commission. This
brings it back into original statutory compliance and original intent.
The review commission was designed to be the independent arbiter or
judge. OSHA, on the other hand, serves as the prosecutor. Deference by
a reviewing court should be given to the independent arbiter, not to
the prosecutor.
Finally, H.R. 742 allows a small business to recover its legal costs
if it wins. Under current law, a small business is often faced with
simply paying the penalty because it is cheaper than fighting. Too
often our small businesses suffer devastating financial losses just to
prove they are innocent.
In the case I mentioned previously that had no safety violations, or
no loss time for safety violations but was violated on silly paperwork
compliance, there were jobs lost, or actually not created, more
correctly, because of those tens of thousands of dollars spent paying
attorneys instead of paying working families.
As a former small business owner, I know the important impact of this
legislation, what it will have on our small businesses, on the safety
of their employees, and on the generating of additional hopeful jobs
for working families.
I urge all my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to vote in favor of this rule
and to support this critical underlying legislation.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).
(Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of the Fair Minimum
Wage Act of 2005, I urge the Members to defeat the previous question on
the rule and to allow a vote on raising the minimum wage.
Raising the minimum wage is a very important matter for working
families in America. The four bills we will have before us today are
packaged and they are designed to try to trivialize one aspect of the
government's relationship with working families: their safety. We want
to trivialize workers it seems, and working families in every way
possible. In fact, the gentleman just before said unless you have
created a job, you do not deserve the right to speak on policy. Only
those who have created jobs. Well, one might take the attitude that
unless you have fought in combat on the front lines in America, you do
not deserve to make policy.
Working families provide the soldiers who defend this Nation. In all
the wars, 90 percent of the people who die are from working families.
In Iraq, the people on the front lines are from working families.
Working families deserve the protection of their government on the job
through OSHA and any other device we can use.
{time} 1245
They also deserve an increase in the minimum wage. Let us take a look
at
[[Page H5666]]
the scandal of the minimum wage. Let us stop for a moment and consider
the fact that Members of Congress have had several increases in their
wages in the past 8 years. Members of Congress will have raised their
own pay seven times by $28,500. Let me repeat, in the past 8 years,
Members of Congress have raised their own pay seven times by $28,500.
In those same 8 years, minimum-wage workers have not increased their
wage by a single penny. They continue to earn $10,700 a year, $5.15 an
hour.
All we are saying is, please, Members of Congress who have gotten a
$28,500 raise in the last 8 years, let us all together sponsor a very
moderate, conservative bill, it is far too conservative for me, but
where we would raise minimum wage to $7.25 an hour in three steps. Our
bill only proposes that we raise it to $5.85 an hour 60 days after the
enactment of the legislation. We raise it to $6.05, 1 year later, and 1
year after that, we raise it to $7.25. That is what we are proposing.
Who can disagree with that?
Today, the real value of minimum wage is more than $3 below what it
was in 1968. To have the purchasing power it had in 1968, the minimum
wage would need to be more than $8.50 today. I strongly urge that we
consider this amendment. Working families in America deserve some of
the fruits of the Nation's prosperity. They deserve to have their
government not only call upon them to defend the country in times of
war and to die, they deserve to have their government look out for
their interests all of the time. Giving them a way to earn a living is
a good beginning.
The neglect that we have experienced on the battlefield of Iraq with
combat soldiers not being properly outfitted is a reflection of the way
we feel about working families. Working families deserve our attention.
I urge Members to defeat the previous question.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, once again, I have enjoyed the articulate and emotional
discussion that has gone forward on this rule so far. Eventually, we
may actually have a bill that meets the debate.
I would remind my colleagues that these four packages are how we help
small business negotiate through the stream of Federal regulation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman
Boehner) to once again reemphasize that point.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, we are here today to discuss four important bills that
make modest reforms to the Occupational Safety and Health Act. These
bills will help enhance business competitiveness, encourage further job
creation, but most importantly, they will help improve worker safety by
promoting a cooperative climate between employers and OSHA that focuses
on results.
Last week, the Department of Labor reported that more than 3.7
million new jobs have been created since May of 2003, marking the 25th
consecutive month of sustained job creation. But we want to make sure
that onerous government regulations do not hamstring small businesses'
ability to hire new workers and compete in our economy. That is why
these bills are important, and that is why they are on the floor today.
OSHA regulations are amongst the most complex and difficult legal
requirements imposed on employers today. For many employers, especially
smaller employers, compliance with OSHA regulations is a challenge even
with help from experts. Many smaller work sites could make significant
progress in reducing injuries and illnesses if OSHA would just lend
them a helping hand through cooperative partnerships. These voluntary
partnerships take nothing away from strong enforcement. They supplement
traditional enforcement programs to help achieve the best results.
These four bills remove the arbitrary and unintentional legal traps
in current OSHA law that help hamstring better trust and voluntary
cooperation between the agency and employers. While fairly modest in
substance, these reforms are important to small business owners who
struggle every day to comply with complex OSHA laws and provide a safe
working environment for their workers while facing an increasingly
competitive worldwide economy.
Employers who make good-faith efforts to comply with OSHA standards
deserve to be treated fairly and have their day in court. These
commonsense bills will help ensure they receive that opportunity. These
commonsense bills passed the House last year with bipartisan support,
and they deserve every Members' support today. The rule before us is a
fair rule, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I kind of question whether a
closed rule is fair, but I hear the chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, 38 years ago, I was a single working mother
with three small children. They were 1, 3 and 5 years old. I was
receiving no child support, earning minimum wage. Even though I was
employed, I was earning so little I needed welfare to provide my
children with the child care, the health care, and the food that was
necessary to keep us going. Even though I was educated, I had good job
skills, I still was not earning enough to fully support my family. My
story bears repeating because too many families today are in the
absolute same predicament I was 38 years ago.
