[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.
____________________