[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 144 (Wednesday, September 26, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H10920-H10932]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
POPCORN WORKERS LUNG DISEASE PREVENTION ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 678 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2693.
{time} 1245
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2693) to direct the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
to issue a standard regulating worker exposure to diacetyl, with Mr.
Cardoza in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman
from California (Mr. McKeon) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller).
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, today we have an opportunity
to protect thousands of American workers from a serious, irreversible
and deadly lung disease known as ``popcorn lung,'' a disease caused by
a simple artificial butter flavoring chemical called diacetyl.
The alarm bells began ringing on this health crisis over 7 years ago
when a Missouri doctor diagnosed several workers from the same popcorn
production plant with this debilitating lung disease. In 2002, the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health linked the lung
disease to exposure to diacetyl used in the plant.
Scientists have called the effect of diacetyl on workers' lungs
``astonishingly grotesque'' and likened it to ``inhaling acid.''
Hundreds of workers in popcorn and flavor production have become ill,
several have died of popcorn lung, and many of the workers are so sick
they needed lung transplants. Dozens of workers have sued flavoring
manufacturers, winning millions in lawsuits and settlements.
NIOSH first connected popcorn lung to this chemical in 2002. In 2003,
NIOSH issued guidance recommending that workers' exposure be minimized.
In 2004, the Food Extract Manufacturers Association, the trade
association of the flavoring industry, issued similar guidelines. Yet 5
years later, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration has
failed to issue a standard to protect workers from exposure to
diacetyl, preferring to rely on voluntary efforts.
Voluntary efforts, however, have not worked. Last year, California
researchers found that despite the issuance of government and industry
guidance for years before, many of those recommendations still have not
been implemented in the flavor manufacturing facilities, and new cases
of this debilitating lung disease have been identified.
How does this bill address the problem? H.R. 2693 would require OSHA
to issue an interim final standard to minimize worker exposer to
diacetyl. The
[[Page H10921]]
standard would contain provisions of engineering controls, respiratory
protection, exposure monitoring, medical surveillance and worker
training. The interim standard applies to popcorn manufacturing and
packaging, as well as the food flavoring industry.
OSHA would then be required to issue a final standard within 2 years.
This final standard would apply to all locations where workers are
exposed to diacetyl and would include permissible exposure limit.
This bill should not be controversial. It is not another battle
between workers and business about safety issues and alleged burdens of
regulations. Over the past several months, we have built a wide
coalition around this legislation from all sides, including industry,
labor and scientists. The Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association,
the association representing the companies that make these flavorings,
has joined with the unions that represent the affected workers to
strongly support this legislation.
In fact, the only outside dissenters from this coalition are the
usual anti-OSHA ideologues spouting the same old ``sky is falling''
rhetoric about regulations. Such rhetoric may be music to the ears of
the OSHA-hating ideologues in search of a talking point, but in the
real world, this ideology leaves workers and their families to suffer
from the preventable scourges of toxic chemicals.
There are many reasons why industry, labor and scientists agree on
this legislation. They all agree that we don't need to wait any longer
to act; indeed, we can't afford to wait. I have a list of almost 30
major studies and reports showing that diacetyl destroys workers'
lungs. They agree that we know how to protect workers. The National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health issued guidelines in 2003
laying out the basic measures that industry can take to prevent worker
exposure to diacetyl. In 2004, the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers
Association outlined in even greater detail the measures that members
can take to prevent the employees from getting sick.
This legislation is straightforward and merely requires that OSHA do
what it could have done and should have already done, issue an
emergency standard. There is precedent for this bill and for Congress
stepping in when OSHA falters in its mission to protect American
workers. In 1986, 1990, 1991, 1992 and 2000, Congress moved to require
OSHA to issue health and safety standards.
Earlier this month, in response to a report that a consumer of
microwave popcorn has contracted popcorn lung, a few popcorn
manufacturers have announced that they intend to stop using diacetyl.
This is welcome news. It highlights how serious this issue is, but it
is not enough. Workers are still at risk because diacetyl will continue
to be used in a variety of other food products. We can't wait for
consumers to get sick and hit the companies in their pocketbooks before
the industry changes. Workers are getting sick now, and have for many
years, and will continue to get sick unless we act. Workers cannot wait
any longer for our help.
In the past several years, we've seen hundreds of workers become sick
from exposure to diacetyl, and we've heard about young workers who need
lung transplants, who are not expected to live to see their small
children grow up.
It is time for us to act. OSHA has failed over 5 years. They've been
on notice to do this, they have failed to do this. The only time they
have shown any movement is when we've called a hearing or had some
congressional action, they have responded to it.