If this Congress is truly serious about reducing dependence on
welfare, let us increase the minimum wage, let us pay working parents
enough to support their families and take care of themselves.
Otherwise, taxpayers who pay for welfare are subsidizing employers who
do not pay a livable wage.
The minimum wage has not kept up with the increase in the cost of
living. Workers these days can put in a full day, 40 hours a week at
minimum wage and still live below the poverty level. The majority
leadership in this Congress want to kick single moms and their families
off welfare, and they want to cut $10 billion out of Medicaid to reduce
health benefits for low-income families.
A minimum wage increase is also a matter of basic fairness for
millions of working Americans. It is not as if businesses are not doing
well. Private business productivity has and is increasing. Profits are
up, but wages are stagnant. What is wrong with this picture? Is it not
time to let American workers share in the fruits of their labor?
President Bush and his allies say they support traditional American
family values. Well, let us return to the traditional family value of
paying an honest wage for an honest day's work by raising the minimum
wage. If they, the Republicans, believe their own rhetoric, they would
have allowed this discussion as part of this bill.
Vote ``no'' so we can discuss minimum wage and an opportunity for
everybody in the House to say their piece. Vote ``no'' for the four
bills included under this rule.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time opposing this rule.
I would like to express my disappointment that the Committee on Rules
refused to allow a vote on an amendment that has bipartisan support, an
amendment that would require to list contract workers on their injury
site log.
This was not a major expense or an inconvenience for employers, yet
the Committee on Rules defeated it on a party-line vote.
The bills that are up today are not major legislation. They may
correct individual problems, and each of them need to be debated, and
they should be. But not to allow other needed OSHA reforms is a
travesty of this House because of the situation I am getting ready to
talk about. Our amendment was defeated on a party-line vote, even
though we have bipartisan support on the original legislation that was
introduced in March of this year.
Mr. Speaker, 15 people lost their lives during an explosion and fire
at a refinery in Texas City. This is a picture of the site, and I
include for the Record a copy of the Baytown Sun article on the
[[Page H5667]]
deadly accident. This picture shows the site in Texas City.
The bills that are allowed under this rule will do nothing to help
the 15 people killed in this accident. Nothing. That is what the
travesty is on this floor today.
A series of news articles quickly discovered that it is extremely
difficult to assess the safety of such facilities due to the way
employers are required to keep their site logs of injuries on the work
site. While all deaths and injuries are reported to OSHA, only those
involving direct employees of the site-controlling company are required
to be maintained on the site incident log. This means that the
incidents involving contract workers or part-time workers do not show
up on the injury log employers are required to keep by law.
Unfortunately, because current law does not require them to do so, the
site log will look just the same as it did the day before March 23. It
will show no lives were lost.
Those 15 workers who died on this site were contract workers, and
they should be reported. Residents and communities surrounding these
facilities have a right to know if they live near a place that could
endanger them if something were to go wrong. If we had full disclosure
of these incidents, the free market system may be able to work. Workers
are less willing to work in hazardous environments, so facilities would
have incentives to improve safety. Right now, it is nearly impossible
to determine exactly how many accidents have occurred at a particular
site without cross-referencing contracts between employers and
contractors.
OSHA has known these reporting requirements were a problem for 14
years, and yet here we are today dealing with three pieces of
legislation that deal with nothing to do with contract workers.
In 1989, one of the most serious plant explosions in our country
occurred at a plant in Pasadena, Texas, and I am honored to represent
that area. This accident killed 23 workers and injured 232 others. As a
result, OSHA called for a study regarding the use of contract labor in
the petrochemical industry. This study was conducted while the first
George Bush was President, and this study found there was a lack of
adequate injury and incident data. It states that current data
reporting procedures do not capture the full range of injury or
illnesses experienced in the industry because the injury statistics do
not include the experience of contract workers.
This amendment does not require an industry to do anything more than
record injuries and accidents on their site log regardless of whether
they are their employee or someone working on their site. I am not here
to bash employers or OSHA. The bottom line is that neighbors and
employees have the right to know. These bills that we are considering
today may very well weaken job safety, but I do not think they are that
major. We should be working on a bipartisan basis to solve problems and
prevent deaths and injuries like what happened on March 23, 2005, in
Texas City, Texas. That is why these three bills are woefully
inadequate to deal with the problems that we have with on-site job
injuries right now.
[From the Baytown Sun, June 29, 2005]
Alarms, Instrumentation Failed in BP Refinery Blast
(By Pam Easton)
Nassau Bay.--Key pieces of instrumentation and alarms at
BP's Texas City refinery weren't working properly in March
when explosions rocked the plant, killing 15 and injuring
more than 170, federal investigators said Tuesday.
Don Holmstrom, lead investigator with U.S. Chemical Safety
and Hazard Investigation Board, said an alarm within the
isomerization unit--where the explosion occurred--didn't work
properly until after the explosions had begun.
Holmstrom also said a sensor in a section of the raffinate
splitter, which separates chemicals for gasoline production,
indicated the liquid level in the tower was decreasing when
it was instead flooding. Another alarm that should have
sounded when the liquid exceeded 10 feet high didn't
activate, ``even as the liquid flooded more than 12 times
that height,'' Holmstrom said.
Among the 15 people killed in the March 23 explosion, seven
were from Baytown or surrounding communities.
They were: Jimmy Hunnings, 58, of Baytown; Morris Raymond
``Monk'' King, 57 of Baytown; Susan Duhan Taylor, 33, of
Baytown; Ralph Herrera Jr. 27, of Baytown; Larry Linsenbardt,
58 of Mont Belvieu; Ryan Rodriguez, 28, of Dayton; and Lorena
``Lori'' Cruz, 32 of La Porte.
