[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 93 (Tuesday, July 12, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H5686-H5692]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION EFFICIENCY ACT OF 2005

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 351, I call up 
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, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). Pursuant to House Resolution 
351, the bill is considered read for amendment.
  The text of H.R. 740 is as follows:

                                H.R. 740

       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 Review Commission Efficiency Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION.

       (a) Increase in Number of Members and Requirement for 
     Membership.--Section 12 of the Occupational Safety and Health 
     Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 661) is amended--
       (1) in the second sentence of subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``three members'' and inserting ``five 
     members''; and
       (B) by inserting ``legal'' before ``training'';
       (2) in the first sentence of subsection (b), by striking 
     ``except that'' and all that follows through the period and 
     inserting the following: ``except that the President may 
     extend the term of a member for no more than 365 consecutive 
     days to allow a continuation in service at the pleasure of 
     the President after the expiration of the term of that member 
     until a successor nominated by the President has been 
     confirmed to serve. Any vacancy caused by the death, 
     resignation, or removal of a member before the expiration of 
     a term for which a member was appointed shall be filled only 
     for the remainder of such term.''; and
       (3) in subsection (f), by striking ``two members'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``three members''.
       (b) New Positions.--Of the two vacancies for membership on 
     the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission created 
     by subsection (a)(1)(A), one shall be appointed by the 
     President for a term expiring on April

[[Page H5687]]

     27, 2008, and the other shall be appointed by the President 
     for a term expiring on April 27, 2010.
       (c) Effective Date for Legal Training Requirement.--The 
     amendment made by subsection (a)(1)(B), requiring a member of 
     the Commission to possess a background in legal training, 
     shall apply beginning with the two vacancies referred to in 
     subsection (b) and all subsequent appointments to the 
     Commission.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 351, the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill is adopted.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                                H.R. 740

       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 Review Commission Efficiency Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION.

       (a) Increase in Number of Members and Criteria for 
     Membership.--Section 12 of the Occupational Safety and Health 
     Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 661) is amended--
       (1) in the second sentence of subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``three members'' and inserting ``five 
     members''; and
       (B) by inserting ``legal'' before ``training'';
       (2) in the first sentence of subsection (b), by striking 
     ``except that'' and all that follows through the period and 
     inserting the following: ``except that the President may 
     extend the term of a member for no more than 365 consecutive 
     days to allow a continuation in service at the pleasure of 
     the President after the expiration of the term of that member 
     until a successor nominated by the President has been 
     confirmed to serve. Any vacancy caused by the death, 
     resignation, or removal of a member before the expiration of 
     a term for which a member was appointed shall be filled only 
     for the remainder of such term.''; and
       (3) in subsection (f), by striking ``two members'' the 
     first place it appears and inserting ``three members''.
       (b) New Positions.--Of the two vacancies for membership on 
     the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission created 
     by subsection (a)(1)(A), one shall be appointed by the 
     President for a term expiring on April 27, 2008, and the 
     other shall be appointed by the President for a term expiring 
     on April 27, 2010.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection 
     (a)(1)(B) shall apply beginning with the 2 vacancies referred 
     to in subsection (b) and all subsequent appointments to the 
     Commission.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on H.R. 740.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the second bill we will debate is another narrowly-
crafted bill that addresses a specific problem we found in the OSHA 
law.
  For nearly two-thirds of its 30-plus years of existence, the 
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission has been undermanned 
and unable to function properly. Now, because a quorum of two out of 
the three total commissioners is needed for timely decision-making, the 
Commission has in the past been unable to act simply because a quorum 
was not present.
  There are a number of reasons for this. The appointment process is 
sometimes controversial, leading to vacancies, and sometimes 
commissioners must recuse themselves from considering cases, meaning 
even if there is only one seat open, there is often no working quorum. 
For too much of its history, the Commission has been unable to gain a 
working quorum and, as a result, is simply unable to function, despite 
being otherwise fully staffed. The Occupational Safety and Health 
Review Commission Efficiency Act increases the membership of the 
Commission from three to five members to ensure that cases are reviewed 
in a timely fashion.
  Increasing membership to five commissioners will help ensure that 
cases are reviewed in a more timely fashion, improving the current 
system of judicial inactivity that only results in government waste. In 
short, it will allow the Commission to complete its job by reducing the 
case backlogs that are as much as 8 years old. Now, the Commission's 
sister agency, the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, 
has 5 panelists, and we have found has worked well in reviewing cases 
more efficiently. Lastly, the bill permits incumbent members whose 
terms have expired to stay on until a replacement can be confirmed by 
the Senate, and most vacancies occur during these turnovers.
  The U.S. economy is improving more and more, and employers are hiring 
new workers each and every month. Last week, the Labor Department 
reported that 3.7 million new jobs have been created since May of 2003. 
We want small businesses hiring more workers and contributing to our 
economy, not facing years of OSHA-related litigation if they cannot 
resolve it simply because the Commission has an endless backlog of 
cases. This bill simply ensures that OSHA cases are resolved in a 
timely and efficient manner, a goal that we all should support. 
Employers who make good-faith efforts to comply with OSHA standards 
deserve to be treated fairly and have their day in court, and this 
measure will help ensure that they receive that opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding me this time, and I thank him so much for his service to 
this committee and for his constant support of workers' rights, 
workers' health and safety, and the protection of their families if 
they are injured on the job.
  The Occupational Safety and Health Act has substantially improved the 
safety of the American workplace to the benefit of the American worker. 
Far fewer workers are killed or injured today than was the case before 
the law was enacted. Despite this progress, too many Americans continue 
to be sick or injured or killed in workplace accidents that could or 
should have been avoided.
  Every day, 15 workers are killed on the job. Another estimated 50,000 
to 60,000 die every year due to occupational illnesses. Hundreds of 
thousands of workers face serious injuries on the job every year. 
Liberty Mutual, the largest workers' compensation insurance company, 
estimates that the direct cost of occupational injuries and illnesses 
is $1 billion a week.
  Two major workplace tragedies, one in Texas this year and the other 
in Ohio last year, underscore the need to strengthen, not weaken, the 
health and safety laws of this country.
  On March 23 of this year, a huge explosion at the BP Amoco Texas City 
refinery killed 15 workers and injured 170 others. Although BP 
initially blamed contract workers for the explosion, it now appears 
that faulty equipment played a major role in this catastrophic blast. 
As it turns out, the BP Amoco refinery in Texas City has been a repeat 
safety violator.
  Repeat safety violations also played a key role in the deaths of four 
iron workers when a massive bridge crane collapsed near Toledo, Ohio, 
in 2004. The contractor Fru-Con failed to address urgent issues with 
anchoring the crane properly raised by the crane's European 
manufacturers. OSHA fined Fru-Con $280,000 and cited the contractor for 
willful safety violations.
  Rather than taking decisive action on behalf of hardworking 
employees, like increasing the minimum wage, stopping runaway pension 
terminations or expanding access to health care, these bills do nothing 
more than jeopardize the health and safety protections of employees on 
the job.
  H.R. 742 significantly diminishes the protections of Occupational 
Safety and Health by discouraging OSHA from even enforcing the 
Occupational Health and Safety Act and punishing taxpayers unless the 
agency, like Perry Mason, can win every case. That simply is not going 
to happen, and this bill weakens workers' protections.
  H.R. 740 unnecessarily expands the size of the Occupational Health 
and Safety Review Commission, and H.R. 741 weakens the fundamental 
responsibilities of the Secretary of Labor. It contorts the law and 
confuses enforcement responsibilities of both the Secretary and the 
review commission.

