[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 93 (Tuesday, July 12, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H5677-H5686]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH SMALL BUSINESS DAY IN COURT ACT OF 2005

  Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 351, I call 
up 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, and ask for its immediate 
consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of H.R. 739 is as follows:

                                H.R. 739

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Occupational Safety and 
     Health Small Business Day in Court Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. CONTESTING CITATIONS UNDER THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY 
                   AND HEALTH ACT OF 1970.

       Section 10 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 
     1970 (29 U.S.C. 659) is amended--
       (1) in the second sentence of subsection (a), by inserting 
     after ``assessment of penalty'' the following: ``(unless such 
     failure results from mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or 
     excusable neglect)''; and
       (2) in the second sentence of subsection (b), by inserting 
     after ``assessment of penalty'' the following: ``(unless such 
     failure results from mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or 
     excusable neglect)''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall apply to a citation 
     or proposed assessment of penalty issued by the Occupational 
     Safety and Health Administration that is issued on or after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico). Pursuant to 
House Resolution 351, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).


                             General Leave

  Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
on H.R. 739, the bill now under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, today we will debate four important bills that make 
modest reforms to the Occupational Safety and Health Act. These 
measures ensure that small business owners who make good faith efforts 
to comply with health and safety laws are dealt with fairly and 
equitably by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
  Nearly every employer recognizes that improving workplace safety is 
good for business, and it is good for workers. Employers are subject to 
fierce competition both at home and abroad and must compete in the face 
of high taxes, skyrocketing health costs, escalating litigation, and 
burdensome government regulations. These OSHA reform bills are designed 
to improve worker safety and enhance the competitiveness of small 
businesses that are the real engine of job growth in our country.
  The U.S. economy continues to grow, and more and more employers are 
continuing to hire workers each month. Last week, the Labor Department 
reported that more than 3.7 million new jobs have been created since 
May of 2003, marking 25 consecutive months of sustained job creation. 
But we need to make sure that onerous government regulations do not 
hamstring small businesses' ability to continue to hire

[[Page H5678]]

new workers and compete in our economy. That is why these bills are so 
important.
  Madam Speaker, since Republicans assumed leadership of Congress 10 
years ago, we have undertaken considerable efforts to make bureaucracy 
more responsive and more accountable to workers and taxpayers. Let me 
give just a few examples:
  We stopped unwarranted and invasive OSHA regulations proposed by the 
Clinton administration that would have held employers liable for the 
safety of their employees who work from home. We stopped one of the 
most over-reaching attempts at regulation in our Nation's history by 
repealing an irresponsible and unworkable ergonomics regulation that 
would have cost employers billions of dollars and killed millions of 
jobs. We have dealt with the problem of costly unfunded mandates by 
ensuring that Congress does not pass expensive legislation and then 
place it onto the backs of State and local governments.
  This decade of progress on regulatory reform should give every 
American confidence that Congress is making positive steps every year 
to improve government accountability. And today we want to take one 
more step, one more positive step to help improve workplace safety, I 
think a goal we all share.
  OSHA, under the Bush administration, has made significant efforts to 
supplement traditional enforcement programs with cooperative 
partnerships between the agency and employers. I am pleased to report 
these voluntary programs have proven successful in reducing workplace 
injuries and illnesses. In fact, if we look at this chart, workplace 
injuries and fatalities have declined significantly during the Bush 
administration. And as this chart shows, workplace injuries and 
illnesses have declined significantly under the Bush administration to 
their lowest point in history, to a rate of just five injuries or 
illnesses per 100 workers.
  Moreover, workplace fatalities have made similar declines. There has 
been a 5.8 percent reduction in workplace fatalities since the Bush 
administration took office, and that is significant progress.
  Why has such progress been made? Because under this administration, 
OSHA and employers have started to work together more cooperatively and 
more proactively to solve workplace safety problems before injuries and 
fatalities occur. A GAO report released last year said voluntary 
partnerships between OSHA and employers ``have considerably reduced the 
rates of injury and illness'' and have fostered ``better working 
relationships with OSHA, improved productivity, and decreased workers' 
compensation costs.''
  We strongly support OSHA targeting the bad actors that defy the law 
and compromise the safety of their workers, but we also need to 
recognize that most employers are good actors who work hard to address 
job safety concerns. No employer wants to deal with unnecessary OSHA-
related litigation and escalating attorneys' fees that would result 
from that enforcement. Most employers want to comply with the law, and 
the offer of assistance from OSHA is enough to provide the incentive 
they need to make this investment. Employers will use these resources 
because safety pays.
  The reform measures we will consider today are proposals that, while 
fairly modest in substance, are important to small business owners who 
struggle every day to comply with the 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, and these commonsense bills will help ensure that they 
receive that opportunity.
  The first bill on tap today, the Occupational Safety and Health Small 
Business Day in Court Act gives the Occupational Safety and Health 
Review Commission additional flexibility to make exceptions to the 
arbitrary 15-day deadline for employers to file responses to OSHA 
citations when a small business misses the deadline by a mistake or for 
good reason.
  This bill essentially codifies administrative action taken by the 
Labor Department last year and ensures appropriate disputes are 
resolved based on merit rather than legal technicalities. It passed the 
House with strong bipartisan support last year, and it deserves every 
Member's support.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OWENS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Madam Speaker, we are here again. We went through this 
marathon a year ago. We have had several sets of hearings and markups 
on these four bills, and one would think they are very important. They 
are important, but in the reverse way. They are not important to 
protect the health and safety of working families in America. They are 
important because they are trying to trivialize the whole safety 
component of the Department of Labor and the whole safety 
responsibility of the government. They want to trivialize it and make 
it seem insignificant and unimportant.
  I understand each of the four bills amending the Occupational Safety 
and Health Act now on the floor will be considered individually, and I 
would therefore save my comments on the specifics of the other three 
bills until the appropriate time. When you consider these four bills as 
an entire package, however, it becomes very clear that they will 
seriously erode the enforcement of U.S. safety standards, they will 
undermine the ability of the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration to enforce on-the-job safety standards, and will only 
add to more worker deaths and more serious injuries.

                              {time}  1415

  It will not only lead to the Department of Labor becoming more and 
more the department against laborers, the department against working 
people; by bringing these bills to the House floor, the Republican 
leadership shows yet again just how out of step it is with the American 
people. In this case, the House Republican leadership is backing four 
bills to weaken OSHA at the very time that the American public is 
demanding the exact opposite be done.
  According to a recent poll sponsored by the Wall Street Journal, 
eight out of every ten Americans believe Congress should be passing 
legislation to ensure greater health and safety in the workplace. Let 
me repeat that: The Wall Street Journal, which is hardly a liberal 
publication, they sponsored a poll in April 2005 revealing that 84 
percent of those surveyed want lawmakers to pass bills ensuring safer 
workplaces in America. That is 84 percent.
  Parade Magazine, another mainstream publication, tells us the same 
story. An article published in the April 10 issue of Parade Magazine 
assessed our national priorities based on 2005 dollar allocations for 
government programs. The article juxtaposed business versus safety, 
pointing out that this year's funding for the Securities and Exchange 
Commission is $888 million and the Small Business Administration, which 
is $580 million, far exceeds that for OSHA, which is $464 million, and 
the Consumer Product Safety Commission which is $63 million. The amount 
dedicated to business, Parade Magazine concludes, is close to $1 
billion more than that dedicated to safety in this simple comparison.
  The OSHA bills being voted on today will only serve to exacerbate 
this huge divide between Federal investments in business versus safety. 
One of the bills, H.R. 742, will even require OSHA to spend part of its 
meager budget rewarding certain employers who are repeat safety 
violators. This bill would reimburse firms that are repeat safety 
offenders for attorneys' fees whenever OSHA citations are downgraded on 
a technicality during administrative or court proceedings.
  The American people are serious about seeing tougher laws enacted to 
improve safety on the job, and their concerns are well founded. In a 
hearing last month, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board underscored the fact 
that chemical dust explosions represent a serious industrial hazard in 
this country. Since 1980, 200-plus explosions and dust fires in U.S. 
plants caused the deaths of 100 workers and significant injuries to 600 
others. Even though the Chemical Safety Board chair stresses that these