BP spokesman Ronnie Chappell said the federal safety
board's findings are similar to the company's own
investigation completed in May.
The company blamed staff errors for the March 23 explosion
and fire. Among the procedural lapses company executives
cited were a lack of supervision and a six-minute window in
which unit supervisors could have sounded an alarm to
evacuate the area, but didn't.
``If personnel responsible for the safe startup of the isom
unit had followed procedures, the fire and explosion would
not have occurred,'' Chappell said Tuesday.
An alarm notified operators of a liquid level that was too
high in the raffinate splitter at 3:05 a.m. on March 23,
company records show. An operator silenced the alarm, but an
illuminated warning remained on screens and the alarm
remained in effect until 1:20 p.m., the time of the blast,
Holmstrom said.
Meanwhile, liquid-level indicators drifted down from 100
percent to 79 percent beginning at 7:30 a.m., and
``erroneously indicated to operators that the liquid level in
the tower was below 10 feet and was falling back toward a
normal value.''
However, the 164-foot tower was instead flooded with liquid
that reached 120 feet or more, Holmstrom said. A normal level
is below 10 feet.
When the excess liquid and vapor was discharged, it
overwhelmed one of the unit's systems, causing the vapor and
liquid to be released and ignited by a still-unknown source.
Holmstrom said federal investigators will spend the next
four to six weeks testing at least 30 instruments and other
equipment in the isomerization unit, which boosts the octane
level in gasoline. Federal investigators have also asked BP
for equipment maintenance records. Chappell said BP was
cooperating.
Holmstrom said it is ``unprecedented'' for his
investigators to spend so much time looking into equipment,
instrumentation and their possible failures.
``Our objective is to understand why this tragedy occurred,
and, we hope, to prevent similar occurrences in the future,''
he said.
The board will hold a public meeting to discuss complete
findings of the federal probe this fall, Holmstrom added.
Chappell said BP and federal investigators have the same
goal.
``We want to ascertain exactly what occurred and take
action to prevent something like this from ever happening
again,'' he said.
The blast was the plant's third accident in a year,
following a March 2004 explosion that caused an evacuation.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in rising in the
defense of America's working poor. Instead of weakening workplace
safety and not doing this today as the majority intends to do, we ought
to be strengthening the American family by raising the minimum wage.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a report by the nonpartisan
Congressional Research Service which shows that minimum wage will be at
the lowest value as a percentage of poverty in nearly half a century.
Mr. Speaker, it has been 8 years since Congress has increased the
minimum wage. In those 8 years, Members of Congress have raised their
own pay seven times by $28,500.
{time} 1300
In those same 8 years, minimum wage workers have not gotten a single
raise. They continue to earn $10,700. We have given raises to Federal
employees. We have given tax cuts to the extremely wealthy. We have
given tax breaks to oil and a host of other big industries. But we have
ignored the needs and the plight of America's working poor. This study
proves it, and it is time to change it. The current minimum wage fails
to provide enough income to enable minimum workers to afford adequate
housing in any area of this country. It is inexcusable that today in
America nearly one-fifth of children go to bed hungry at night while
their parents work full time at minimum wage. Whether one is a Democrat
or a Republican, ending child poverty should be central to our domestic
agenda. Nearly 3\1/2\ million children have parents who would get an
immediate raise if Congress increased the minimum wage.
Hard work is an American value. We teach our children the importance
of work and encourage them to do well in
[[Page H5668]]
school to achieve a job that rewards it. Despite this, 36 million
working Americans live in poverty. Poverty and wage volatility have
doubled for full-time, full-year workers since the 1970s. Since
President Bush took office, the cost of housing has gone up 33 percent,
college tuition has gone up 35 percent, and health insurance has gone
up 59 percent. But the working poor have not seen one thin dime.
Leave No Child Behind is a cruel joke. America's future depends on
strong families, and if Members believe in values of families, as some
say they do, then they would vote this rule down. Every day we prolong
raising the minimum wage, we ask families and children to do more with
less. It is a bankrupt policy. Instead of rolling back workplace
protections or fooling around the edges with that, we should be
increasing the minimum wage.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this misguided rule and move on
something more important, which is reinvesting in America's people.
July 5, 2005.
Hon. Jim McDermott,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Memorandum: Historical Relationship Between the Minimum Wage and
Poverty, 1959 to 2005
This memorandum is in response to your request about the
historical relationship been the federal minimum wage and
poverty from 1959 to 2005. In particular, you were interested
in the annual income a full-time, full-year worker earning
the minimum wage would earn relative to the poverty level for
a family of three.
Table 1 shows the effective annual minimum wage from 1959
through 2005 for a full-time full-year worker, relative to
the poverty level for a three-person family. The table shows
when statutory changes to the federal minimum wage became
effective. Average effective minimum wage rates for the year
were calculated based on the pro-rated average of effective
wage rates over the course of the year. For example, in 1997,
the minimum wage was $4.75 per hour for the first eight
months of the year (January through August), and $5.15 per
hour for the last four months of the year (September through
December). The average effective minimum wage for the year is
thus: (($4.75 x 8) + ($5.15 x 4))/12, or $4.8833 per hour.
Here, full-time full-year work is assumed to amount to 2,080
hours of work per year (40 hours per week x 52 weeks).