The time has come for Congress to act and pass this legislation and
stop ignoring the needs of these workers' health and safety. And it's
time to get OSHA to do the job that they were constituted to do, and
that is, to protect these workers and their families from this
preventable exposure to diacetyl as the toxic substance that it has
become.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, the Subcommittee on Workforce
Protections held a hearing that explored, among other things, the
question of whether and how the flavoring compound diacetyl should be
regulated by OSHA. We heard from an individual suffering from lung
impairment that could well have been developed as a result of his
manufacturing popcorn, during which he was exposed to high
concentrations of diacetyl and numerous other chemicals.
There are many questions about this particular chemical. In fact, a
number of large popcorn manufacturers recently announced voluntary
steps to curb the use of diacetyl while its effects on worker health
are studied.
The bill before us calls for a much more drastic response to the
concerns about this chemical. It would require OSHA to set an interim
final standard relating to diacetyl exposure within 90 days of passage,
to be followed by a final rule within 2 years. This directive is,
without a doubt, a well-intended effort to prevent illness that may be
caused by this particular substance. Unfortunately, despite its good
intentions, this bill has the potential to cause great harm.
I recognize that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle wish to
do something to respond to the questions about this chemical. I also
understand their frustration about a lack of action by the
administration. Candidly, I share some of that frustration. It is my
understanding that just this week the administration announced plans to
implement rule-making for diacetyl exposure; this, despite the fact
that Congress has been looking into these concerns for months and until
this week had not received clear, unambiguous direction from the
administration other than a letter written by the OSHA administrator
expressing serious concerns about the implications of the bill.
From the outset of this process, I have been concerned about the lack
of scientific data available to guide our actions. Without the
necessary scientific understanding of this chemical, we cannot possibly
develop the appropriate guidelines to protect workers. At this point,
we still do not even know whether diacetyl alone, or in conjunction
with other chemicals, is responsible for the condition known as popcorn
lung.
Because of my concerns about a lack of scientific data, and because
I'm uneasy about short-circuiting the proven regulatory process, I
raised concerns about this bill when it was considered in committee.
It's my position that the administration should be allowed adequate
time to complete necessary scientific investigation before developing
new standards.
I was, at the outset, and I remain, concerned that such a rushed
response to questions about this substance make for better politics
than policy. That is why I was so surprised, and frankly, disappointed,
to learn that only now has the administration suddenly chosen to take
action. They announced on Monday their intent to initiate rule-making,
issue a Safety and Health Information Bulletin, and provide Hazard
Communication Guidance.
The administration's actions in this case, and their lack of
communication with Congress, have done nothing to shed light on this
issue of concern to us all. Instead, it has resulted in confusion about
what is being done to address this issue and when they and we can
expect to have answers. In fact, if the administration had simply been
forthright with Congress about its plans, we might not be here
considering this questionable legislation at all.
During committee consideration, Republicans offered an alternative.
Our plan, which we will offer as an amendment today, strikes a balance
between acting quickly to protect workers while relying upon sound
science to establish a comprehensive regulation.
The Republican plan would maintain the 90-day deadline for
establishing an interim final rule. Under this rule, guidance would be
provided so that manufacturers could take immediate steps to limit
exposure through the use of engineering improvements, ventilation and
other strategies to protect workers. Our plan would also maintain the
requirement that a final rule be developed, including a permissible
exposure limit.
Under our alternative, this would be required within 2 years after
the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health concludes
that the
[[Page H10922]]
standard can be supported by solid scientific evidence.
In short, the amendment maintains the same time frame for immediate
protection, while eliminating the arbitrary nature of the final rule in
favor of a timeline based on the availability of scientific evidence.
I want to reiterate my deep concern for the workers who have become
ill. It is my goal, and surely the goal of everyone here, to determine
as soon as possible what caused their illness and what can be done to
prevent future occurrences.
Mr. Chairman, I opposed this bill in committee because I felt it did
not allow for adequate scientific study. I also believed it undermined
the long-standing regulatory process. However, I strongly support the
effort to protect workers, and I can understand why Members on both
sides of the aisle would wish to vote in favor of this measure.
As for me, until we can clear up the confusion surrounding this bill,
I will reluctantly oppose it. I continue to believe this legislation
undermines sound scientific and regulatory processes, but I will keep
an open mind as this bill progresses through the legislative process.
If further scientific evidence is uncovered as this bill moves to the
Senate and to the President, my position could change. I only wish the
administration had acted sooner and we could have been spared this
debate entirely.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time and I yield the balance
of my time to the gentleman from South Carolina, the ranking member on
the subcommittee, and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to
control that time (Mr. Wilson).