[[Page H5688]]

  Finally, H.R. 739 creates a legal loophole for employers' obligations 
to meet the 15-day deadline for contesting an OSHA citation or notice 
of a failure to abate a hazard. The deadline for an employer's response 
was set at the 15-day mark to encourage both a timely correction of 
cited workplace hazards and expediting the handling of cases. The 
commission already has the authority to review any missed deadlines on 
a case-by-case basis in a manner that protects both employers and 
workers.
  We have an obligation to help hardworking Americans and their 
families to have a safe and healthy workplace. These bills do the 
opposite. Taken together, these bills will significantly weaken OSHA 
enforcement laws, and I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 742, 741, 740 
and 739.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the previous speaker. I know he is really 
busy today and had to go ``no'' on all four bills, but maybe I can 
refocus us just a little bit and explain that we are on one bill right 
now, and it is a very simple bill. It is H.R. 740, the Occupational 
Safety and Health Review Commission Efficiency Act of 2005. Maybe we 
can concentrate just on this bill now for this hour and understand that 
this is a badly-needed change in OSHA unless you do not believe OSHA 
ought to work, unless you do not believe that the OSHA Commission 
should be in place.
  This legislation is especially timely. In April, the Occupational 
Safety and Health Review Commission's term expired, placing the 
Commission in the same position it has been in for almost two-thirds of 
its existence; now, listen to me: almost two-thirds of its existence 
for the last 34 years undermanned and unable to function properly. 
Well, why is that important? It is not. It is only important to someone 
who has a citation hanging over their business, hanging over their 
head, and you cannot get the review commission to operate. It is 
clearly, after 34 years: No, we understand it does not work. Half of 
the time they cannot do business.
  H.R. 740, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission 
Efficiency Act, increases the size of the Occupational Safety and 
Health Review Commission from three members to five. My goodness. We 
really need to spend a lot of time debating this.