The poverty income level used here is the U.S. Census
Bureau's average weighted poverty thresholds for a family of
three. The earliest year for which official Census Bureau
poverty income thresholds are available is 1959. Census
Bureau poverty thresholds vary by family size and composition
(e.g., the poverty threshold for a family differs by the
number of children in the family). The average weighted
thresholds reflect the average of the individual thresholds
for a given family size by the observed distribution of
families of varying composition in the population, as
measured by the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey
(CPS). Each year the Census Bureau updates the individual
poverty thresholds to reflect changes in prices, and the
average weighted thresholds, to reflect changes in the
composition of the population for families of each size. The
estimate for 2004 is based on the Census Bureau's preliminary
average weighted poverty thresholds, which reflect price
changes for 2004, but reflect the population weighting from
2003, as opposed to 2004. The final average weighted poverty
thresholds for 2004, scheduled for release this fall, may
differ by a few dollars from those shown here. The
projected poverty thresholds for 2005 are based on the
2004 preliminary weighted poverty thresholds adjusted for
average price inflation from January 2005 to May 2005,
compared to the same period in 2004, which amounted to a
3.1 percent increase in the projected 2005 poverty
thresholds, compared to the 2004 preliminary poverty
thresholds. The Census Bureau will issue preliminary
poverty thresholds for 2005 in January 2006, when price
changes for the 2005 calendar year will be available.
Final weighted poverty thresholds for 2005 won't be
available until the fall of 2006.
Figure 1 depicts the basic trends shown in the table. Table
1 and Figure 1 show that the federal minimum wage was highest
relative to poverty in 1968, when it amounted to 118.7
percent of poverty for a full-time full-year worker
supporting three people. Since 1980, the minimum wage has
been below the poverty line for a full-time full-year worker
supporting a family of three. The most recent increase to the
federal minimum wage to $5.15 per hour in September 1997
(from $4.75 per hour) brought full-time full-year minimum
wage earnings for a family of three up to 82.4 percent of
poverty. Since then, the nominal minimum wage of $5.15 per
hour has eroded relative to the poverty level, which is
adjusted each year for changes in prices. In 2005, full-time
full-year earnings for a minimum wage worker amounts to
$10,712, or 68.9 percent of the estimated projected poverty
level for a family of three ($15,536). Based on the
assumptions used, it is projected that the level of the
minimum wage relative to poverty in 2005 will be at the
lowest level seen at any time over the past 47 years.
Tom Gabe,
Specialist in Social Legislation,
Domestic Social Policy Division.
[[Page H5669]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JY05.001
[[Page H5670]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JY05.002
[[Page H5671]]
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, today the minimum wage is at a level so low
that it represents only one-third of the average hourly wage for
American workers as a whole. This represents the lowest level for a
minimum wage since 1949. This is not a ``living wage''; it is not even
a ``minimum wage.'' It is actually a ``sub-minimum wage.'' Today,
American families need a minimum wage increase because there is no
maximum on gas prices at the pump. American families need a minimum
wage increase because there is no maximum on the cost of prescription
drugs and a doctor's visit. American families need a minimum wage
increase because there is no maximum on the cost of getting a college
education.
While the Bush administration sits on its hands as gas prices,
tuition expenses, housing, and health care costs go through the roof,
it nails the lid shut on most hard-working Americans as to how much
they can earn.
Administration friends, like Halliburton, get no-bid, billion-dollar,
open-ended contracts; but the administration cannot spare an extra
eight quarters and a dime for those Americans that are doing some of
the hardest and dirtiest work in our society.
Republicans call debate on this issue today ``out of order.'' I think
it is really our economy that is out of order, when nurses who care for
all of us cannot afford child care; when teachers' aids cannot put
their own children through college; and when first responders, our
police, fire fighters and EMT, cannot afford to live in the
neighborhoods that they help protect.
Republicans have helped to make the richest richer than ever with one
tax break after another and one special interest piece of legislation
after another going through this House. Corporate executives have seen
their compensation skyrocket, and the latest economic studies show that
the gap between rich and poor in this country approaches Third World
standards.
It is long past time for this Congress today, right now, to raise the
minimum wage for those workers who are striving to climb up that
economic ladder and share in the American Dream like the rest of us.
Let us vote in favor of giving American workers and American families
the minimum wage they deserve and do it today.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I also rise to ask my colleagues to vote
``no'' on the previous question so we can begin a discussion about the
minimum wage and the need to provide for the Fair Minimum Wage Act,
which would raise the minimum wage to $7.25. In 60 days after
enactment, it would go to $5.85. In 1 year it would go to $6.55. And in
1 year after that, it would go to $7.25.
In the State of California that I represent, currently the minimum
wage is at $6.75, and I can tell the Members that sometime back our
legislature at one point did not want to enact reform in terms of
providing minimum wage increases; so we went directly to the voters. We
passed an initiative back in 1996 and were able to get support both
from Republicans and from different religious denominations, labor
groups, and just about everybody.
They saw that it was reasonable to provide a minimum wage increase to
those that deserve it the most; and we are talking particularly about
women, women who are in many cases the sole earner, bread winner for
their families, families ranging anywhere from two to three children,
trying to survive on a minimum wage.
Republicans joined us at that time, and I know that many would
believe that this is not a burden on them and it is something that
should be provided for all individuals. I can tell the Members that
right now there are millions, 4.3 million, since President Bush took
office, that are currently living in poverty. Nearly 36 million people,
13 million children.
Among the full-time year-round workers, poverty has doubled since the
1970s from about 1.3 million then to more than 2.6 million. This is an
unacceptably low minimum wage that we are currently faced with right
now in our country, $5.15. Other States in the Union have provided for
more equitable, reasonable increases in the minimum wage. Why can the
Federal Government not do the same thing? Let us move on. Let us make
this agenda one that empowers our working families and not just those
college students that are looking for jobs; but we are talking about
retirees that are also trying to supplement their income as well.
I urge my colleagues to support an increase in the minimum wage.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
member of the Committee on Rules for yielding me this time and also for
his leadership.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I wish we were on the floor today
actually passing a minimum wage bill. The reason why I say that is I do
not believe there is one Member of Congress in their district, no
matter whether they are representing Beverly Hills or representing Palm
Springs or maybe they are representing the Gold Coast in one of our
great cities or maybe one of the higher-priced areas in the city of
Houston, does not have some person in that district that is suffering
from a lack of a reasonable income and no health insurance.