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from South Carolina
will be recognized.
There was no objection.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1
minute.
I certainly appreciate the situation my ranking member, Mr. McKeon,
from California finds himself in, and I appreciate his remarks about
the actions of OSHA in this situation.
The fact is that, again, earlier this month, in a commentary of the
Dutch study on diacetyl workers which found it is unlikely that any
other chemical is responsible for these cases, NIOSH scientist, Dr.
Catherine Kreiss, wrote ``the collective evidence for diacetyl causing
respiratory hazards supports actions to minimize exposure of diacetyl
even if contributions by other flavoring chemicals exist.''
{time} 1300
That is the situation we find ourselves in. This isn't a desire to
rush to legislation. The fact is, as Mr. McKeon pointed out, on this
side of the aisle also we are all terribly disappointed by the failure
of OSHA to engage this problem and to engage the people who are coming
forth now supporting this legislation to construct a solution.
I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey),
who is the Workforce Protections Subcommittee Chair and who has handled
this legislation.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Chairman Miller, for this bill and for the
work you do for all working Americans.
Mr. Chairman, I am truly sorry that Mr. McKeon can't support it. But
I am proud to be the sponsor of H.R. 2693, the Popcorn Workers Lung
Disease Protection Act, which requires OSHA to issue an emergency
temporary standard to regulate workers' exposure to diacetyl, a
chemical used in butter flavoring for microwave popcorn and other food
products. It is a travesty that OSHA has done nothing to regulate this
chemical while workers have fallen seriously ill and have actually
died.
In 1977, Congress passed OSHA to provide every working man and woman
in the Nation a safe and healthful workplace. We gave the new agency
charged with the administration the full name of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act.
We also gave them important tools to enforce the provisions of the
law. One of the most important functions that OSHA is charged with is
to develop health and safety standards. When it was exercised, this
function actually saved the lives and health of many, many workers.
For example, in 1978, when OSHA's cotton dust standard was adopted,
there were 40,000 cases of brown lung disease annually, affecting 12
percent of all textile workers. Because of OSHA, brown lung was
virtually eliminated. OSHA's 1978 standard on lead dramatically reduced
lead poisoning.
Sadly, Mr. Chairman, there are still millions of workers who suffer
from injuries and illnesses while working. One of the most grievous
examples of this are workers who are contracting popcorn lung disease
from exposure to a chemical called diacetyl used in the manufacture of
microwave popcorn and other foods.
The Workforce Protections Subcommittee held a hearing on OSHA
standards in April. We heard from Eric Peoples, a former microwave
popcorn worker, who has popcorn lung. Eric is in his thirties. He has a
young family. He worked in a microwave popcorn facility in Missouri for
less than 2 years. After that, he had to stop work because he had
contracted popcorn lung disease. Popcorn lung is an irreversible and
life-threatening respiratory disease. Eric has lost 80 percent of his
lung capacity, is awaiting a double lung transplant, and faces an early
death, all because he was exposed to diacetyl.
A standard regulating exposure of diacetyl is currently needed. While
OSHA has known about the dangers of the chemical for years, it has
failed. It has failed day after day, year after year to act to make
this standard an actual reality. In fact, OSHA has done virtually
nothing to protect workers against diacetyl.
Now there has been at least one or two other reported cases of
popcorn lung in consumers. Wayne Watson, a 53-year-old man from
Colorado, has been diagnosed with popcorn lung due to his daily
consumption of microwave popcorn over a 10-year period.
In addition, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported that a 6-year-
old child, the son of a popcorn plant employee who has popcorn lung,
was showing signs of the disease himself. In that case, when the
popcorn plant closed, the company told the employees they could help
themselves to any of the company's products. The father took home some
butter-flavored oil containing diacetyl and used it for frying food. As
a result, this 6-year-old child was exposed to the chemical, and it
made him sick.
These are unintended and unfortunate consequences when OSHA refuses
to act to protect workers.
This is true, Mr. Chairman, even though the Flavor and Extract
Manufacturers' Association, the industry that represents the food
flavoring manufacturers, issued a report warning of the dangers to
workers from exposure of diacetyl and recommended measures controlling
that chemical.
OSHA does not seem moved to meaningful action, even though four of
the Nation's biggest popcorn makers have recently announced that they
are working to remove diacetyl from their products. In my own State of
California, CalOSHA is currently working on a standard to regulate
diacetyl.
There is a whole list of agencies that I will enter into the Record
that are supporting the regulation of diacetyl.