[[Page H5679]]

industrial explosions are clearly preventable, no comprehensive Federal 
effort has yet been established to address these clearly preventable 
explosions.
  As recent headlines about worker deaths in Texas, New York and Ohio 
have revealed, American workers are far too often killed or severely 
injured as a result of safety violations by employers who have lengthy 
histories of similar offenses.
  In March 2005, 15 workers were killed and more than a hundred injured 
in a massive British Petroleum refinery blast. A preliminary Chemical 
Safety Board investigation indicates that faulty equipment was a key 
factor in this terrible explosion which also destroyed buildings and 
cars. Yet OSHA had already fined the same British Petroleum plant 
$100,000 in September 2004 for safety violations that at that time had 
killed two workers. In fact, OSHA had previously cited and issued a 
fine of $63,000 in March 2004 to that British Petroleum plant for 14 
safety violations.
  Even though the Texas City British Petroleum Plant is clearly a 
repeat safety offender, OSHA routinely reduces penalties and downgrades 
violation findings as a means of encouraging correction of the problem. 
I suppose that is what is alluded to by this voluntary compliance. They 
are going to voluntarily comply one day, but in the meantime, many more 
workers will be killed.
  A newly released analysis of 2,500 inspections of New York 
construction sites reveal similar patterns of serious and frequent 
violations of OSHA safety standards. Nearly two-thirds of all 
violations in 2003 involved faulty scaffoldings and/or the failure to 
provide fall protection equipment. Scaffolding collapses and falls are 
the most common cause of construction worker hospitalizations and 
deaths of three or more workers. Sponsored by the New York Committee on 
Safety and Health, this report recommended more vigorous OSHA 
enforcement and the hiring of more OSHA inspection officers, among 
other remedies. Under its current staffing, it would take OSHA 108 
years to inspect all of the workplaces in the United States.
  Yet this administration has proposed that we hire 41 new auditors to 
audit organized labor records. If we have the money for 41 new auditors 
to audit the petty cash records of labor unions, surely we ought to be 
able to find the money to hire more inspectors and have those 
inspectors be inspectors not on a voluntary compliance basis but on a 
serious basis to save lives and injuries.
  OSHA also lacks adequate safety standards to cope with globalization. 
Four ironworkers killed last year by a massive crane collapse near 
Toledo, Ohio, were working for a contractor with a history of repeated 
safety violations.
  Moreover, OSHA has yet to release a standard an advisory committee 
drafted a year ago to govern inspection of cranes manufactured in 
Europe, as the crane in the Ohio fatalities had been.
  In closing, the American people are watching us. By an overwhelming 
majority, the public wants to pass bills to strengthen OSHA, not to 
weaken OSHA. They want safer workplaces in America. The bills before us 
now do just the opposite. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting 
``no'' on these bills.
  Madam Speaker, I include for the Record letters from the AFL-CIO, the 
Teamsters, the UAW, AFSCME, as well the United Steelworkers in 
opposition to these bills.
         American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial 
           Organizations,
                                    Washington, DC, July 11, 2005.
       Dear Representative: I am writing to express the strong 
     opposition of the AFL-CIO to H.R. 739, H.R. 740, H.R. 741 and 
     H.R. 742, four bills that would erode worker protections 
     under the Occupational Safety and Health Act. These bills, 
     which are scheduled for a floor vote the week of July 11, 
     2005, would change established law and procedures to benefit 
     employers and stifle OSHA enforcement. They would do nothing 
     to enhance workers' safety and health protection, while 
     weakening the OSHAct. We are particularly concerned about 
     H.R. 742 and H.R. 741, because these two bills would 
     significantly undermine OSHA's ability to carry out its core 
     mission.
       H.R. 742. Occupational Safety and Health Small Employer 
     Access to Justice Act--This bill requires taxpayers to pay 
     the legal costs of small employers who prevail in any 
     administrative or enforcement case brought by OSHA regardless 
     of whether the action was substantially justified.
       The language expands provisions of the current Equal Access 
     to Justice Act, which already permits small businesses to 
     recover litigation costs where the government position was 
     not substantially justified. H.R. 742 will have a chilling 
     effect on both OSHA enforcement and OSHA standard setting. 
     OSHA will be hesitant to cite employers for violations of the 
     OSHAct unless there is absolute certainty that the 
     enforcement action will not be challenged, will be upheld or 
     there will be no modification in the terms of action. 
     Similarly, unless OSHA is certain that a standard will not be 
     challenged (which they are routinely for any number of 
     reasons), it would not dare begin the rulemaking process on 
     any hazard no matter how grave the threat of the hazard to 
     workers. No rational public policy would be furthered by 
     discouraging OSHA from issuing citations that are 
     substantially justified, but as to which the government 
     ultimately is unable to carry its burden of proof. Rather, 
     the inevitable result of such a rule, which would penalize 
     the government every time it loses, would be to chill the 
     issuance of meritorious citations in close cases on behalf of 
     employees exposed to unsafe working conditions. This bill 
     would further weaken OSHA enforcement efforts and standard 
     setting to the detriment of American workers.
       Across all industries, establishments with fewer than 100 
     employees (which in 2000 made up 97.7 percent of all private 
     sector establishments) have a higher rate of fatal 
     occupational injury than do establishments with 100 or more 
     workers. Effectively hampering OSHA's enforcement ability in 
     these establishments would be devastating to workers, 
     resulting in even higher rates of worker fatalities, injury 
     and illness.
       The number of OSHA enforcement actions that involve 
     contested adjudications is fairly small, the penalties are 
     generally modest, and the substantive and procedural 
     standards already accommodate the interests of small-business 
     litigants. To be clear, there is no evidence that this 
     legislation is necessary. The result of H.R. 742 will be a 
     skewed set of enforcement priorities and a risk of injury, 
     illness and even death to workers.
       H.R. 741. Occupational Safety and Health Independent Review 
     of OSHA Citations Act--This bill would change the Act to give 
     deference to the Commission regarding the interpretation of 
     OSHA standards. The bill seeks to overturn a 1991 decision by 
     the Supreme Court that found that deference should be given 
     to the Secretary of Labor as the official responsible for 
     enforcing the OSHAct.
       The Secretary of Labor has much greater experience and 
     expertise regarding the interpretation of safety and health 
     standards and regulations than the Commission. The Secretary 
     develops the rules and is responsible for their broad 
     application. In contrast, the Commission only reviews the 
     application of standards in those few cases that are 
     contested and come before the Commission. Giving deference to 
     the Commission would create an incentive for challenges to 
     the Secretary's rules and interpretations, undermining the 
     Secretary's policymaking and enforcement functions.
       H.R. 740. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission 
     Efficiency Act--The bill requires that the number of members 
     on the Commission be increased from three to five and that 
     all members must be attorneys. It also seeks to allow members 
     whose terms have expired to continue serving on the 
     Commission for an additional 365 days in cases where no 
     successor has been confirmed by the Senate.
       The Review Commission has operated with three Commissioners 
     since it was first formed in 1970. Increasing the size of the 
     Commission from three to five members is not necessary and 
     would enable the Bush Administration to stack the review 
     commission with business-friendly appointees. The requirement 
     that the Commissioners be lawyers would exclude a large pool 
     of talented persons from service. Allowing members whose 
     terms have expired to continue serving on the Commission for 
     an additional 365 days unless a new appointee is confirmed by 
     the Senate may mean a sitting member could have a de facto 
     seven year term, dending on the political makeup of the 
     Senate and White House. The current requirement that a member 
     step down at the expiration of his or her term is appropriate 
     and maintains pressure on all parties to work together to 
     select a qualified person for the Commission. Under this 
     legislation, rather than having two members for a working 
     quorum, three will be needed. However due to the way the 
     language is crafted a minority of the Commission and fewer 
     than a quorum could take action. This makes no sense and 
     opens the door to abuses of power. Moreover, there is not 
     enough enforcement activity at OSHA to warrant five 
     commissioners.
       H.R. 739. Occupational Safety and Health Small Business Day 
     in Court Act--This bill seeks to excuse employers who miss 
     the fifteen-day timeframe to contest citations and failure to 
     abate notices. Its practical effect would be to make numerous 
     excuses into legal reasons for missing the fifteen-day 
     timeframe in which employers currently must respond to 
     OSHA citations. This action will only encourage more 
     litigation. The idea of the fifteen-day requirement is to 
     give all parties a reasonable timeframe in which to take 
     action, and to ensure that the case is moved along as 
     quickly as possible so the