We know there are 44 million uninsured individuals in America, but we
also know there are individuals who cannot afford to make ends meet
because of a lack of a minimum wage. We come to the floor today to do
something that I think is unfortunate: one, to not pay attention to the
need for an increase in the minimum wage. But we also dumbed down the
safety requirements of America. Can one imagine an accident, a tragedy
occurs in their plant and their employer now does not have the
responsibility of notifying OSHA or the Department of Labor? What an
outrage, Mr. Speaker, because we in America believe that the Federal
Government is there to provide the necessary umbrella of safety, the
umbrella of security for Americans.
And yet we have legislation on the floor that would extend or
eliminate the 15-day time frame in which they are supposed to respond.
It also takes away the responsibility of the Department of Labor from
overseeing OSHA and overseeing safety, overturning a Supreme Court
decision. I cannot imagine, Mr. Speaker, that we would be here today
after celebrating July 4, home with our friends and family, pledging
our allegiance to the flag of the United States and the values of
America that we come back one day, one day after that recess where we
were suggesting the need for providing for America and do this kind of
legislation.
I close on this: we have on the front lines of Iraq young men and
women who have offered their lives. They will come back here to take
minimum wage jobs. What an outrage that these young men and women,
Reservists and National Guard, are on the front line and now they
cannot get an increase in the minimum wage because today we take away
safety, but we do not provide for an increase in the minimum wage.
I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and also
I ask them to vote ``no'' on the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, H. Res. 351, to
provide for consideration of the four very contentious and overreaching
bills that amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)--H.R.
739, H.R. 740, H.R. 741, and H.R. 742. I am utterly disappointed by the
fact that the Committee on Rules has issued a closed rule on the debate
over all three bills. Furthermore, it is no mistake that the rule fails
to make in order the amendment offered by Reps. George Miller and Major
Owens to increase the minimum wage. This amendment is identical to the
Minimum Wage bill that was introduced by Mr. Miller that would increase
the minimum wage from $5.15 per hour to $5.85 per hour 60 days after
enactment, up to $6.55 per hour one year after the first increase, and
$7.25 an hour one year from the second increase.
I oppose the underlying bills partly because the relief granted have
nothing to do with ``small businesses'' as their titles purport. Among
other, they address a single situation
[[Page H5672]]
by overturning a case out of the Second Circuit, Chao v. Russell P. Le
Frois Builder, Inc. (Second Circuit, May 10, 2002) to allow the
employer to contest an OSHA citation with a ridiculous amount of
latitude.
In Houston, OSHA proposed fines of $258,000 against the Pasadena Tank
Corporation for an August 23, 2001 accident that killed a worker at a
construction site. The company had 15 days in which to contest or pay
the fines. The Houston-based firm received a citation of six willful
and serious safety violations for failing to protect workers by
providing an inadequate fall protection system. The employee repairing
a rooftop of a storage tank fell 56 feet to the ground when the rooftop
collapsed. An OSHA employee said of the situation, ``The employer knew
about the unsafe working conditions, but continued to place workers at
risk . . . A similar incident happened two years ago when two employees
fell to their deaths from a storage tank. This company's continued
failure to protect its workers from falls is simply unacceptable.''
This failure to act when there is sufficient knowledge to mitigate an
unsafe condition is what these bills will sanction and permit.
Our innocent employers should not be punished from a piece of
legislation that attacks from the ``back door'' by weakening a
procedural standard that has been set in place to protect them. We
should follow the motto, ``if it isn't broken, don't fix it.''
Mr. Chairman, I oppose the rule and the underlying bills, and I
strongly urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), subcommittee chairman.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I think we all want to make sure that the record is
clear. Every court in this country allows for some leeway other than 15
days, and that is simply all this bill actually is doing. We are trying
to give these small business owners the same right as litigants in
every Federal court in the country. It is not very hard to figure out,
and it is not very hard to understand why sometimes some people might
lose the letter they get from OSHA. There are good reasons. And to say
to them, Oh, gosh, you did not make 15 days? You do not get any
justice. You do not get any day in court.
And I just want to put that in the record immediately following the
previous speaker so if anybody ever reads it, they might get all the
facts.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
First, I heard several times that the matter of the minimum wage is
not germane to the four measures included in this one rule. The simple
fact of the matter is that an amendment was offered at the Committee on
Rules last night and that amendment was voted down on a party-line
vote. So at least a discussion during the period of the rule allows the
germaneness of the question having to do with the minimum wage, not so
much of the substance of the base bill.
I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question, Mr.
Speaker, so I can amend the rule and allow the House to vote on the
Miller-Owens bill to increase the Federal minimum wage. This amendment
was offered in the Committee on Rules, as I just said, last night, but
was defeated on a straight party-line vote.
My amendment to the rule would provide that immediately after the
House adopts this rule, it will bring H.R. 2429 to the House floor for
an up-or-down vote. This bill will gradually increase the minimum wage
for Americans from the current level of $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour
after about 2 years.
Mr. Speaker, it is time we in the House started helping American
workers instead of taking away their rights as the four underlying
bills in this rule do. I think one of the best things we can do to help
working families is to increase the minimum wage. It has been nearly 10
years since this Congress has voted to increase the minimum wage, an
increase that was signed into law by President Clinton in August of
1996. Since that time, the value of that increase has eroded by 20
percent. A full-time minimum wage earner is working 40 hours a week,
makes about $10,700 annually, an amount that is $5,000 below the
poverty line for a family of three.