So, Mr. Chairman, now is the time for this Congress to stand up for
the Nation's workers and vote to pass H.R. 2693.
The American Industrial Hygiene Association, the American College of
Environmental and Occupational Medicine, the AFL-CIO, the United Food
and Commercial Workers, the Teamsters, the Bakery and Confectionary
Workers, the American Public Health Association and the American
Society of Safety Engineers also support H.R. 2693.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, when I looked at the issue of diacetyl in manufacturing
during the debate in committee, the answer seemed very clear to me at
the time: proper ventilation. Even though it is unclear what is
affecting manufacturing workers, all the experts agree that engineering
controls, such as ventilation, reduce worker exposure.
I take very seriously lung illness. For nearly 10 years, I served on
the State board of the South Carolina Lung Association. In the South
Carolina State Senate, I introduced innovative legislation promoting
clean air.
Fundamentally, the science does not exist to state a link between
diacetyl
[[Page H10923]]
and impaired lung function. Indeed, last year, the National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH, noted, ``At this time,
insufficient data exists on which to base workplace exposure standards
or recommended exposure limits for butter flavorings.''
Unfortunately, this bill goes beyond the issue of what is known. The
underlying bill requires the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, OSHA, to set a standard based on documents that OSHA
informs us cannot guide rulemaking. These documents provide guidelines
of how to solve the problem at issue but are not the foundation for a
rule.
More research is currently under way to determine a connection
between diacetyl and this respiratory condition. I fully support that
research moving forward. In fact, the underlying measure contains an
amendment I offered during the committee consideration of the bill to
require NIOSH to study similar flavorings to determine possible
exposure hazards with flavorings similar to diacetyl. Until there is
conclusive evidence, it remains to be seen if diacetyl alone is to
blame or whether the chemical, in combination with the other
flavorings, places workers at risk.
On June 18, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and
Health, Edwin Foulke, a distinguished attorney from Greenville, South
Carolina, of the highest integrity, reiterated this in a letter to
Congress, in which he stated, ``Focusing on diacetyl ignores the
possibility that other flavoring components, many of which are
irritants and airway-reactive substances, are playing a role in the
development of disease. Given the wide variety of ways and forms in
which diacetyl and other flavoring components are used in the food
manufacturing industry, a narrow focus on diacetyl would likely result
in the selection of risk-management strategies that may not adequately
protect employees.''
This is a critical point. Until we know the true cause of this lung
impairment, I do not see how we can effectively legislate on it.
Further, major manufacturers, using this flavoring have already
announced they will no longer be using diacetyl.
The lack of scientific foundation is, unfortunately, not the only
problem with the bill before us. There are numerous flaws outlined by
the OSHA administrator's letter. Further, the President has announced
strong opposition to the bill, largely because it is flawed.
Undermining the rulemaking process, as this bill does, would almost
certainly exclude input from key stakeholders that often proves
imperative for a balanced rulemaking process.
Because this bill fails to allow time for appropriate scientific
research and because it undermines the proven regulatory framework, I
fear it will not do enough to protect workers.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment that was made in order would resolve much
of this problem.
Department of Labor,
Washington, DC, June 19, 2007.
Hon. George Miller,
Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Miller: I am writing to express my strong
concerns with legislation (H.R. 2693) that would require the
promulgation of an interim final standard (IFR) regulating
employee exposure to diacetyl in the popcorn and flavor
manufacturing industries and mandate that the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issue a final rule
covering all workplaces that use diacetyl.
I share your goal of protecting workers from the risk of
obstructive lung disease. As outlined below OSHA is in the
process of taking important steps to strengthen worker
protections in this area. However, after careful review of
this legislation, we have concluded that the regulatory
approach mandated by H.R. 2693 will not afford the best level
of protection for workers. Equally important, the process the
bill would require may result in missed opportunities to
provide needed worker safety. Instead, I urge you to allow
OSHA to thoroughly evaluate all available science concerning
the effects of exposures to food flavorings, feasible
abatements and related issues.
Several considerations lead us to the conclusion that the
approach mandated by H.R. 2693 would not best protect
workers:
1. The expanded scope of the final rule and the lack of
knowledge about the industries that use diacetyl will lead to
superficial analysis that may fail to provide needed worker
protection.