                              {time}  1515

  We are actually going to change this commission, like most 
commissions in the Federal Government, and change it to five members so 
it finally can do the job that the Congress in 1970 wrote into the law 
they wanted it to do. What an extreme bill this is.
  The bill changes the quorum requirements from two members to three 
members, and allows the President to consider legal training, in 
addition to education and experience, as criteria in selecting an 
individual to serve on the board.
  Finally, H.R. 740 allows a confirmed member of the commission to 
continue to serve for up to 365 days to prevent the breaks in service 
that occur when a Senate confirmation is not concluded in a timely 
manner. Does that mean every time somebody retires this commission goes 
out of business, because we cannot get the Senate to do its job? That 
does not matter to anybody except the small business who has a citation 
hanging over their head that the government will not deal with.
  The committee heard testimony in the 108th Congress that because of 
the vacancies, the commission has been nonfunctioning for two-thirds of 
30-plus years of its existence. Now, listen to that, for pity sakes. 
The commission that you are trying to protect has been nonfunctioning 
for two-thirds of the 30 years of its existence. Why in the world would 
you want to protect the present-day system?
  Given that the creation of the commission was the catalyst for the 
passage of the OSH Act in 1970, there never would have been an OSHA had 
not this particular provision been in this review commission. And now 
you do not want it to work. We are trying to change that.
  I believe it is important to prevent the commission from being 
stalled and unable to rule on cases when there is a gap in appointees. 
That does not serve employees or small employers well at all.
  Let me make one final point. My colleagues on the other side have 
been very critical of the inclusion of legal training as a 
qualification for commissioners, criticism that I cannot understand.
  Mr. Speaker, OSHRC is an adjudicative body. Legal training is 
therefore important because the commission writes opinions that will be 
reviewed by the courts if a finding is challenged. I would certainly 
think our Democratic lawyers would agree and understand that. But I 
would note that legal training is but one of three criteria the 
President could review before appointing a commissioner, that would 
mean a Democratic President or a Republican President.
  Nothing in this bill suggests or requires that every member of the 
commission be a lawyer. The simple fact of the matter is this: when the 
commission is unable to rule on cases, resolution does not occur in a 
timely manner. That is unfair and that is wrong.
  This is unfair to all parties and drastically undermined 
congressional intent from 1970. In the 108th Congress this bill passed 
the full House with bipartisan support by 228 to 199.
  I urge passage again this year. And I will say, if you live in a 
district where there are no small businesses in that district, then I 
would vote ``no'' on this. But if I had any small businesses in my 
district, I would give it some serious consideration.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 740 because 
workers deserve to know that their interests will be heard without 
biased judgment by the Occupational Safety and Health Review 
Commission.
  Grieving families across America depend on OSHA to stand up for them 
and for their deceased and injured loved ones. But this legislation 
will threaten one of the only hopes that families have for justice when 
a loved one is harmed at work.
  By increasing the membership of the commission from three to five, 
the administration could actually play politics with the commission, 
filling it with antiworker safety appointees, making it more difficult 
to reach a quorum than now. The very idea that it is simpler to get a 
three-member quorum than a two-member quorum makes no sense. If you 
cannot fill a quorum when you only have three, how are you going to 
fill it when you have five?
  Since President Bush took office, it has been really clear that he 
intends to use OSHA to protect employers rather than employees when 
addressing worker safety. Why then would we believe that he would 
appoint members to the commission that would steer the commission 
toward helping the employee rather than the employer?
  Employees need to know that business interests are not the primary 
basis of the OSHA Review Commission. The size of the OSHA Review 
Commission has no meaning in the face of employee health and safety, in 
the face of death and injury. What does it matter to the worker the 
size of the business or how many members sit on a commission? Death is 
death. Injury is injury. That is what we should be talking about, 
protecting our workers.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is not what workers need or want. Their 
grievances must be taken more seriously than these little fixes here 
and there in the OSHA review. If you cannot sit three members, why 
could you sit five? Think about it. That is why I urge my colleagues to 
oppose H.R. 740.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I would just like 
to mention to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) that this 
bill is not about death. It is simply about making OSHA work, making 
the commission work. It is as simple as that.
  If you want to be against making OSHA actually work, and the review 
commission doing the job that the Democratic Congress wrote in the bill 
in 1970, then vote ``no.''
  Mr. Speaker I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I once again want to commend the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) for his wonderful and excellent 
work in the area of worker safety and his real