Clearly we are way overdue for another increase. Somehow we have had
time to implement numerous tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, but
we have turned our backs on those who work the hardest and are paid the
least, those who struggle to make ends meet every day.
{time} 1315
I think it is time this Congress developed a conscience and started
helping those who need help the most.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members of this body to vote ``no'' on the
previous question so we can help these 7.5 million American workers who
directly benefit from an increase in the minimum wage.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Forbes). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, last term, when I was a freshman here, having had some
State legislative experience, I remember sitting back there by the rail
talking to some other freshmen saying one of the things we need to do
desperately in this body is have the rule that there should be one bill
and one issue. If we did that, it would create better transparency and
actually better legislation that people would understand.
I think our discussions today illustrate that point. I have a great
deal of empathy for the gentleman from Texas who spoke a few moments
ago, a good friend, a good legislator, and he said, the bills we have
before us would not solve the problem that he introduced. He was
totally accurate, because the topic of his amendment is not the same as
the topic of the bills we have before us today, which is why they were
ruled nongermane and not put in on the rule itself.
I think we have had some fascinating words that I have enjoyed. I am
going to call it fascinating rhetoric today, not really debate, because
like ships passing in the night that never touch, so has our discussion
from both sides of the aisle gone forward, but never really discussed
the same topic at the same particular time.
The four bills we have before us are very narrow in their approach,
and they are very good bills, because they help small businessmen and
small business women to try and negotiate the rule process with OSHA.
They deserve our support, as they deserve the support they got last
year when they were discussed in committee; last year when we passed
them with bipartisan support on the floor; this year, once again, as
they were discussed in committee, because the goal of those bills is to
eliminate the conflict between the Federal Government and small
business and, instead, to enhance cooperation. And that enhanced
cooperation will make a better atmosphere for the business community in
America and make a better country for all of us. That is the point of
these four very good, very narrow and very specific bills.
I urge the Members to support this rule. It is a fair rule. I urge
the Members to support the four underlying bills. They are good bills.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the four bills
the House is considering today.
There is a real disconnect between the issues the American people say
they want Congress to address, and the legislative agenda of the
Majority Party that runs the House of Representatives. Three months
ago, NBC News and the Wall Street Journal commissioned a poll that
asked Americans about the issues they felt were important for Congress
to be engaged on. The response was clear. The number-one ranked issue
that Americans want Congress to deal is workplace health and safety. A
full eighty-four percent of those surveyed said they wanted Congress to
spend more time addressing this issue.
Americans are right to be concerned. Almost 6,000 workers a year die
due to accidents in the workplace. Tens of thousands more die every
year due to occupational illnesses.
So what is the response of the Congressional leaders? Today they have
brought four bills to the House Floor that weaken enforcement of
workplace health and safety. Instead of addressing the need to improve
health and safety conditions on the job, these four bills
[[Page H5673]]
would undermine worker protections under the Occupational Safety and
Health Act.
Are the American people wrong in demanding that Congress strengthen
workplace health and safety? It seems to me that the Congressional
leaders and the Majority Party are out of touch with working Americans
that they continue to advance legislation that would take us in exactly
the opposite direction.
I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing these workplace safety
rollbacks.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the
Republican attack on workplace health and safety represented by the
four bills offered today amending the Occupational Safety and Health
Act. Once again in this Republican Congress, the lobbying power of big
business takes precedence over the well being of hard working
Americans.
Every year almost 6,000 workers in this country die due to workplace
accidents. That number will surely rise if the Republicans are
successful in passing these four bills. I could understand if Congress
wanted to attack supposedly overbearing OSHA regulations, but this
legislative package makes it harder for OSHA to enforce even the most
non-controversial workplace safety regulations. Republicans have no
interest in actually reforming OSHA, they merely want another notch on
the bedpost to attract more campaign contributions from big business.
In post 9/11 America, strong enforcement of OSHA regulations can save
lives. In the unfortunate event of another terrorist attack, it is OSHA
who ensures clear ingress and egress from buildings, and proper size
and placement of stairwells and exits to facilitate emergency
evacuations. The bills before us undermine OSHA's ability to
effectively enforce these vital safety standards. Once again, the
misguided priorities of the Republicans and the Bush Administration
seem more concerned about corporate profits than the safety of our
workers.
Even more shameful, is the message these bills send about the true
Republican agenda for labor rights. For over a year, Republicans in
Congress have been talking about how the Central America Free Trade
Agreement (CAFTA) improves working conditions in other countries. Not
only is that contention blatantly false, it is clear from this
legislation that Republicans don't care about working conditions in
this country, let alone in Central America.
We should not undermine worker health and safety for the benefit of
big business. I urge my colleagues to look past the rhetoric of ``OSHA
reform'' and vote against these destructive bills that erode worker
protections.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous question
on the rule. We need to allow for Democratic amendments, namely one to
increase the federal minimum wage.
While Republicans demand up or down votes on controversial
appointees, why are American families denied an up or down vote on the
Miller-Owens bill to raise the minimum wage. The Miller-Owens bill
would gradually raise the minimum wage by $2.10--from $5.15 to $7.25 an
hour.
The minimum wage has been frozen at $5.15 since 1997. The inflation-
adjusted minimum wage is 26 percent lower today than it was in 1979. If
the minimum wage had just kept pace with inflation since 1968 when it
was $1.60 an hour, the minimum wage would now be $8.88 an hour.
The number of Americans in poverty has increased by 4.3 million since
President Bush took office--and the minimum wage is part of the
problem. Nearly 36 million Americans live in poverty, including 13
million children. This is a travesty that must end.
Increasing the minimum wage would help lift a half million workers
rise out of poverty and would not have any impact on jobs, employment
or inflation. In the four years after the last minimum wage increase
passed, the economy experienced its strongest growth in over three
decades. Nearly 11 million new jobs were added, at a pace of 232,000
per month. There were ten million new service industry jobs, including
more than one and a half million retail jobs.