H.R. 2693 would require OSHA to expand the scope of the
final rule to include all establishments where there is
potential for exposure to diacetyl. Unfortunately, little is
known about industries--other than the microwave popcorn
manufacturing and food flavoring manufacturing industries--
that use diacetyl and diacetyl-containing flavorings. OSHA
would need to identify those companies that use diacetyl then
conduct site visits to gather needed data to (1) identify
processes where exposures occur, (2) develop control
strategies for each process, and (3) identify employers who
have implemented control strategies to determine if those
control strategies are effective. Although OSHA has been
obtaining this information for microwave popcorn and food
flavoring manufacturing establishments, to date little
information is available on the many other industry sectors
that would potentially be covered by the final role required
by the bill. OSHA believes that two years is too short a
period of time to develop the information base and analysis
necessary to adequately support the proposed and final role,
and to afford the public adequate time to comment on OSHA's
proposal. The Agency believes that robust public input is
essential to achieving a final rule that provides protection
for employees while addressing potential impacts on all
affected industries.
2. Focusing solely on a Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL)
for diacetyl may ignore other components that are playing an
important role in the development of disease.
H.R 2693 requires OSHA to develop a PEL for diacetyl that
would apply to all facilities where diacetyl is processed or
used. Research is ongoing by groups such as the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the
National Jewish Medical Center, the National Institute for
Environmental Health Studies and California Department of
Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and
Health (Cal OSHA) to better determine the role that exposures
to diacetyl and other chemicals may play in the development
of bronchiolitis obliterans.
By focusing solely on diacetyl, H.R 2693 raises two major
concerns:
a. Focusing on diacetyl ignores the possibility that other
flavoring components--many of which are irritants and airway-
reactive substances--are playing a role in the development of
disease. Given the wide variety of ways and forms (e.g.,
liquids or powders) in which diacetyl and other flavoring
components are used in the food manufacturing industry, a
narrow focus on diacetyl would likely result in the selection
of risk management strategies that may not adequately protect
employees. These might include substitution of diacetyl with
other chemicals that may be as dangerous under similar
circumstances as diacetyl.
b. NIOSH has stated that ``at this time, insufficent data
exist on which to base workplace exposure standards or
recommended exposure limits for butter flavorings.'' Given
the state of the data currently available, OSHA would only be
able to develop an imprecise PEL for diacetyl which would
have a considerable amount of uncertainty associated with
respect to the degree of protection afforded.
3. As drafted the bill would require the interim final rule
to impose engineering requirements based on NIOSH
recommendations that lack the clarity and specificity
necessary to form the basis of a new health standard.
H.R. 2693 would direct OSHA to issue an interim rule at
least as stringent as the 2004 NIOSH Hazard Alert. The NIOSH
recommendations serve as good general recommendations, but do
not provide specific performance criteria that would be
necessary to develop an unambiguous and enforceable interim
rule. The NIOSH Alert refers to the 2001 ACGIH Ventilation
Manual, which provides some general objective design
criteria, but mixing and blending processes in flavoring
establishments vary greatly. For example, they can range from
a 10-gallon batch operation up to several hundred pounds of
batch mixing. Each of these operations may use similar
control strategies but would require different engineering
design parameters to achieve the same level of effectiveness.
Therefore, the NIOSH Hazard Alert is not helpful to specify
required minimum operating parameters for engineering
controls because these minimum parameters will not provide
equal protection to all employees in affected establishments.
Furthermore, there is simply not enough information available
at this point on flavoring processes and current exposure
control practices to develop a specification-oriented
standard.
OSHA traditionally has used PELs instead of specification-
oriented standards to protect workers in this type of
situation, because a PEL will set a precise, measurable
standard to protect workers. However, as previously
mentioned, currently available data do not support setting a
PEL for diacetyl. Thus, OSHA would be forced by H.R. 2693 to
issue a PEL based on imprecise information and an IFR based
on a NIOSH Hazard Alert that does not provide specific
performance criteria.
Additionally, the Department of Labor is very concerned
that the IFR that is mandated by this legislation will not be
open for comment by stakeholders, or reviewed in accordance
with the requirements of the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), the Administrative
Procedures Act, and the rulemaking requirements of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act These statutes ensure
thorough consideration and transparency in rulemaking. We do
not believe these regulatory requirements
[[Page H10924]]
should be waived except in the most exceptional situations.
Thorough vetting is particularly critical when the medical
and scientific studies do not provide unequivocal
conclusions.
The Department of Labor is committed to protecting
employees from obstructive lung diseases. The Department
recently announced that OSHA win focus on health hazards of
microwave popcorn butter flavorings containing diacetyl
through a new National Emphasis Program (NEP). The NEP will
direct inspections to the facilities where workers may be at
the greatest risk of exposure to this hazard. Implementation
of this NEP would allow OSHA to inspect every such facility
under Federal jurisdiction by the end of this year. This will
be followed by a second NEP that focuses on establishments
manufacturing food flavorings containing diacetyl.