[[Page H5680]]

     hazards cited will be addressed in as timely a manner as 
     is possible. The Commission should be able to review any 
     missed deadlines on a case-by-case basis, as is currently 
     the practice. The one case being held up to demonstrate an 
     insurmountable obstacle for employers is just that--one 
     case. No legitimate reason has been presented as to the 
     need for this bill.
       As demonstrated above, these bills undermine the intent of 
     the Congress when it enacted the OSHAct more than 30 years 
     ago. Generally speaking, these policies and procedures have 
     been serving workers well for over 30 years. American workers 
     deserve a safe and healthy workplace and the full protection 
     the OSHAct can offer. These bills would surely diminish the 
     protections provided to workers by the OSHAct. For these 
     reasons, the AFL-CIO opposes these four bills, and we 
     strongly urge you to vote against each of them.
           Sincerely,
                                                   William Samuel,
     Director, Department of Legislation.
                                  ____

                                      International Brotherhood of


                                           Teamsters, AFL-CIO,

                                    Washington, DC, July 11, 2005.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the more than 1.4 million 
     members of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, I am 
     writing to express our strong opposition to four bills that 
     would amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act: H.R. 739, 
     H.R. 740, H.R. 741, and H.R. 742. These bills, which the 
     House of Representatives will consider this week, do nothing 
     to enhance safety and health protections for workers. Rather 
     they would change established law and procedures to benefit 
     employers (at the expense of workers), and they would make 
     OSHA enforcement more difficult. Instead of weakening the 
     intent of the OSH Act, Congress should take steps to 
     strengthen safety and health protections for workers, and 
     improve enforcement.
       The Teamsters Union opposes H.R. 742, the Occupational 
     Safety and Health Small Employer Access to Justice Act, which 
     would require that OSHA (i.e. the taxpayer) pay the legal 
     costs when it loses a case against a small business that 
     prevails in administrative or judicial proceedings, 
     regardless of whether the governments position was 
     substantially justified. We view this as another effort to 
     impede OSHA's and the Departments efforts to enforce the law 
     and provide an avenue for workers to seek redress.
       We see no justification for such an arbitrary departure 
     from the current practice of each party paying for its own 
     litigation costs for only one class of public prosecutions. 
     We know of no other agency, charged by statute to enforce the 
     law, which is impeded from fulfillng its responsibility with 
     respect to a meritorious complaint because it cannot 
     guarantee the outcome. In effect, H.R. 742 says that unless 
     the agency is absolutely certain that it can prevail--that it 
     is absolutely certain that its enforcement action will not be 
     challenged, will be upheld, or no modification will occur in 
     terms of action--it will be penalized (budgetarily) for 
     fulfilling its statutory obligation to protect the safety and 
     health of all workers (union and non-union) and to provide an 
     avenue for redress.
       Furthermore, H.R. 742 would effectively gut OSHA's 
     statutory authority to promulgate safety and health 
     standards. Unless certain that a standard will not be 
     challenged (and many routinely are for a number of reasons). 
     OSHA would not dare (or be extremely reluctant, at best) to 
     begin a rulemaking on any hazard no matter how serious. We 
     believe that H.R. 742 is tantamount to a stealth repeal of 
     OSHA's statutory authority to issue workplace safety and 
     health standards.
       H.R. 739, the Occupational Safety and Health Small Business 
     Day in Court Act, seeks to excuse employers who miss the 
     current fifteen-day time frame to contest citations and 
     failure to abate notices. We believe this proposal does 
     nothing more than create ``artificial'' legal reason for 
     failing to respond in a timely fashion. It is an ``about 
     face'' from ensuring that an OSHA case is moved along as 
     expeditiously as possible to ensure that workplace hazards 
     are addressed in as timely a manner as possible, thus 
     improving worker safety and health. The current practice of a 
     case-by-case review is the most appropriate way to ensure 
     that hazards are addressed as quickly as possible, and to 
     reinforce the importance of workplace safety.
       H.R. 740, the Occupational Safety and Health Review 
     Commission Efficiency Act, would require that the number of 
     commission members be increased from three to five, that all 
     members be attorneys, and that members be able to serve until 
     a successor is confirmed. We see no justification, or need, 
     for these changes--unless one wishes to tilt the ``playing 
     field'' against workers. First, the level of enforcement does 
     not warrant five commissioners. And, there is no reason to 
     limit the pool of talented people for consideration. Further, 
     the current system helps ensure that all parties work 
     together to select qualified people to serve, and to do so in 
     a timely manner.
       H.R. 741, the Occupational Safety and Health Independent 
     Review of OSHA Citations Act, would, we believe, turn the OSH 
     Act on its ear'', by giving deference to the commission. 
     Presently, the Secretary of Labor is given deference as the 
     official responsible for enforcing the OSH Act. The bill 
     would take away the authority held by the Secretary in 
     bringing cases to the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, 
     an important avenue of redress to protect workers from 
     dangerous and unhealthy workplaces.
       Each of these bills will undermine, subtly in some 
     instances and egregiously in the case of H.R. 742, workplace 
     protections and the protection that the OSH Act was designed 
     to provide workers. The Teamsters Union urges you to reject 
     each of these bills.
           Sincerely,
                                                Michael E. Mathis,
     Director, Government Affairs Department.
                                  ____

         International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & 
           Agricultural Implement Workers of America--UAW,
                                    Washington, DC, July 11, 2005.
       Dear Representative: This week the House is scheduled to 
     take up four bills to amend the Occupational Safety and 
     Health Act of 1070--H.R. 739, H.R 741 and H.R. 742. The UAW 
     opposes each of these anti-worker bills and urges you to vote 
     against them.
       H.R. 742, the ``Occupational Safety and Health Small 
     Employer Access to Justice Act,'' would require taxpayers to 
     pay the legal costs of employers with 100 or fewer employees 
     and worth up to 7 million who win administrative or 
     enforcement cases brought by OSHA or any challenge to an OSHA 
     standard, regardless of whether OSHA's actions were 
     substantially justified.'' The UAW is deeply concerned that 
     this legislation would have a tremendous chilling effort on 
     the ability of OSHA to enforce workplace health and safety 
     protections. In addition, this bill would reverse the time-
     honored rule of American jurisprudence that requires 
     litigants to bear their own cost and fees. There is no need 
     for such legislation because the Equal Access to Justice Act 
     already protects parties from administrative overreaching by 
     compensating them in cases where the government is not 
     ``substantially justified'' in bringing a law enforcement 
     action, or under other ``special circumstances.''
       The other three bills, H.R. 739, H.R. 740 and H.R. 741, all 
     relate to the Occupational Safety and Health Review 
     Commission (Commission or OSHRC). In considering these bills, 
     the UAW urges the House to bear in mind that OSHRC functions 
     as an intermediate appeal for employers, between decisions of 
     the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and 
     the U.S. Courts of Appeal. During the time a case is on 
     appeal to OSHRC, employers do not have to pay any assessed 
     penalties, nor do they have to abate the violations for which 
     they were cited. Thus, procedural delays at OSHRC serve only 
     to postpone justice and to delay the correction of workplace 
     safety and health violations.
       H.R. 739, despite being mislabeled the ``Occupational 
     Safety and Health Small Business Day in Court Act,'' is not 
     limited to small businesses. Instead. it would effectively 
     eliminate the statutory time period within which all 
     employees--not just small employers--must contest an OSHA 
     citation or assessment before it becomes a final order of the 
     Commission. This bill would excuse employers from the 
     fifteen-day deadline for contesting OSHA citations and lead 
     to more litigation.
       The purpose of the fifteen-day requirement is to give all 
     parties a reasonable amount of time to take action and to 
     move cases along as quickly as possible so that hazards can 
     be abated in a timely manner. The bill excuses employers from 
     missing their fifteen-day deadline but does not extend the 
     same provisions to an employee who challenges the period for 
     abatement in a citation. This provision is one-sided and 
     unfair to employees. Under the statute, an employer 
     contests by simply mailing a letter to the OSHA office. 
     Therefore, contestation is not burdensome, and the 
     statutory time period should be retained.
       The federal courts already provide relief, pursuant to Rule 
     60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for employers 
     who can show that their failure to meet filing deadlines was 
     due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, 
     fraud, misrepresentation or misconduct by an adverse party, 
     so long as the employer can show the existence of a 
     meritorious defense. There is a body of established case law 
     pursuant to Rule 60(b) that would be subject to wasteful re-
     litigation if H.R. 739 were enacted.
       H.R. 740, the ``Occupational Safety and Health Review 
     Commission Efficiency Act,'' would expand the number of OSHRC 
     commissioners to five from three and authorize sub-panels of 
     three members to exercise all of the powers of the 
     Commission. It would also authorize commissioners to hold 
     their position at the expiration of their six-year term, 
     until a successor has been nominated by the President and 
     confirmed by the Senate. Finally, it would add a new 
     requirement that Commissioners must have legal training.
       The UAW submits that the only good to come from adding two 
     commissioners to OSHRC would be the creation of two more jobs 
     to an economy that has already lost millions of industrial 
     jobs. Otherwise, it is wasteful and unnecessary to expand 
     OSHRC, which has been composed of three members since it was 
     established in 1970. Indeed, the UAW believes that Congress 
     should give consideration to abolishing all of the OSHRC 
     commissioners' positions, allowing appeals to go directly 
     from the decision of the Commission's Administrative Law 
     Judges to the Courts of Appeals, as is done with Social 
     Security Administration appeals. The UAW also objects to the 
     legal training requirement because it would work against 
     persons with workplace health and safety expertise.