Mr. Speaker, a fair increase in the minimum wage is long overdue, and
I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can vote on
the Miller-Owens minimum wage bill.
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose efforts to pass
legislation that will harm the American worker. Republicans are again
bringing forward bills that would rollback worker safety regulations
under the jurisdiction of the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA). All four of the bills being voted on today
passed the House in the 108th Congress, but the Senate very reasonably
did not even hold mark-ups on these bills.
The four bills are coming up notwithstanding the fact that we are at
a point in time when workplace safety remains a critical national
problem. Almost 6,000 workers a year die due to workplace accidents and
another estimated 50,000 to 60,000 die every year due to occupational
illnesses. Sadly, the bills on floor today will endanger the lives of
even more workers by: making it easier for employers to challenge OSHA
citations, unnecessarily expanding the OSHA Review Commission,
undermining the enforcement authority of the Secretary of Labor, and
punishing OSHA for substantially justified enforcement actions if the
agency does not completely prevail.
More specifically, H.R. 739 rolls back OSHA's ability to enforce the
law. One of the principle purposes of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act is ``to assure so far as possible every working man and
woman in the nation, safe and healthful working conditions.'' This bill
would have the effect of delaying the timely abatement of unsafe
working conditions, by encouraging employers to litigate citations
rather than correct health and safety hazards.
H.R. 740 is an attempt to stack the Occupational Safety and Health
Review Commission with Republican nominees by expanding it from three
to five members (with the newest members to be appointed by the Bush
Administration). The Commission has functioned with three members since
its establishment in 1970 and there has never been a demonstrated need
for additional commissioners.
H.R. 741 reduces the authority of the Secretary of Labor to issue
citations. This bill overturns a unanimous 1991 Supreme Court decision
in Martin v. OSHRC, which held that the Labor Department should be
given deference in interpreting worker safety laws.
Finally, H.R. 742 would require OSHA to pay attorneys' fees and costs
for certain employers in any case in which OSHA did not prevail,
regardless of the reason why the agency did not prevail. OSHA would be
required to pay even if the agency was substantially justified in
bringing the complaint which will have the effect of dissuading OSHA
from pursuing many legitimate claims.
Mr. Speaker, since taking office in January 2001, the Bush
Administration has turned its back on workers and workplace safety. The
Administration started its assault on worker safety soon after taking
office by repealing OSHA's ergonomics standard. I view this week's
attempt to rollback worker safety regulations as another example of the
Administration's misguided priorities.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to
the four bills relating to the Occupational Safety and Health Act that
the House of Representatives is scheduled to consider today. While
these measures purport to protect the safety and health protections of
millions of American workers, in reality, they will do nothing of the
kind, and will instead undermine existing workplace health and safety
laws.
The statistics on workplace safety is frightening. It is estimated
that nearly 4.7 million workers are injured and almost 6,000 workers
die due to workplace accidents each year. Thanks to the Occupational
Safety and Health Act, workplace safety and health conditions have
improved, though there are still great strides to be made, and this is
the time for OSHA regulations and requirements to be strengthened, not
weakened. On an average day, 152 workers lose their lives as a result
of workplace injuries and diseases, and another 12,877 are injured.
These measures do not address the fact that workers are still losing
their lives due to unsafe working conditions. Instead these bills
punish the very workers the authors of these measures claim they are
trying to protect. By allowing employers to challenge OSHA citations,
they will undermine the Occupational Safety and Health Act's
enforcement policies by penalizing the agency when it attempts to
enforce the OSHA law and does so unsuccessfully.
H.R. 742 would require OSHA to pay attorneys' fees and costs for
employers with 100 or less employees and a net worth of $7 million or
less in any administrative or judicial proceeding in which OSHA does
not prevail. While OSHA is already required by law to pay attorneys'
fees and costs in any proceeding in which the agency's charge is not
substantially justified, H.R. 742 goes beyond that, because now OSHA
will be hesitant to cite employees for violations of the OSHA unless
there is absolute certainty that they will prevail in a court of law.
If OSHA, the federal agency that is tasked with enforcing the law, is
hesitant to raise awareness to a meritorious workplace safety issue
because they might not win, the true losers in this case are the
American workers. Employees have no private right of action under OSHA
and depend on the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to
address their concerns and remedy violations of the law.
H.R. 742 also purports to help ``small businesses'' recover the cost
of attorney's fees, but in fact, this bill would apply to the majority
of private sector workplaces. It is widely known that across all
industries, businesses with fewer than 100 employees have a higher rate
of fatal occupational injuries than do businesses with 100 or more
workers, which typically have better workplace safety standards in
place. It is troubling that this Congress is attempting to rollback the
few safety and health workplace regulations that are currently in
[[Page H5674]]
place, instead of strengthening OSHA standards in order to save the
lives of American workers.
I urge all my colleagues to vote against these measures and protect
the rights of American workers and their families who deserve a decent,
safe and healthy workplace.
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule and to discuss my
concerns with the current efforts to reform the Occupational Health and
Safety Act through the four bills before us today.
As my colleagues know, the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
created OSHA to protect American workers while they are at their
workplaces. Since then, workplace fatalities have been cut in half and
occupational injury and illness rates have declined 40 percent. This
record of protection is commendable, but nearly 6,000 workers a year
die due to workplace accidents. We need to continue to work to prevent
the needless loss of life. Reforming OSHA oversight and procedures to
the disadvantage of workers will not do that.