In addition to the NEP, OSHA is also preparing a Safety and
Health Information Bulletin (SHIB) to better inform and
instruct employers on how to protect employees from
obstructive lung disease caused or exacerbated by food
flavorings used in the microwave popcorn manufacturing
industry. The SHIB will provide guidance to alert employers
and workers to the potential hazards associated with butter
flavorings containing diacetyl and will provide
recommendations on how to control these hazards. OSHA is also
developing a hazard communication guidance document to ensure
that material safety data sheets and labels properly convey
hazard information on diacetyl and diacetyl-containing food
flavorings. Given that NIOSH has stated that insufficient
data exist on which to base workplace exposure standards or
recommended exposure limits for butter flavorings the
approach we are taking is the quickest and most effective
means of providing protection to workers in the popcorn and
flavor manufacturing industries.
Because of the concerns I have outlined, the Department of
Labor is opposed to H.R 2693. We have concluded that the
approach proposed by H.R. 2693 will not afford the best level
of protection for workers. By not providing sufficient time
to do a proper rulemakin OSHA may unintentionally overlook
opportunities to provide needed worker safety and, at the
same timel require expensive process isolation, and
ventilation and other control strategies that may be
ineffective. Instead, I urge you to allow OSHA to thoroughly
evaluate all available science concerning the effects of
exposures to food flavorings, feasibie abatements, and
related issues.
Sincerely,
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary for
Occupational Safety and Health.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding.
I rise in support of this legislation. In 2002, 5 years ago, NIOSH,
the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, discovered a
link between a dreadful disease called popcorn lung that literally eats
away at the tissue of a man or a woman's lung and diacetyl. A lot has
happened in the 5 years since then. Hundreds of people have been
severely sickened. A significant number of people have died.
In 2003, NIOSH recommended that manufacturers using diacetyl adopt
certain standards to protect workers against popcorn lung disease.
In 2004, the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association, the trade
association of the affected industry, voluntarily adopted certain
recommendations that employers and manufacturers do what they could to
protect workers against popcorn lung. Very recently, under the
leadership of Subcommittee Chairwoman Woolsey, who called attention to
the issue, the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections drafted a piece of
legislation.
Some good things happened. The Flavor and Extract Manufacturers
Association said, ``We agree with the legislation. We want OSHA to act
to protect these workers as a matter of law, not a matter of
courtesy.''
The Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association was joined by the
industrial hygienists, the experts in this matter, by the physicians,
the American College of Environmental and Occupational Medicine, by the
public health experts, the American Public Health Association, by the
voice of organized labor, the AFL-CIO, the United Food and Commercial
Workers Union, the Teamsters, the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco
Workers and Grain Millers Union and the American Society of Safety
Engineers.
So, the manufacturers agree that OSHA ought to act, the physicians
agree that OSHA ought to act, the industrial hygienists agree that OSHA
ought to act, the labor unions agree that OSHA ought to act, and the
American Association of Safety Engineers agrees that OSHA ought to act.
All these things have happened in the last 5 years. But one thing has
not happened. OSHA has not acted. So, today, we will act.
This is a case of administrative malpractice. This is a case of an
administrative agency that is given the responsibility under the law to
protect working Americans. After 5 years of evidence, after the
unanimous judgment of doctors, hygienists, the trade association,
organized labor, after 5 years of unanimous judgment that it is time
for OSHA to act, OSHA still has not acted.
Now, the normal course, Mr. Chairman, is to wait for the
administrative agency to make up its mind. We have already followed
that course. We have waited for 5 years as hundreds of people have been
sickened and a significant number of people have passed on. The time to
wait is over. The time to act is now.
I urge our Republican and Democratic colleagues to join with doctors,
industrial hygienists, the manufacturers association, organized labor,
and the Public Health Association and say to OSHA, stop this
administrative malpractice. Enact a standard and protect these workers
against this dreadful disease.
I would like to congratulate Chairman Woolsey, Chairman Miller and
the other leaders in this effort and urge a ``yes'' vote.
{time} 1315
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record
letters in opposition from the American Bakers Association, dated
September 25, 2007; the OSHA Fairness Coalition, September 25, 2007;
and the Office of Management and Budget, dated September 25, 2007.
American Bakers Association,
Washington, DC, September 25, 2007.