[[Page H5681]]

     Furthermore, we object to the provision allowing 
     commissioners to retain their position after the expiration 
     of their term because it deprives the Senate of its 
     Constitutional advice and consent role.
       H.R. 741, the ``Occupational Safety and Health Independent 
     Review of OSHA Citations Act,'' would overturn a 1991 Supreme 
     Court decision holding that OSHRC's interpretation of a 
     health or safety standard may not be substituted for the 
     interpretation of the Secretary of Labor. The bill explicitly 
     provides, ``The conclusions of the Commission with respect to 
     all questions of law shall be given deference if 
     reasonable.'' Because it is for all practical purposes only 
     employers who appeal cases to OSHRC, there is never an 
     instance when the Commission would be expanding workers' 
     rights by substituting its interpretation for the 
     Secretary's. In other words, H.R. 741 would give 
     unprecedented and unwarranted authority to the OSHRC to take 
     away workers' workplace health and safety protections.
       For all of the reasons set forth above, the UAW strongly 
     opposes H.R. 739, H.R. 740, H.R. 741 and H.R. 742. We urge 
     you to vote against these anti-worker bills that would 
     undermine workplace health and safety.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Alan Reuther,
     Legislative Director.
                                  ____

         American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
           Employees, AFL-CIO,
                                    Washington, DC, July 11, 2005.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.4 million members 
     of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
     Employees (AFSCME), I am writing to urge you to reject H.R. 
     739, H.R 740, H.R 741 and H.R. 742. These bills would weaken 
     important worker safety and health protections that are 
     guaranteed under the Occupational Safety and Health Act 
     (OSHAct).
       Collectively, these bills would erode important OSHA 
     policies that have served to protect the health and safety of 
     workers all across this country. H.R. 739 would allow 
     employers to avoid current law's fifteen-day deadline to 
     contest OSHA citations. Such a change would result in a delay 
     in correcting dangerous work place hazards in a timely 
     manner. H.R. 740 is simply an unnecessary move to stack the 
     Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission with new 
     members while requiring that they have legal training. H.R. 
     741 would remove policymaking and the interpretation of 
     OSHA's policies from the Secretary of Labor and give that 
     responsibility to the OSHA Review Commission. Such a move 
     would be an extreme departure from the original intent of the 
     OSHAct and make it difficult for the Secretary of Labor to 
     enforce and implement the Act. Finally, H.R. 742 would 
     require OSHA to pay attorneys' fees for small employers when 
     they prevail in administrative or enforcement proceedings, 
     placing yet another financial burden on an already 
     underfunded agency.
       We urge you to reject all four of the measures. These bills 
     will erode a law that has served American workers well.
           Sincerely,
                                              Charles M. Loveless,
     Director of Legislation.
                                  ____



                                          United Steelworkers,

                                                    July 11, 2005.
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: The United Steelworkers (USW), a union 
     which represents industrial workers in virtually every sector 
     of the economy, strongly opposes the four bills amending the 
     Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) which the House is 
     scheduled to take up tomorrow. HR 741, HR 740 and HR 739 all 
     relate to the Occupational Safety and Health Review 
     Commission (OSHRC) while HR 742 adds new rules under which 
     small employers can receive compensation for attorney's fees.
       Proponents of these bills paint them as simply eliminating 
     bureaucratic ``red tape'' with a ``common-sense fix,'' but 
     workers' safety and the protections established under the 
     1970 OSH Act and the rights of claimants to a timely response 
     to OSHA citations cannot be equated to red tape.
       Perhaps most onerous is HR 742, the ``Occupational Safety 
     and Health Small Employer Access to Justice Act,'' which 
     requires taxpayers to cover the legal costs of small 
     employers who prevail--or partially prevail--in any 
     administrative or enforcement case by OSHA, or in any 
     challenge to an OSHA standard, regardless of whether the 
     action was ``substantially justified''. In other words, this 
     bill will go beyond the protection already provided to 
     litigating parties in the Equal Access to Justice Act which 
     currently protects a party in cases where the government is 
     not ``substantially justified'' in bringing about a law 
     enforcement action.
       HR 742 will effectively act as a deterrent to OSHA 
     enforcement and standard setting. Statistics show that small 
     employers (those with fewer than 100 employees) have a higher 
     rate of fatal occupational injuries than those with more than 
     100 workers. Since small employers account for over 97% of 
     all private sector employers, USW vigorously opposes any bill 
     that could further weaken OSHA enforcement efforts and 
     standard setting for this proportionally large group of 
     private sector small employers.
       HR 741 the ``Occupational Safety and Health Independent 
     Review of OSHA Citations Act'' overturns a 1991 Supreme Court 
     decision and undercuts the Secretary of Labor's authority to 
     interpret and enforce the law. HR 741 would order judges in 
     cases appealed to the courts to give deference to the OSHRC, 
     giving the Commission unprecedented authority to interpret 
     OSHA standards. The USW strongly urges you to vote against 
     HR 741 and keep policymaking and the interpretation of 
     OSHA policy with the Secretary of Labor.
       HR 740 the ``Occupational Safety and Health Review 
     Commission Efficiency Act'' proposes to expand the number of 
     commissioners from three to five, require commissioners to 
     have a legal training and allow commissioners to hold their 
     position after their six year term expires until their 
     successor has been appointed by the President and confirmed 
     by the Senate. Since 1970 the OSHRC has been composed of 
     three members and there is no need to expand the Commission 
     while excluding from the Commission persons with workplace 
     health and safety expertise, but no law degree. The USW also 
     urges you to vote against this bill.
       Finally, HR 739 or the ``Occupational Safety and Health 
     Small Business Day in Court Act'' would excuse all 
     employers--not just small employers--that miss the fifteen-
     day deadline for contesting OSHA citations. In other words, 
     this bill will effectively eliminate the 15-day deadline, 
     further delaying the timeframe for moving a case through the 
     process and further delaying actions to correct the possible 
     hazard. The USW opposes this bill as redundant, since 
     employers already have recourse for missed deadlines in the 
     federal courts under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 
     Procedure if the failure to contest meets certain 
     requirements.
           Sincerely,

                                       William J. Klinefelter,

                       Assistant to the President, Legislative and
                                               Political Director.