[[Page H5689]]

concern for making certain that the rules under which we ask businesses 
and employees to work are workable.
  We are all interested in workplace safety. We have got to get that on 
the table as often as possible. We are all interested in workplace 
safety.
  Now, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) made some very 
moving and interesting points. The problem is, they do not have a thing 
to do with this bill, not a thing to do with this bill. We have just 
heard that grievances should be heard. That is a concern of somebody 
opposed to this bill, that grievances should be heard.
  Well, we agree. The grievances should be heard. But as you heard from 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), two-thirds of the time the 
commission has been unable to sit for a variety of reasons, not the 
least of which they have been unable to seat a quorum.
  And then the question is raised: If you cannot sit three, how can you 
sit five? No, the question is, if you cannot sit two, how could you sit 
three? Well if you add two people to the commission, to the review 
commission, then it makes all of the sense in the world that you have 
made it easier to reach a quorum.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is also important that we keep in mind the 
magnitude of the discussion that we are talking about and why these 
things need to be fixed: 99.7 percent of all business is small 
business, 99.7 percent. And 75 percent of all new jobs in this Nation 
have been created in small businesses.
  Small business owners, they work hard and they drive our economy. In 
this instance, regarding 740, I rise in support of H.R. 740 because if 
those small business owners are not working, they are not producing. If 
they are not producing, then jobs are not being created.
  Once cited by OSHA, an employer deserves his or her expeditious day 
in court. And with the current membership of the review commission, it 
is often, we have heard extremely often, difficult to end that process. 
There are some cases that are before the commission right now that have 
been there for over 10 years, over 10 years. That is not fair to 
employers; that is not fair to employees.
  So I rise and say that increasing the review commission will help 
small businesses, and it will increase the safety of workers; and I 
urge my colleagues to support H.R. 740.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York (Mr. Owens) 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not tribute my friend from 
New York (Mr. Owens) for his years of advocacy for working people 
generally and in worker safety specifically.
  Year after year, month after month, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Owens) has come to this floor and raised these issues with great 
clarity and passion, and we very much appreciate his contribution in 
this area.
  Mr. Speaker, I also appreciate the efforts of my friend from Georgia 
(Mr. Norwood) who is the author of the bill. I never thought I would 
see the day, I must say, Mr. Speaker, to the author where he would 
propose a bill that could create two jobs for lawyers.
  On behalf of our profession, I guess we have to express our 
appreciation. I do want to note my three bases of objections to the 
bill. The first is it does provide the opportunity for what we might 
call court packing. It does provide the opportunity by expanding the 
commission from three members to five, that we would find a fishing 
expedition for two members that would be more attuned to the 
ideological predilection of the administration.
  I do not think either a liberal or conservative administration should 
have the right to pack the commission. I think expanding to five 
members runs that risk.
  Secondly, I am concerned about the undue reliance upon legal 
training. The language of the bill does not expressly require the 
appointment of lawyers, but it does indicate that the principal 
consideration for appointment is legal training or the lack thereof.
  There are many positions in the Federal administrative service that 
are very complex that are adjudicatory in nature that do not require 
formal legal training, and I do not believe that these positions should 
either.
  I would note for the record that none of the nonlawyers appointed to 
this commission in its history have been appointed by Democratic 
administrations. All of the nonlawyers appointed, to my knowledge, have 
been appointed by Republican administrations. So my objection is not 
partisan or ideological. I think that the door should be wide open for 
people of all backgrounds and ability to serve on the commission 
provided they are qualified.
  My third objection has to do with what appears to be a minor 
provision, but could be a major provision. It appears that the language 
would permit two members of the commission, now it is expanded to five, 
only two members of the commission to transact business on behalf of 
the commission.
  I do not know of really any other decisionmaking body in the Federal 
structure where a minority of the members can make an affirmative 
decision. I know of institutions where a minority can veto a decision, 
bit I am not familiar with a situation where two members out of five 
could in fact act on behalf of the commission. I have a concern about 
that as well.
  So for these reasons I would urge opposition to the bill.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), my good 
friend, and believe me he is, I want him to be well aware that I am not 
certainly trying to hire two lawyers. You can be certain of that.
  But we do think some legalese is advisable on the commission. But 
being a lawyer is only one of three criteria. I know that you know 
that. The other part that I just want to mention to you is that when we 
changed this commission to have five members so it actually will work, 
if you have got a better idea how to make a commission work that is 
totally useless right now, with three members, of course I have always 
been open to hear that, but we think five may well do it; but it will 
take three members to form a quorum, not two.
  That is for sure. I appreciate you bringing that up so I can clarify 
that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to sum up and repeat, because I think it deserves 
repeating. First and most importantly, no one has really shown a need 
to increase the size of the commission from three to five members. We 
find it very unusual that the majority party with great emphasis on 
saving dollars on education and a number of much needed programs, wants 
to waste a little money on two additional members, create a little bit 
more of a bureaucracy by having two more members to make a decision. 
Instead of five people, three people can make this decision.
  They have been functioning with three members since the creation in 
1970. Why should it be any different now?