Hon. Howard McKeon,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. McKeon: On behalf of the American Bakers
Association (ABA), I am writing to express our opposition to
H.R. 2693, ``the Popcorn Workers Lung Disease Prevention
Act,'' which the House of Representatives is expected to
consider this week. Passage of H.R. 2693 would significantly
short circuit the appropriate regulatory process by mandating
that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
implement a regulation, including a Permissible Exposure
Limit (PEL), applicable to all sectors of the food industry,
and based on limited scientific data. For over 100 years, the
ABA has represented the interests of the wholesale baking
industry and its suppliers--companies that work together to
provide over 80 percent of the wholesome and nutritious
bakery products purchased by American consumers.
The American Bakers Association prides itself on our long
history of assisting baking companies to stay ahead of the
curve on safety and health in the workplace. Our Safety
Committee provides tremendous leadership on safety and health
policy issues. We are committed to keeping our workers safe
and support science-based standards and regulations. The ABA
is aware of recent data from the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) regarding the use of
diacetyl in popcorn manufacturing and the flavor
manufacturing industry. We also understand the severity of
the health effects that have been demonstrated in a limited
number of cases. However, we strongly believe that the recent
NIOSH data does not accurately reflect the use of diacetyl in
other sectors of the food industry, such as baking.
Differences exist in the food processing industry, the
concentrations of diacetyl used, and the existing controls in
place.
Mandating specific requirements that OSHA must include in a
diacetyl standard sets a precedent that should be avoided.
Congress's role as set forth in the OSH Act of 1970 is to
``assure so far as possible every working man and woman in
the Nation safe and healthful working conditions and to
preserve our human resources.'' However, it is the role of
the Department of Labor to use its expertise for implementing
regulations. For Congress to specify the applicable
requirements of a ``final standard'' would bypass
inappropriately the mechanisms and tests established under
the OSH Act. Expedited regulation, even if directed by
Congress, would rest on very limited scientific evidence and
would represent rushed and inappropriate legislative and
Agency action.
Further H.R. 2693 does not address the carefully developed
procedures for rulemaking that Congress and the courts have
put in place under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA),
including provisions designed to protect small businesses.
Finally, on September 24, 2007 OSHA announced its intent to
move forward with a rulemaking
[[Page H10925]]
on diacetyl. This rulemaking process should be allowed to
move forward as it includes the appropriate procedural
safeguards.
ABA respectfully urges you to oppose this legislation and
allow the regulatory procedures designed to protect the
interests of small businesses to guide OSHA in developing a
standard.
Sincerely,
Robb MacKie,
President and CEO.
____
OSHA Fairness Coalition
To the Members of the House of Representatives: We write to
inform you of our strong opposition to H.R. 2693, ``the
Popcorn Workers Lung Disease Prevention Act,'' which the
House of Representatives is expected to consider this week.
The bill directs the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) to issue a standard regulating exposure
to diacetyl (a substance used to impart butter flavor to
various foods, most notably microwave popcorn) even though
the science and data available are insufficient to allow OSHA
to establish an exposure limit. Such a mandate would be
completely at odds with all other laws, judicial decisions,
executive orders and sound policy considerations under which
OSHA promulgates standards and regulations.
This bill mandates that OSHA issue an interim final
regulation within 90 days of enactment, and then a final
regulation which would include a short term exposure limit
and a permissible exposure limit, within two years of
enactment. Unfortunately, data does not currently exist as to
where these lines could be drawn. The very NIOSH document
cited in the bill for support also states with respect to
diacetyl and other flavorings: ``Little is currently known
about which chemicals used in flavorings have the potential
to cause lung disease and other health effects, and what
workplace exposure concentrations are safe. . . . Most
chemicals used in flavorings have not been tested for
respiratory toxicity via the inhalation route, and
occupational exposure limits have been established for only a
relatively small number of these chemicals.'' (NIOSH
Publication 2004-110, pp. 5-6).
Most importantly, this bill mandates that OSHA completely
ignore the carefully developed, balanced, and necessary
requirements for rulemaking that Congress and the courts have
put in place to make sure OSHA standards reflect the best
science available, are responsive to a specific hazard, and
are both technologically and economically feasible for the
affected employers. Both Congress and the Supreme Court have
made clear that OSHA can regulate only after it has satisfied
specific requirements for data and analysis as contained in
Section 6 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the
Administrative Procedure Act including specific provisions
designed to protect small businesses. Because regulations
have a much different and more significant impact on small
businesses, adhering to the strict rulemaking guidelines of
the APA are that much more important to small businesses. The
normal OSHA rulemaking process allows for regulatory impacts
on small businesses (which according to the Small Business
Administration are 50 percent higher than they are for large
firms) to be assessed, and for important changes to be made
to proposed regulations mitigating those impacts.
Shortchanging that process could be potentially devastating
to those small businesses which provide 60 percent of all new
jobs in the United States.