  Mr. OWENS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.
  (Mr. NORWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Madam Speaker, I cannot help but think that all has been said that 
needs to be said about all four of these bills during the rules debate; 
the problem is just not everybody has said it.
  If we can perhaps confine our thinking and remarks to the bills 
before us, we could probably get through this pretty nicely. And those 
who want to talk about things that are not germane to these bills have 
a great opportunity to do so during special orders. Maybe for once we 
could simply talk about the four bills that we have.
  We are starting out with H.R. 739, the Occupational Safety and Health 
Small Business Day in Court Act of 2005. At the outset, I would like to 
stress that this legislation in no way diminishes the worker safety 
protections of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. I believe that. 
I think most members of our committee believe that. It is not our 
intention and I do not believe it will be the outcome of any of these 
bills that we consider today, most especially the one we are discussing 
now, H.R. 739.
  The Occupational Safety and Health Small Business Day in Court Act 
amends the OSH Act to resolve a conflict between section 10 of the act 
and the Federal rule of civil procedure 60(b). The bill is designed to 
make sure that an employer who fails to respond to an OSHA citation in 
a timely fashion is allowed to do so and have his or her day in court, 
and how reasonable of us to allow that, if the reason for missing the 
deadline was excusable neglect, a mistake or inadvertence. That is what 
rule 60(b) allows, and that is frankly all this bill does.
  Until recently, if an employer filed a late notice of contest to an 
OSHA citation, OSHA had limited flexibility in accepting the notice 
because of a conflict in the law that was written 34 years ago. OSHA 
would not accept late notices of contest even if the employer could 
prove an excusable neglect. The Occupational Safety and Health Review 
Commission, however, would allow a late notice of contest to be filed 
under rule 60(b). This makes no sense.
  On December 13, 2004, the Solicitor of Labor issued a memorandum to 
regional solicitors announcing a change in the Department's legal 
interpretation. This change will allow the Department's attorneys to 
excuse late notices of citation if it can be determined

[[Page H5682]]

that the lateness was due to an inadvertence or excusable neglect. The 
solicitor cites case law, OSHRC's longtime interpretation, and rule 
60(b) as the reasons for this change. This is the right policy in my 
view, and I include for the Record the aforementioned memorandum.


                                          Department of Labor,

                                Washington, DC, December 13, 2004.


                               MEMORANDUM

     To: Regional Solicitors, Joseph M. Woodward, Associate 
         Solicitor for Occupational Safety and Health.
     From: Howard M. Radzely, Solicitor of Labor.
     Subject: Late Notices of Contest to OSHA Citations.
       This memorandum announces a change in the Department's 
     legal interpretation of Section 10(a) of the Occupational 
     Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 659(a). The 
     Department previously interpreted that provision to preclude 
     the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission from 
     considering an employer's contest of an OSHA citation that is 
     filed after expiration of the statutory fifteen working-day 
     contest period, except in the unusual situation in which the 
     limitations period has been equitably tolled. The 
     Commission's position has long been that it can consider late 
     contests if the employer establishes that its failure to meet 
     the deadline was due to ``excusable neglect'' as that phrase 
     is used in Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), which provides criteria for 
     granting relief from final judgments or orders.
       Despite our best efforts, our legal argument has met with 
     only limited success. Although the Second Circuit agreed with 
     our view in Chao v. Russell P. LeFrois Builder, Inc., 291 
     F.3d 219 (2d Cir. 2002), the Commission has repeatedly 
     rejected it, and this past June the Third Circuit ruled 
     against us in two cases. George Harms Constr. Co. v. Chao, 
     371 F.3d 156, 160-65 (3d Cir. 2004); Avon Contractors, 372 
     F.3d 171, 174-75 (3d Cir. 2004).
       After studying the statute and relevant case law, the 
     Department has concluded that late filed notices of contest 
     may be considered under the conditions specified in Rule 
     60(b). This change is not only consistent with the 
     Commission's interpretation, but it is also consistent with 
     MSHA's and the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review 
     Commission's interpretation of identical language in the Mine 
     Act. 30 U.S.C. Sec. 815(a). Moreover, the previous 
     interpretation had a disproportionate impact on small 
     businesses in that these entities are more likely than larger 
     companies to file untimely notices of contest. Our new 
     position avoids further needless and often futile litigation 
     on an issue that is collateral to OSHA's primary safety and 
     health mission.
       Accordingly, I am directing that all Regions implement this 
     new interpretation by no longer making the argument that the 
     Commission lacks authority to consider late notices of 
     contest under Rule 60(b). However, the Regions should 
     continue to argue aggressively, as they have previously and 
     usually successfully done in the alternative, that Rule 60(b) 
     relief can only be granted to employers that establish all 
     elements of the excusable neglect standard. In this way, we 
     can focus our limited resources on protecting worker safety 
     and health rather than on litigating a collateral procedural 
     issue. Specific implementation guidance follows. If there are 
     additional questions, please contact Daniel Mick, Counsel for 
     Regional Trial Litigation, in the OSH Division.


                                Guidance

       1. No attorney in the Office of the Solicitor shall argue 
     on behalf of the Secretary that the Commission lacks the 
     authority to apply Rule 60(b)'s excusable neglect standard to 
     consider late notices of contest. Instead, SOL shall 
     implement OSHA's current view that the Commission has such 
     authority. Attorneys handling OSHA cases arising in New York, 
     Connecticut, or Vermont, or when otherwise appropriate, shall 
     note that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has held to the 
     contrary, but point out that the Le Frois decision made clear 
     that the Secretary's reasonable interpretations of the OSH 
     Act are entitled to judicial deference, and was rendered 
     before OSHA adopted its current view.
       2. Where appropriate, SOL attorneys shall protect the 
     Department's interests by opposing late notices of contests 
     on the grounds that the employer has not established 
     ``excusable neglect'' for the late filing. Consistent with 
     existing law, SOL attorneys shall argue that, in addition to 
     the employer establishing that the neglect was excusable, 
     relief cannot be granted unless the employer also asserts a 
     meritorious defense to the citation. See Teamsters, 
     Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers Union, Local No. 59 v. 
     Superline Transp. Co., 953 F.2d 17, 20 (1st Cir. 1992) 
     (citing cases). In addition, because Rule 60(b) relief is 
     only available ``upon such terms as are just,'' in 
     appropriate cases, such as where the employer contests only 
     the penalty or the characterization of the violation, or its 
     knowledge of a violative condition, SOL may ask that the 
     employer be required to establish that employees are no 
     longer exposed to the cited hazard as a condition of going 
     forward with a hearing on the merits.

  Madam Speaker, all H.R. 739 would do is simply codify the solicitors' 
new directive, permanently cementing this change in the OSH Act and 
ending the conflict between the OSH Act and rule 60(b).
  Last year, the House approved this measure with bipartisan support of 
251-177, and I again urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this 
measure.
  I know many of my Democrat friends think that the labor bosses are 
against this, and they are right. The labor bosses are against 
something this simple, which is simply an indication to me they may not 
like small businesses. They may not want anything to occur that helps 
small businesses.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) says this bill is not 
important. I tell Members what, if you are a mom and pop in this 
country running a small business with three or four employees, I 
promise this is important to them. The 12 percent of the labor union 
members in this country, I guarantee it is important to many of them 
because many of them are also in small businesses. Many of them who 
have spouses are in small businesses. This is just a decent thing to 
do, allow a little flexibility. Why beat up on small businesses? If you 
have a small business in your district, you certainly should vote 
``yes'' for this one bill.
  Mr. OWENS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 739 because 
it appears to be just another way for this administration to distract 
from the real priorities of our Nation's workers: fair wages, open 
labor negotiations, secure pensions, U.S. jobs over the outsourcing of 
our jobs and, of course, a safe working environment that protects 
workers from harm and allows their families peace of mind. Yet with 
this legislation, we put the company's bottom line above the safety of 
American workers.
  With the narrowing definition of willful violations, we make it 
easier for employers to avoid responsibility after disregarding a 
safety standard requirement. This bill would allow a company to receive 
a filing extension no matter why the paperwork was lost, whether they 
lost track of it in the first place or if they even put it aside 
because of their very own negligence.