                              {time}  1530

  Given the enormous deficit spending promoted by this Republican 
majority, there is no real purpose in adding members and swelling the 
ranks.
  Last but not least, I find it quite ironic also that my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle want to tack on the requirement that the 
commission members have legal training. I think you have heard the 
expression that our colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Norwood), often makes about the government being over burdened with 
lawyers. So I am surprised to hear that the leaning of this bill as we 
read it would certainly require more appointment of lawyers or somebody 
similar to lawyers. There is no demonstrated need for such a 
requirement. There is no demonstrated need for this particular addition 
to the bill.
  The capacity of OSHA to produce cases is steadily shrinking as a 
result of the steady chip-away strategy of the Republican majority. 
They have chipped away at the budget every year. OSHA is far smaller 
and far less effective than it was when the Republican

[[Page H5690]]

majority took power in the House. Certainly that was accelerated when 
the Republicans took control of the White House as well as the House.
  So OSHA is under attack in a way which produces less work for such a 
commission. Why should we increase the size of the commission when 
there is less work for it? It is part of the pattern to chip away in 
every little way and trivialize what OSHA is all about. At the same 
time, the only parts of the Department of Labor that are being 
increased are those parts that are aimed at attacking organized labor, 
the organizations that represent working families. We happen to know 
there is a great push on to drive the unions into the ground with 
trivial audits, financial audits mostly, of petty cash, the receipts 
for cab fare and receipts for lunch. Various efforts are underway at 
this point to force labor unions to defend themselves from bookkeeping 
errors.
  The same kind of zeal needs to be expressed in the way that OSHA is 
staffed and manned to provide the basic necessities to keep our 
workplace safe for our workers.
  Let us just discuss for a moment the 2,578 OSHA violations in Georgia 
in 2002. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration in 2002 
issued an average of seven citations a day to Georgia businesses that 
year. OSHA found 2,578 violations of its rules during 1,481 inspections 
of companies operating in Georgia and documented more than 50 workplace 
deaths in that year.
  In 2001, OSHA issued 2,962 citations, more than eight a day, and 
1,596 inspections in Georgia. So 2002 had improved a bit from 2001. But 
I think it would be good if Members got in touch with what is happening 
in their States and in their districts.
  The Atlanta Business Chronicle documented this information in an 
article published March 23, 2003. At that time, the Atlanta Business 
Chronicle had documented safety concerns in three of Georgia's largest 
companies, the Home Depot Incorporated, the Georgia Pacific 
Corporation, and United Parcel Service Incorporated. But as OSHA 
records show, safety is a widespread concern among many Georgia 
companies.
  On February 24, OSHA issued a list of 14,200 U.S. facilities that had 
accident and illness rates at twice the national average. The national 
average is about three illnesses or injuries for every 100 workers that 
are serious enough to cause employees to lose time from work. Included 
in OSHA's list were 563 workplaces in Georgia, and more than 200 of 
them were in the Atlanta metropolitan area. Wal-Mart stores, the 
Nation's largest retailer, had the largest single number of Georgia 
facilities on the list, 11. Of the companies based in Georgia, United 
Parcel Service had the most facilities on the list with 174 nationwide.
  Out of all the Georgia companies during 2003, Durango-Georgia Paper 
Company in St. Mary's was fined the most by OSHA. OSHA assessed 
Durango-Georgia $258,000 after an August 19 boiler explosion that 
killed two workers and injured one. OSHA found 48 violations during an 
investigation of that accident. In addition to the safety violations 
that contributed to that explosion, OSHA cited the company for allowing 
employees to work at heights of up to 50 feet without fall protection 
and for requiring employees to stand on a conveyor belt to remove 
jammed logs without adequate protection against being caught in a 
machine.
  It was not the first large fine against that paper manufacturer. OSHA 
fined the company $157,000 after an accident had resulted in the double 
amputation of a worker. In 2000, the company had paid $220,250 for 12 
citations. The pattern goes on and on.
  The American workplace is not a safe place. It becomes more 
complicated all the time. The new chemicals, new machines, and new 
challenges, the building of houses, buildings and facilities at higher 
heights, for example all lead to complications. We talk about small 
businesses, and it is true that a large number of construction 
businesses are small businesses. That does not make the work that their 
workers do any less dangerous. The fact that they are a small business 
does not remove the fact that their workers must use scaffolding. Small 
business workers have trenches that they dig. They are doing work that 
is very dirty and very dangerous. The workers in small constructin 
firms deserve protection.
  Small contractors are also the ones who are most likely to disobey 
immigration laws and have large numbers of people who are illegal 
immigrants working in their facilities. And therefore, I have noted 
before we have a noticeable large number of deaths of immigrants in the 
construction industry. And this is not confined to Georgia or any one 
State. This spreads right across the country.
  The employers of construction companies know that they can save money 
by disobeying the law and using illegal immigrants. So it has become a 
major problem. Again, the working families of America deserve better.
  We have come to the point where our economy is compared to other 
economies in our global partnerships around the world. We compare 
ourselves and say, Oh, it is awful that we cannot compete better with 
China. Well, China was organized as a country which has dictatorship of 
the proletariat. Dictatorship of the proletariat meant workers were 
going to be charge. All of the unions in China are collapsing to the 
government. China produces a large part of its consumer goods in 
prisons. They produce a large part of their consumer goods in factories 
where workers are paid less than a dollar a day.
  It is not useful for us to invoke the third world countries, the 
developing countries and China--I do not know what China would be 
categorized as--with exploiting companies and decide that we ought to 
be more like that so we can be more competitive. Some allege that one 
way we can be more competitive is to make the workplace less safe, by 
providing employers with a situation where they do not have to worry 
about workers' safety. China--as a dictatorship--can do what they want 
to with their workers. They can continue, as I pointed out, pay workers 
the lowest possible wages, and they can also not spend any money on 
guaranteeing worker safety.
  So given the fact that we are on the floor for the second time in 2 
years with these four bills, it is an opportunity for us to educate our 
colleagues as to the seriousness of the current situation in the 
American workplace today. We must be more sensitive to the fact that 
our working families are out there suffering. Our health care situation 
does not get any better. We need to come to the rescue of private 
enterprise in terms of their pension funds collapsing. And their health 
care systems are so expensive that they are now calling for help from 
the government.
  All of this is part of a threatening and more intimidating atmosphere 
that mushrooms all the time against the interests of working families. 
And the attack on OSHA, which is consistent, the harassment of OSHA, 
the downgrading of OSHA, the chip-away erosive effect of OSHA is all 
part of that pattern.
  A Department of Labor which declares it has no money to really have 
an OSHA that functions appropriately is the Department of Labor which 
has managed to spend a great deal of money on the faith-based 
initiative. We noticed that large amounts of money from the Department 
of Labor have gone to faith-based initiatives over the last few years, 
and that is a great mystery as to how that money was doled out, under 
what criteria was it given to certain faith-based organizations. I 
think one got more than $1 million. It was on the front page of the New 
York Times. The Department of Labor had given a grant to one faith-
based group for more than $1 million, and we do not know what it is the 
DOL is doing here. This all happened right before the November 2004 
election. So the Department of Labor is being used for some good 
purpose for some group or some persons, but it is certainly not being 
used as the advocate for working families. And today's exercise is just 
one more example of how the drum beat goes on. The effort continues to 
minimize and trivialize that which is most important for working 
families in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Baca).
  (Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 740 and the three 
other OSHA bills under consideration today.