I am deeply concerned that H.R. 739, 740, 741, and 742 will do
nothing to protect workers who are dependent on OSHA to ensure their
safety. Instead, these bills will open up OSHA to increased challenges
to citations, subject the OSHA Review Commission to political
tampering, undermine the enforcement authority of the Secretary of
Labor, and punish OSHA for justified enforcement actions if the agency
does not completely prevail. None of these measures will improve the
safety of the workplace.
American workers deserve to know that when they go to the workplace
they will be protected from work-related harm. I believe that OSHA is
essential to maintaining the high level of safety and productivity that
America's workers currently enjoy and these measures will prevent
improvements to the system. I urge my colleagues to vote against these
blatantly anti-worker pieces of legislation and against the rule.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote
down H.R. 739, 740, 741 and 742 in order to ensure the continued health
and safety of America's workers.
We are here today to talk about improving the lives of America's
workers, but the quartet of bills before us would only serve to further
endanger them. Together these bills represent a one-sided rollback of
the workplace health and safety standards established by the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and would lead to
increases in workplace injury, illness and quite possibly death.
For our nation's workers, this is a matter of life and death--by the
end of today, 15 workers will have died and 12,000 will have sustained
an injury or illness because of workplace incidents. Congress should be
making law to improve workplace safety. And while this seems to be the
view of the vast majority of the country, my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle have put forth legislation today that does exactly
the opposite.
This legislation will undercut the ability of OSHA to enforce its own
rules and actually creates a legal loophole, which will allow
businesses to stall and avoid addressing a safety violation. Adding
insult to injury, the legislation allows President Bush to stack the
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, the body responsible
for OSHA appeals, with Republican appointees subservient to business
interests. Inexplicably, one measure actually punishes OSHA for
attempting to enforce its own workplace safety standards.
While the Congressional Budget Office estimates the cost of the bill,
it is unable to estimate the cost to America's workers . . . the lives
lost or the injuries sustained as a result of this misguided
legislation. Republicans argue that this legislation will help all
businesses. The small businesses that I know would benefit far more
from having safe and healthy workers than from having a law that
encourages more dangerous work environments. In fact, Liberty Mutual,
the largest workers' compensation insurance company, estimates that the
direct cost of occupational injuries and illnesses is $1 billion a
week. Considering these massive costs, we should be strengthening
workplace safety standards, not undercutting them.
But Congress has a choice today. We actually have the opportunity to
do something that would benefit workers. My distinguished colleague,
George Miller, the Ranking Member of the Education and Workforce
Committee, has offered a bill that rather than attacking OSHA, would
instead raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour. This would
allow workers to better meet the basic challenges they face everyday
like paying rent, putting food on the table and getting access to
health care.
It is truly a statement of this nation's priorities that an
individual who is working at a minimum wage job, lives below the
poverty line. Barbara Ehrenreich, a New York Times reporter, tried to
do so--moving from Florida to Maine to Minnesota, she worked as a
waitress, a hotel maid, a cleaning woman, a nursing home aide, and a
Wal-Mart sales clerk. What she learned and shared in her book,
appropriately titled, ``Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting by in
America,'' was that one job is not enough, especially if you want to
live inside.
This is the real challenge that Americans are facing and Congress
should be seeking to address, but the bills we are considering merely
serve to undercut the government's ability to enforce workplace safety
guidelines. It is shameful that in the same breath the Republican
leadership advocates reducing worker safety and refuses to even permit
a vote on raising the minimum wage.
We truly have a choice today--an opportunity to actually improve the
lives of America's workers, those who propel our economy forward--we
should not overlook this. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the
previous question to support real help for America's workers.
The amendment previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as
follows:
Previous Question on H. Res. 351, the Rule Providing for Consideration
of Four OSHA Bills H.R. 739, H.R. 740, H.R. 741, H.R. 742
At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
``Sec. __. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution
it shall be in order without intervention of any point of
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2429) to amend
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide for an
increase in the Federal minimum wage. The bill shall be
considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) 60 minutes of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce; and
(2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.''
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time,
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the
grounds that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently, a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on
ordering the previous question on House Resolution 351 will be followed
by 5-minute votes on House Resolution 351, if ordered; a motion to
suspend the rules on House Resolution 352, by the yeas and nays; and a
motion to suspend the rules on House Resolution 343, by the yeas and
nays.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223,
nays 191, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 365]
YEAS--223
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cox
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
[[Page H5675]]
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--191
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Case
Chandler
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--19
Abercrombie
Berman
Brown, Corrine
Carson
Clay
Conyers
Delahunt
DeLay
Ehlers
Gonzalez
Hinojosa
Jones (OH)
Marchant
Miller (FL)
Myrick
Obey
Ortiz
Pombo
Shadegg
{time} 1339
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia, Mrs. NAPOLITANO and Mrs. LOWEY changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 365 I was on the floor and
voted, but for some reason the vote was not recorded by the electronic
system.
Had the vote been recorded, I would have voted ``yea.''
Stated against:
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 365, I inadvertently voted
``yea,'' when I intended to vote ``nay.''
Ms. CARSON. Mr. Speaker, due to a previously scheduled speaking
engagement, I was unavoidably delayed during rollcall vote No. 365. Had
I been present I would have voted ``nay.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Forbes). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 224,
noes 189, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 366]
AYES--224
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cox
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Porter
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--189
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
[[Page H5676]]
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--20
Abercrombie
Berman
Brown, Corrine
Clay
Conyers
Delahunt
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Hinojosa
Jones (OH)
Kennedy (RI)
Miller (FL)
Myrick
Obey
Ortiz
Poe
Pombo
Price (GA)
Shadegg
Watt
{time} 1347
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, on the evening of July 12,
I missed one rollcall vote. It was my intention to vote ``no'' on
rollcall 366 for H. Res. 351, Rule providing for consideration of H.R.
739, H.R. 740, H.R. 741, and H.R. 742.
____________________