                              {time}  1430

  Why should any worker be forced to suffer in unhealthy or unsafe 
working conditions or, worse, lose their life or be maimed for their 
life because of inefficiencies within a company's system? That is why I 
support real workforce reform that strengthens worker protections and 
insists that employers face real consequences when their poor safety 
standards cause a wrongful death, no excuses, no added waivers, no way 
to help an employer miss their deadlines and then get away with it.
  You cannot put a price tag on life, Madam Speaker, and you cannot put 
a price tag on serious injury. We can all agree that every worker's 
life is more precious than a profit. That is why I encourage my 
colleagues to join me and join the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) 
in opposing H.R. 739.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for his leadership in the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce and the fact that he has been able to pass reasonable 
legislation that not only helps the employee but the employer and gives 
us a better business atmosphere in this country. I would also like to 
thank my friend and fellow Georgian (Mr. Norwood) for his leadership in 
fine-tuning our occupational safety and health laws. The gentleman from 
Georgia has waged a years-long effort to improve the relationship 
between small businesses and the Federal Government's regulatory 
agencies, and for that I thank him.
  Madam Speaker, I am a small businessman. I started my own 
construction business 25 years ago, and that is how I supported my 
family until my recent election this year to Congress. OSHA regulations 
are not just an interesting debate topic for Washington dinner parties. 
For me and the millions of other small business owners, they are tough 
rules with real consequences. No one wants to regress to the days when 
workers had few rights and worked in ridiculously dangerous situations 
with little or no regard for their safety.

[[Page H5683]]

  In the end, good precautions are good for workers, good for 
businesses, and good for the economy as a whole. We are not keeping 
OSHA from enforcing Federal safety regulations with this legislation. 
We are just ensuring that regulators are fair and reasonable when 
enforcing regulations.
  In the construction business, I worked closely with subcontractors 
who were small business owners themselves. One of them, a good friend 
of mine, ran into trouble with OSHA over this very rule that we are 
debating today in the Small Business Day in Court Act. He and an 
employee were digging a hole for a septic tank. They made a mistake 
during the process, and it was a mistake with horrible consequences. 
The walls of the hole caved in, killing the employee. While my friend 
was recuperating from and dealing with all the painful consequences 
that come with the death of an employee when you are a three-or four-
man business, OSHA gave him a summons. I think everyone would agree 
that during those 15 days after the accident, responding to an OSHA 
summons should not and could not be at the top of his priority list. He 
missed the deadline; and, of course, under OSHA rules he was not given 
another chance to defend himself.
  This legislation will help small business owners such as this, who 
run small shops but who employ the vast majority of American workers. 
They cannot employ full-time OSHA compliance officers and most owners 
are not going to be experts on the fine print of Federal regulations. 
When it comes to our Nation's job producers, we should not be tying 
their hands. We should be giving them a hand up.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, H.R. 739.
  Mr. OWENS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  H.R. 739 specifically creates a legal loophole for bypassing the 
obligation on an employer's part to meet a 15-day deadline for 
contesting OSHA citations. As such, the bill promotes increased 
litigation. Given that the OSHA commission already has the authority to 
review any missed deadlines on a case-by-case basis, such litigation is 
completely unnecessary. That bears repeating. At present, the OSHA 
commission relies on its longstanding practice of reviewing, on a case-
by-case basis, any missed deadlines. So what is the rationale for this 
bill?
  H.R. 739 is not only superfluous and offers nothing productive that 
is positive and new; it also negatively serves to delay the timely 
correction of workplace safety violations and hazards. The 15-business-
day timeline for an employer's response was set to encourage speedy 
removal of work site hazards as well as the expeditious handling of 
cases. It establishes a reasonable time frame for protecting all the 
parties. It protects the employers as well as the workers. By contrast, 
H.R. 739 will needlessly place some workers at greater risk of on-the-
job injuries or fatalities.
  Let me give you a few concrete examples to illustrate the risk. In 
March 2003, OSHA began an inspection of Strack, Incorporated, a 
pipeline company in Atlanta, Georgia. OSHA inspectors had seen Strack 
employees working in a trench that was up to 12 feet deep. Yet a trench 
box, designed to protect workers, had been left on higher ground and 
more than 100 feet away from the site. In May 2003, OSHA issued Strack, 
Inc. a willful citation with a proposed fine of $44,000 for failure to 
use a trench box. Fortunately in this case, the hazards were corrected 
before anyone was killed. As an OSHA inspector put it, cave-ins occur 
quickly and without warning; and then it is too late to protect 
workers.
  When it comes to trenching, failure to correct hazards in the 15-day 
required period can have fatal consequences. As Jeffrey Walters of 
Cincinnati, Ohio, testified before me last year, his only son Patrick 
died in a cave-in on June 14, 2002, only weeks after OSHA cited the 
firm Patrick worked for, which is Moeves Plumbing, for willful 
trenching violations. In fact, Moeves Plumbing had been inspected by 
OSHA 13 times before Patrick's death. Moreover, another worker had died 
while digging trenches for the same plumbing company several years 
before Patrick died in the same way.
  All of this is to say that speedy correction of work site hazards 
cited by OSHA can often mean the difference between life and death. 
Thus, when OSHA finds a safety violation, it clearly merits immediate 
attention. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill again.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. What 
sounds like a very small change in the rules could have very large and 
unwelcome consequences. The way the law works now, if an OSHA inspector 
noticed the trench that the gentleman from New York just made reference 
to and gave that employer a notice that the trench needed to be 
properly put together so it would not cave in, under present law the 
employer has more than 2 weeks, 15 days, to decide whether to contest 
that citation. And if the employer fails to contest the citation, the 
law presumes that the violation ought to stand and there is corrective 
action taken to try to protect the worker.
  Now, sometimes employers do have surprises or accidents or situations 
beyond their control and they mean to object to the citation, but they 
fail to do so. They fail to file the paper on time, or they have some 
other surprise or circumstance. The law, as the gentleman from New York 
said, already provides for that circumstance. On a case-by-case basis, 
OSHA is able to say there are special circumstances which justify 
missing the 15-day deadline. In the law, he or she who has the burden 
of proof loses.
  What this bill does is to shift the burden of proof to OSHA to prove 
that the 15-day deadline was somehow unreasonable, instead of properly 
vesting the burden on the employer to show that there was an accident 
or a surprise that made them fail to hit the 15-day deadline. There is 
a reason that this deadline is so short. It is because the 
circumstances that give rise to the violations put people's lives and 
health at risk. We should not shift this burden. We should not approve 
this bill. I would urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I am proud to support and cosponsor all four 
of these important pieces of legislation on OSHA reform. Each is an 
integral step to come to the aid of our small businesses. Not only are 
our small businesses increasingly faced with greater competition from 
the bigger competitors in the U.S. but also are they faced with greater 
competition from across the globe. The last thing they need are 
unnecessary and burdensome regulations from their own government.
  According to a study discussed in the Office of Management and 
Budget's ``Draft Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of 
Federal Regulations for 2005,'' it is estimated that the, quote, total 
cost of Federal regulation, environmental, workplace, economic and tax 
compliance regulation, was 60 percent greater per employee for firms 
with under 20 employees compared to firms with over 500 employees.
  In another recent study, these costs translate to approximately 
$7,000 in regulatory costs per employee per year. We need to aid our 
small businesses in being more competitive, not help force them out of 
business. Certainly the goals of the Occupational Safety and Health 
Agency to ensure workplace safety and health are laudable and 
protecting our workers is and must remain paramount. But oftentimes 
good intentions do not result in the best practices. Our small 
businesses and our workers deserve better.
  H.R. 739, the first of four bills that we are considering today, 
promotes fairness for small businesses while improving competition and 
worker safety. It allows the Occupational Safety and Health Review 
Commission more flexibility to make exceptions to the 15-day deadline 
when employers must file appeals to OSHA citations. Many of our small 
businesses unintentionally and innocently miss this arbitrary deadline 
and can be denied their day in court as a result. While many of our 
small businesses are struggling to provide their employees with the 
safest work environments and access to the best health