[[Page H5691]]

  Republicans are suggesting that our laws are hurting American jobs 
and productivity. How can that be so when we continue even now to push 
for CAFTA that would outsource additional jobs outside of this area, 
not to mention many of the other jobs that we have lost? It is untrue. 
It is bad enough that millions of Americans are being shipped overseas. 
We cannot afford to lose any more jobs. We have got to keep them here 
in the United States.
  Now the Republicans want to weaken the protection that exists for our 
Nation's workers, our Nation's workers, working families and others who 
deserve the right.
  Last year, Republicans passed FCC and ETI, a bill that gave tax 
breaks to companies that moved to China and India, and I state that, 
moved to China and India. Half the time the consumers do not know who 
they are talking to when they pick up the phone because they are from 
some other company.
  Republicans need to stop confusing people on the reason why jobs are 
leaving the mainstream and are being sent to mainland China. We should 
put the blame for losses in California and across the country where it 
belongs, and I state where it belongs. They failed, the policies of 
this administration, the President's so called compassionate 
conservatism has cost us 3 million jobs, and I state, 3 million jobs. 
That is American jobs that we could put on working families. Please end 
this compassion.
  Remember that it was the President Bush's top economic advisors who 
claimed that sending American jobs overseas is a good thing. Well, we 
know it is not a good thing to American workers here and what it does 
to them.
  Weakening American labor standards and allowing American workers to 
be exploited as they are in third world countries is not the solution. 
That type of thinking would put boys and girls out of the classroom and 
into the coal mines? These four bills are anti-worker, and I state, 
anti-worker, anti-safety, and they weaken the health and safety laws. 
And they hurt the American workers and working families.
  H.R. 739 weakens enforcement of the health and safety legislation by 
dragging out the debate for imposing penalties.
  H.R. 740 weakens worker protection by packing commissions with 
partisan appointees who agree with the President's anti-workers agenda, 
and I state, partisan appointees who agree with the President's anti-
workers agenda.
  H.R. 741 encouraged frivolous challenges to labor law rules and 
interpretation. H.R. 742 requires OSHA to pay attorneys fees for 
employers that win cases against OSHA.

