[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.

                          ____________________