[[Page H5684]]

care and other benefits, they must comply with inflexible regulations 
such as these. Many small businesses that have unintentionally missed 
this deadline are simply not able to navigate the complex regulations 
in order to appeal the OSHA citation.
  In January of this year, even the Department of Labor agreed that 
this deadline is too burdensome and decided it would allow the 
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission to have discretion 
over the 15-day deadline for filing appeals. This was welcome news for 
small businesses. Now, all we need to do is codify this provision. We 
are certainly not advocating that every small business be given a pass 
on this deadline to respond to a citation, but let us be reasonable 
here and give them the benefit of the doubt by instilling just a little 
bit more flexibility into these regulations.
  Let me also mention these three other bills, H.R. 740, H.R. 741 and 
H.R. 742, that we are debating this afternoon. Expanding the review 
board for appeals cases to OSHA from three to five commissioners would 
speed up the appeals process so small businesses will have their cases 
reviewed in a timely manner.
  H.R. 741 will restore the original practice and congressional intent 
to ensure that the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, or 
the court, will be the party to interpret OSHA regulations, not OSHA 
itself. And finally, H.R. 742 will allow small businesses to recover 
the costly attorney fees incurred if they successfully challenge an 
OSHA citation. Each of these will help alleviate overbearing 
regulations that thwart the creativity and entrepreneurial spirit of 
small businesses.
  In past years, each of these four bills has passed the House by good 
margins. Let us send these provisions once again to the other side of 
the Capitol and encourage them to act this year to help our small 
businesses. Jobs are at stake and a vital economy lies in the balance. 
We must keep our small businesses vital, healthy, and competitive.
  Mr. OWENS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose this bill 
which would give a pass to employers who do not meet workplace safety 
conditions. We could have taken this opportunity to help hardworking 
Americans feel a little safer in the workplace, or we could have made 
today's priority giving some relief to middle-class families who are 
struggling to keep up with record-breaking gas prices, tuition 
increases, and health care costs.
  Instead, this administration has once again chosen in favor of the 
corporate sector and the special interests. Their reward in this bill 
comes at the expense of hardworking employees who depend on OSHA to 
keep an eye on their working conditions. But when former executives win 
appointments to regulate the same industries in which they used to 
work, sound science and smart public policy usually tack a back seat to 
political favoritism and ideology. This bill creates a new loophole 
around the 15-day deadline for contesting OSHA citations. It is yet one 
more corporate handout that could have been better spent on job 
training, reversing the tide of outsourcing, or raising the minimum 
wage.

                              {time}  1445

  Meanwhile, hard-working Americans are increasingly faced with 
workplace conditions in which critically important safeguards are 
watered down, emerging problems are ignored, and enforcement is scaled 
back.
  If OSHA already has the authority to review missed deadlines on a 
case-by-case basis, why would we need a bill that changes this process 
in a one-sided way that could further disadvantage workers, encourage 
litigation, and undermine health and safety protections?
  Madam Speaker, I believe the Senate got it right last year when it 
declined to consider this or any of the other three proposed rollbacks 
of OSHA's responsibility to hard-working Americans.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote against all four of these bills.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Price), a member of our committee.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to 
talk on this bill. I want to commend the chairman for his work in this 
area and commend the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), who has 
labored long and hard on these issues.
  Let me make a few points initially before I talk about the merits of 
the bill. I think it is important for people to appreciate that no one, 
no one, is interested in trivializing the issue of safety in the 
workplace. We are interested in improving workplace safety and in 
holding businesses accountable when they are at fault, not just 
because. No one is interested in trivializing this issue.
  No one is putting a price tag on life. That has been mentioned. No 
one is putting a price tag on life here, and no one is interested in 
giving employers a pass.
  They also talked about a legal loophole. This is not a legal 
loophole. What this does is simply put faith in small business, and it 
shifts the burden of proof to the accuser, where it should be. There 
was some analogy drawn to a court of law. What this does is shift the 
burden of proof to the accuser, that is, OSHA, where it should be.
  The bill will not weaken OSHA either. It will simply allow small 
business a fair opportunity for a fair hearing when it is cited, and 
that is it.
  I rise in support of H.R. 739. The magnitude of this bill is huge: 
99.7 percent of all businesses are small businesses, 99.7 percent. 
Seventy-five percent of all new jobs come from small business, three 
out of every four jobs.
  In talking about this before and in researching this, I went back and 
looked at the original OSHA Act. The original OSHA Act in 1970 said 
that it was to assure safe and healthful working conditions for working 
men and women by authorizing enforcement of the standards developed 
under the act. The mission today as described by OSHA on their Web site 
is to ensure the safety and health of America's workers by setting and 
enforcing standards. Do the Members notice the difference? We have 
shifted who is setting the standards from Congress to a nonelected 
body. I think this is a lot of power. A lot of power.
  The OSHA budget is $468 million, 1,100 inspectors out of 2,200 
employees. A lot of power.
  As has been mentioned, currently if a citation is given, the employer 
is given 15 days to respond. This is an arbitrary time frame. Nobody 
can argue that. There really is no rationale for those 15 days. Why not 
5? Why not 35? Why not make it fair to small business? This is a simple 
commonsense amendment. Eleven words is all the amendment is, 11 words. 
It would add that ``unless such failure results from mistake, 
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect,'' 11 little words. A 
commonsense amendment, which I am sorry to say is oftentimes all too 
uncommon around here. It does not mean that any citation is null and 
void. It does not mean that at all. It simply means that small business 
has an opportunity to get its fair day in court.
  So in closing, Madam Speaker, I want to commend once again the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) for the hard work he has done and 
the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) for bringing this issue to 
the floor.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 739 and do it for small 
business and for the employees and jobs in our Nation.
  Mr. OWENS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  (Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 739. It is part 
of a package of bills that we have before us today that serve no 
purpose that I can see but to gut the occupational health legislation 
record before this Congress.
  Current law requires that employers challenge a citation or notice of 
a failure to abate a hazard within a 15-day time period. There is a 
reason that this is a short time period. It is because these are 
serious matters. The short deadline was enacted to encourage 
expeditious handling of cases and to ensure that the workplace hazards 
are corrected in a timely manner. The commission already has the 
ability to review specific cases of missed deadlines in a manner that 
protects the

[[Page H5685]]

rights of employers. In fact, my colleagues defending this legislation 
said what about unintentional missed deadlines or deadlines that are 
missed innocently. The commission can deal with that. What we are 
concerned about are the ones that are missed disingenuously: oh, I 
forgot; oh, I did not quite get around to taking care of that.
  It is clear that H.R. 739 is designed to ease the burden on employers 
at the expense of the health and safety of workers. This is the 
dramatic change in policy. My colleague from Georgia said the dramatic 
change in policy is somehow OSHA has gained regulatory authority. No. 
OSHA has always had regulatory authority for the last 35 years. The 
real change is this dramatic change in policy that would delay the 
employers' responsiveness to the health hazards and increase the time 
that workers have to work in unsafe conditions.
  These measures would make it more difficult for employees to seek 
redress and would impede the enforcement of worksite safety and health 
provisions.
  Again, this is one of a set of bills that would serve to gut OSHA. It 
puts aside, really, the seriousness of the matter here. We do not want 
OSHA to become just an annoyance or a minor delay or an inconvenience 
or just the cost of doing business. No. OSHA should have teeth.
  There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Americans, I do 
not know who they are, they do not know who they are, who today have 
their arms, their eyes, their health, even their lives because of OSHA; 
and they do not know who they are. But they can thank people like 
Senator Pete Williams from New Jersey and others, who 35 years ago 
realized that it is the appropriate role of the Federal Government to 
be involved.
  I know there are those who think that it would be better if the 
Federal Government had never gotten involved in this. I suppose they 
would say, well, the employee could sit down with the employer and the 
employee could point out the unsafe working conditions and the employer 
will surely take care of it because no employer wants his employees 
harmed. It just does not work that way. It did not work that way for 
the century before OSHA was passed.
  Let me repeat: there are hundreds of thousands of Americans who have 
their eyesight, who have their arms, who have their health, who have 
their lives because OSHA has teeth, because OSHA requires prompt remedy 
to unsafe conditions.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OWENS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to just say that when we say the 
Republican majority is trying to trivialize the role of OSHA and the 
role of safety in the workplace, there is good foundation for this. 
When this administration took power, the present administration in the 
White House, one of the first acts that they perpetrated was the repeal 
of ergonomic standards at the urging of, of course, Republican Members 
of Congress. They repealed the ergonomic standards that had been in 
process with a lot of bipartisan development and support over a long 
period of years.
  When the Secretary of Labor was Elizabeth Dole, great steps were 
made; and slowly we reached a point where we had ergonomic standards to 
pass. The current Bush Administration's first act was to repeal 
ergonomic standards, to toss them aside and to send a message that 
workers in the workplace are not that important, working families are 
really not important, working conditions in America are not important. 
The history of OSHA is that step by step they have saved thousands and 
thousands of lives.
  One of the worst industries for safety before OSHA came into 
existence was the construction industry. The construction industry is 
still one of the most unsafe industries, but it has made tremendous 
strides in terms of saving lives as a result of being forced to follow 
certain kinds of standards by OSHA.
  I think we need more light thrown on this subject, and for that 
reason we have prepared some information for each member of the 
committee by district, and they can get familiar with the problem in 
their district with this information that we have compiled.
  For example, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 2003, 
there were 200 worker deaths in the State of Illinois. But in the 13th 
Congressional District of Illinois, 69.5 percent of all the state's 
deaths took place. I think the Member of Congress from the 13th 
district ought to know that and take a look at what has happened in 
that district.
  This packet that we want to prepare for each Member includes a chart 
detailing the statistics. The chart also lists the worker deaths 
according to the industry the person worked in and also the type of 
incident that was responsible for their death: was it a fall, contact 
with equipment, et cetera. The information is also broken down between 
government workers and those working in the private industry. This 
packet also includes a census report for each one of the districts 
showing how it relates to the surrounding areas, et cetera.
  We will prepare this for each Member to just let them know how 
serious a matter this is in terms of their own immediate districts. We 
think working families in America should not be treated as if they 
lived in a Third World country, and a lot of Third World countries 
mores are being attempted by certain U.S. industries.
  Particularly the construction industry, the construction industry 
looks for the most vulnerable people, immigrants. Illegal immigrants 
are employed in large numbers in the construction industry. And I come 
from a city where 40 percent of all male blacks are unemployed, 
according to two studies, two studies that confirm that 40 percent of 
all male blacks are unemployed. Yet there is a tremendous amount of 
construction going on, and if we go around the construction sites, we 
will find that the workers doing the manual labor, unskilled labor, are 
immigrants; and in many cases there are tremendous accidents, and these 
people are shuffled off and frightened and intimidated to the point 
where they never even report it. They do not have any workman's 
compensation, let alone feel that they have the right to be protected 
under the OSHA laws.
  A review of more than 2,500 OSHA construction site inspection records 
in New York State from the year 2003 found that nearly one third of all 
OSHA construction violations in the State were of scaffolding or fall 
protection requirement violations, more than any other standard. The 
organizations involved in the analysis also said the results of this 
study as well as a separate review reveal troubling data about the 
plight of immigrant workers in the construction industry.
  Their analysis, titled ``Lives in the Balance--Immigrants and Workers 
at Elevated Heights at Greatest Risk in Construction,'' was prepared by 
the New York State Trial Lawyers Association and issued by the New York 
Committee for Occupational Safety and Health and the Association of 
Community Organizations for Reform Now, called ACORN. Two other 
organizations Make the Road by Walking, and the New York Immigration 
Coalition, also sponsored the study.