                              {time}  1545

  However, these companies do not pay OSHA when they lose. Therefore, 
employers have nothing to lose by challenging those violations in 
court.
  The real losers under this legislation are the American taxpayers, 
American workers, American families in this country, American people 
who work to make our country great.
  As you can see, all four bills are antiworker laws, and the only way 
to justify them is to trump up charges that worker protection laws are 
costing American jobs and hurting American productivity. That is not 
true, because it is American families, American workers who have made 
this country great. We need to keep them here, and we need to protect 
them here in the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose all four of these anti-
OSHA bills.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 740 and the other three 
OSHA bills under consideration today.
  Republicans are suggesting that our laws are hurting American jobs 
and productivity.
  This is untrue. It's bad enough that millions of American jobs are 
being shipped overseas.
  Now Republicans want to weaken the few protections that exist for our 
Nation's workers.
  Last year, Republicans passed the FSC/ETI bill that gave tax breaks 
to companies that move to China or India. Republicans need to stop 
confusing people on the reasons why jobs are leaving Main Street and 
being sent to mainland China.
  We should put the blame for job losses in California and across the 
country where it belongs: the failed policies of this administration. 
The President's so-called compassionate conservatism has cost us 3 
million jobs. Please end the compassion!
  Remember that it was President Bush's top economic advisor who 
claimed that sending American jobs overseas is a good thing.
  Weakening America's labor standards and allowing workers here to be 
exploited as they are in third world countries is not the solution. 
That type of thinking would take boys and girls out of the classroom 
and into the coal mine.
  These four bills are anti-worker and anti-safety. They weaken health 
and safety laws and hurt American workers.
  H.R. 739 weakens enforcement of health and safety regulations by 
dragging out the date for imposing penalties.
  H.R. 740 weakens worker protections by packing the commission with 
partisan appointees who agree with the President's anti-worker agenda.
  H.R. 741 will encourage frivolous challenges to Labor Department 
rules and interpretations.
  And, H.R. 742 requires OSHA to pay attorney fees for employers that 
win cases against OSHA. However, those companies do not pay OSHA when 
they lose. Therefore, employers have nothing to lose by challenging 
most violations in court.
  The real losers under this legislation are American taxpayers and 
American workers.
  As you can see, all four bills are anti-worker laws. The only way to 
justify them is to trump up charges that worker protection laws that 
are costing American jobs and hurting American productivity.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose all four of the anti-OSHA 
bills.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have left on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Norwood) has 17\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Owens) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding me this time and for his leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, we just heard about how antiworker this legislation is, 
as well as the other three bills; but I would like to clarify a few 
things. This is not an antiworker agenda. What this does is simplify 
the rules that govern OSHA.
  Now, there seems to be some thought that this legislation is going to 
make it more dangerous for workers or that it is antiworker, and that 
is really not the case. What we are trying to do is smoothly process 
the help that OSHA should be giving to employers for a safe workplace. 
There is no economic benefit for employers or those who keep and create 
jobs in America to want injured workers.
  Quite the contrary. If a worker gets injured on the job, their 
insurance rates go up, there is loss of productivity, and quite often, 
small employers especially, hire family members. The last thing they 
would want to do is to go to the next family reunion and explain why 
their brother-in-law or their sister or some member of their family was 
injured on the job.
  What we would like to see is a cooperative effort between the OSHA 
folks and people who keep and create jobs in America, working together 
for a safe work environment. One of the ways you do that is you have 
the timely processing of cases so that you do not have a backlog. This 
particular bill would simply help that backlog be alleviated.
  This is a pro-worker piece of legislation. It does more to keep and 
create jobs in America than anything I have heard from the opposition 
both today and for the balance of this year. So I am very pleased to be 
supporting this piece of legislation.
  I want to make the point that it is a pro-worker agenda that we are 
moving forward here because it will help us keep and create jobs in 
America.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The two speakers prior to me have raised the question of outsourcing, 
and other people have challenged the relevancy of that topic to this 
particular set of bills. Every statement I read from industry 
complaining about the competitive edge that other nations have 
mentioned the fact that our environmental laws and our safety laws and 
our minimum wage, that combination, puts them at a disadvantage. So it 
is logical to conclude that part of the exercise today is to take away 
one of those disadvantages, to the degree it can be accomplished. And 
if you have

[[Page H5692]]

to chip away at it with bills like this and remove worker safety as an 
expense that has to be undertaken. This civilized nation was built by 
workers and the workers deserve to have a fair break. But those that 
want to reduce us to the level of Third World nations or want to 
imitate China are going to pursue the kinds of bills that we have 
before us today.
  So I want to just conclude with another section from the report of 
the AFL-CIO, their annual report on worker safety. I just want to read 
a few excerpts, which I think are excerpts that are important to 
educate our Members.
  More than 306,706 workers can now say their lives have been saved 
since the passage of the OSHA Act in 1970. Unfortunately, too many 
workers remain at risk. On average, 15 workers were fatally injured and 
more than 12,000 workers were injured or made ill each day of 2003. 
These statistics do not include deaths from occupational diseases, 
which claim the lives of an estimated 50,000 to 60,000 workers each 
year.
  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 5,559 
workplace deaths due to traumatic injuries in 2003, which was a slight 
increase from the number of deaths in 2002, when 5,534 workplace deaths 
were reported. Wyoming, of all places, led the country with the highest 
fatality rate, 13.9 people per 100,000. The lowest State for the 
fatality rate was 1.5 per 100,000, which was reported in Delaware.
  The construction sector had the largest, as I said before, the 
construction sector had the largest number of fatal work injuries, 
1,126 in 2003; followed by transportation and warehousing, which had 
805 injuries; and agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, which had 
707 injuries. Industry sectors with the highest fatality rates were 
agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting, 31.2 per 100,000 in 
hunting. Mining had 26.9 per 100,000. And transportation and 
warehousing, 17.5 per 100,000.
  So you can see we are not here just to talk in support of the blue 
States, the urban States, the Rust Belt States; but the rural areas are 
suffering quite a bit also. The workers there--the rural areas--suffer 
in terms of the large number of fatalities in the workplace.
  Transportation and material-moving occupations had the highest number 
of fatalities, 1,388, followed by construction and extraction 
occupations, with 1,033 fatal injuries. The occupations of greatest 
risk of work-related fatalities based on the number of fatalities per 
100,000 employed were logging workers. Their occupation had 131.6 
fatalities per 100,000; fishers and related fishing occupations had 115 
deaths per 100,000; and aircraft pilots and flight engineers, 97.4 
deaths per 100,000 employed.
  Very interesting that simple guys out there, fishers and logging 
workers, are in the same category as aircraft test pilots and flight 
engineers in terms of deaths and injuries. So our concern is universal, 
and the mission of OSHA is important and should not be denigrated or 
trivialized by this kind of legislation.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I do wish my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), would 
get the AFL-CIO to send him talking points just on this bill. That is 
what we have this hour for, to discuss this one bill, where we actually 
are trying to make OSHA work.
  Now, I will go over it again. This is about an agency called OSHA 
that has a review commission made up of three people. This review 
commission was written into the law in 1970, written into the law by a 
Democrat House and Senate that simply said OSHA did not get to be the 
judge and jury. They do have the right to set the standards. They can 
write the regulations and enforce the regulations, but they are not to 
be the final judge and jury. OSHRC is. The review commission is.
  Now, what we find is the commission is not working. It does seem to 
me that some people do not want it to work. I am not sure I know why, 
but to stay with a bill that is 34 years old and just like it is, 
thinking it is perfect, when we absolutely know that it is not. For 
more than two-thirds of its existence, this commission has been 
paralyzed by frequent vacancies and often been unable to act. Two-
thirds of the time in 34 years this commission has been unable to act. 
For more than half of its existence, it has had two or fewer members. 
For 20 percent of that time it lacked even a quorum of two.
  Now, why does the AFL-CIO or the labor bosses not want this to 
change? I do not know, but you misread it if you say working families 
do not want this kind of change. Because most working families in this 
country are in small business. And tell you the truth, many labor union 
members also have small businesses with their wives and sometimes 
themselves as a second job.
  You take it on yourself to tell us what the majority party wants. 
Well, this is simple what we want in this bill: We want a review 
commission at OSHA that works. It is just that simple. We do not want 
any more or any less. That is all this bill is about. We believe having 
five commissioners will help aid that process.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all our Members to just simply come to the floor 
and remember what this is about. This is a small tweak in a 34-year-old 
bill that is not working, and it does not help anybody. It does not 
help workers, and it does not help employers to not pass this little 
thing to help this agency work.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in 
opposition to H.R. 740, a bill to amend the Occupational Safety and 
Health Act of 1970 by expanding the size of the commission that hears 
OSHA appeals from three to five members. Supporters of the measure 
argue that the panel has had difficulty meeting a quorum because of 
recusals and vacancies. However, I would argue that the change would 
allow the current Administration to stack the board with pro-business 
members.
  Many responsible employers are tired of continually being underbid by 
unscrupulous and reckless operators that refuse to spend anything on 
protecting workers' lives or promoting public safety. Voting in favor 
of H.R. 740, could potentially erode a basic respect for human life. We 
must remember that workers killed on the job are someone's son or 
daughter, husband or wife, and/or father or mother. Unlike other 
victims of crime, their lives are often seen as expendable. As a 
Mexican Consular officer said: ``Too many employers don't see these 
people as human beings.'' Bereaved family members suffer further upon 
discovery that federal law denies them justice. If H.R. 740 is allowed 
to pass, we would be allowing the current Administration to stack the 
board with pro-business members. I urge my colleagues to oppose the 
passage of H.R. 740.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired. Pursuant to 
House Resolution 351, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as 
amended.
  The question is on the 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. OWENS. 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.

                          ____________________