                              {time}  1500

  The study reviewed all construction site OSHA inspections conducted 
in the State during 2003. Now, personally, I know and I have related on 
this floor, the total accidents that have taken place since then in New 
York City. Five immigrant workers lost their lives in a trench that was 
being constructed without proper safeguards.
  I want to repeat that there is a class problem developing in America. 
There is a class problem. Those in power are insensitive to the needs 
of those who are out there working on the front lines, whether it is in 
domestic service or in dangerous jobs like construction, trucking and a 
number of chemical plants. These are dangerous jobs, but they have to 
be done. Our industries cannot survive without people who work in those 
dangerous jobs. They deserve all the protection we can give them. Just 
as the soldiers on the front lines in Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere 
else always deserve the best that we can give them. Every soldier is 
automatically a hero when he goes out to fight for his country, because 
for every one who goes out to fight, there are a few hundred thousand 
left behind who will never be called. We should recognize and honor 
those who go out to fight. Therefore, the best armor protection, the 
best bullet-proof vests, all of

[[Page H5686]]

the things that are available to protect an individual's life should be 
available to those who go out to fight.
  What we have found in this present war in Iraq is that people on the 
top, with their class-conscious sentiments at work, did not provide at 
first the kind of protection that should have been provided to the 
soldiers on the front lines out there. The soldiers come from the same 
working families. I cannot stress enough the need for all Americans to 
recognize that we are all in this together.
  We have a governor of New York State now whose son was in the 
National Guard in a program that required that, once he came out, he 
had certain duties and obligations. This governor's son now is asking 
for a waiver. He does not want to go to Iraq; he wants a waiver. What 
kind of a message is that sending to all of the mothers and fathers of 
young men and women who have gone off to fight in Iraq in terms of our 
society? The person with the power does not want to make a sacrifice of 
his son.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, let me remind my colleagues what this small, innocuous 
bill does. It says to the Secretary of Labor and to OSHA that the 
arbitrary, 15-day deadline that is in the statute for complying with an 
OSHA citation or to respond to OSHA can, in fact, be waived under 
special circumstances, if OSHA believes that the employer missed it by 
accident or had other extenuating circumstances, they have the option 
of extending the 15-day deadline. That is all this bill does.
  Now, some of my colleagues on the other side have suggested, well, 
no, they already have this authority. But the fact is, they do not. The 
ability of the commission to waive a deadline on a case-by-case basis 
when circumstances warrant it have been drawn into increased legal 
uncertainty by the recent decision of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals 
for the Second Circuit in Chao v. LeFrois Builder, Incorporated, and 
indeed, as recently as 2003, OSHA has argued that OSHRC does not have 
the authority to apply this rule.
  So we think that voluntary cooperation between OSHA and the employer 
community will, in fact, lead to a safer workplace. And as the chart 
showed that I displayed earlier, workplace injuries and fatalities have 
continued to decrease in each year of the Bush administration.
  Let us make this commonsense change to help employers and their 
workers achieve a safer workplace.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
these measures. This legislation moves in the wrong direction for 
worker safety.
  We are spending valuable time changing small portions of OSHA to 
overturn court decisions and tweak the law to benefit industry.
  I'm not sure we should be spending time addressing all these small 
issues when we know that reporting requirements are a problem and we 
could be doing something about it.
  It doesn't matter in which facility these accidents occurred. The 
fact is people should know if an accident has occurred and the company 
managing the site should report it whether contract workers were 
involved or not.
  If someone is seriously injured at my home, regardless if I'm at 
fault, there will be a report by the paramedics or the police and it 
will list my residence.
  In March, fifteen people were killed in a refinery accident in Texas 
City. None of them will be on the injury site log because the law 
doesn't require them to list contract workers.
  Since 1991 we've known reporting requirements should be changed to 
include contract workers. The report recommending this was sanctioned 
by OSHA under the first George Bush's administration.
  There is no reason the Republican leadership couldn't allow at least 
some discussion on the reporting issue today. People have the right to 
know if they are applying for a job at a facility that has a poor 
safety record.
  We should be talking about real issues instead of making things just 
a little better for industry. We've known about this problem for 14 
years. That's too long to avoid making a simple change to the law to 
require site-based reporting of injuries.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in 
opposition to H.R. 739, a bill to amend the Occupational Safety and 
Health Act of 1970 to provide for adjudication 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. In essence, this bill 
would amend current law to authorize the Occupational Safety and Health 
Review Commission (OSHRC) to make exceptions to the 15-day deadline for 
employers to challenge OSHA citations if the employer's failure to meet 
this deadline is due to a ``mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or 
excusable neglect.''
  This would weaken the ability of the Occupational Safety and Health 
Review Commission to enforce the current deadline and would encourage 
increased litigation and disrupt OSHA's ability to address workplace 
hazards in a timely manner. OSHA is already ``astonishingly 
ineffectual'' in protecting workers' lives. In the past 20 years OSHA 
has failed to seek criminal prosecutions in 93 percent of the cases 
where employers' willful and flagrant safety violations ended up 
killing workers. (New York Times/December 2003). Furthermore, according 
to a recent GAO report, since 1996, OSHA has cut resources dedicated to 
enforcement by 6 percent.
  The U.S. lags behind other western nations in protecting workers' 
lives. A U.S. construction worker is 4 times more likely to be killed 
on the job than one in Denmark. (Center for Worker Rights 2004). As a 
New York State Supreme Court Judge observed: ``Why Congress has adopted 
such a spineless response to industrial malfeasance is best left to 
voters to assess.'' (Newsday, 1/15/04).
  As responsible Members of congress, we cannot afford to vote for this 
bill. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 739.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico). All time for 
debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 351, the bill is considered read for 
amendment and the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________