The interim final regulation specified by this bill, which
would have the legal effect of an OSHA standard, would not be
produced under any rulemaking procedures. Indeed, this bill
attempts to write the interim final standard directly,
bypassing OSHA's expertise and ability to tailor such a
regulation to those circumstances where it is truly
warranted. Under the bill the interim final standard would be
issued without any analysis of its impact, or opportunity for
those subject to it to provide comments or input, nor would
it be subject to comments once issued as is customary for
interim final rules. Because there is no data around which to
formulate the short term exposure limit and permissible
exposure limit, the two year timeframe specified for OSHA to
issue the final regulation is too accelerated to permit the
agency to conduct the necessary impact analyses and other
small business-focused analyses that would normally accompany
an OSHA rulemaking.
Finally, any need for this bill has been eliminated as a
result of the world's largest producer of microwave popcorn,
ConAgra Foods Inc., and another large manufacturer of
microwave popcorn recently indicating their plans to
eliminate diacetyl from their brands, and OSHA's announcement
on September 24 that the agency will move forward with
various measures to address the hazard of workplace diacetyl
exposure including a rulemaking consistent with the full
procedural safeguards.
H.R. 2693, while well intentioned, is ill conceived and
would establish a devastating precedent of Congress mandating
a regulation when there is no data available to use in
setting the exposure limit, and trampling on regulatory
procedure designed to protect the interests of small
businesses. The Coalition urges the House not to pass H.R.
2693.
Sincerely,
American Bakers Association; Associated Builders and
Contractors; International Food Distributors
Association; National Association of Home Builders;
National Oilseed Processors Association; NFIB; U.S.
Chamber of Commerce; Plumbing-Heating-Cooling
Contractors--National Association; American Foundry
Society; Associated General Contractors; National
Association of Convenience Stores; National Association
of Manufacturers; Mason Contractors Association of
America; and Printing Industries of America.
____
Statement of Administration Policy, H.R. 2693--The Popcorn Workers Lung
Disease Prevention Act
(Rep. Woolsey (D) CA and 17 cosponsors)
The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R.
2693, ``Popcorn Workers Lung Disease Prevention Act,'' in its
current form. H.R. 2693 would require the Department of
Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
to publish a premature interim standard within 90 days of
enactment regulating worker exposure to diacetyl and publish
a final regulation that includes a permissible exposure limit
(PEL) within two years. The bill also directs the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to
conduct a study to determine the potential exposure hazards
of diacetyl and associated chemicals used in the production
of microwave popcorn.
The Administration shares the goal of protecting workers
from the risk of obstructive lung disease, and OSHA is
already taking steps to strengthen worker protections in this
area. These measures include: (1) Announcement of a regular
rulemaking process under the Occupational Safety and Health
Act to address occupational exposure to flavorings containing
diacetyl; (2) inspections at every microwave popcorn
manufacturing plant in the nation within the calendar year to
ensure that acceptable ventilation and other engineering
controls are in place and that appropriate personal
protective equipment is in use; (3) issuance of a Safety and
Health Information Bulletin that advises employers about
diacetyl, recommends specific engineering and work practice
controls to regulate exposures, and requires appropriate
personal protective equipment and respiratory protection when
handling diacetyl; and (4) issuance of a guidance document
about health hazard information that must be included on
diacetyl material safety data sheets under the Hazard
Communication standard.
The Administration does not believe that H.R. 2693 in its
present form is the best regulatory approach for protecting
workers. Before a PEL can be promulgated, more time is needed
to gather sufficient evidence concerning (1) the causes of
bronchiolitis obliterans (``popcorn lung disease'') in
workers exposed to diacetyl and other chemicals used in
butter flavorings; (2) the range of exposure levels that may
be hazardous; and (3) the kinds of control measures that are
most effective. Additional time is also needed to obtain
sufficient information about the many other industries
besides microwave popcorn manufacturing that use diacetyl and
diacetyl-containing flavorings. The expedited rulemaking
required by H.R. 2693 would not allow OSHA sufficient time to
gather and analyze the kind of evidence and information
needed to ensure the promulgation of a standard that
adequately protects workers.
The Administration is also very concerned that the interim
standard that is mandated by this legislation will not be
open for comment by stakeholders, particularly small
business, in accordance with the Administrative Procedure
Act, Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, and
the rulemaking requirements of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act. These statutes ensure thorough consideration and
transparency in rulemaking, as well as stakeholder input. The
Administration believes these requirements should be waived
only in the most exceptional situations. Thorough vetting is
particularly critical when the medical and scientific studies
do not provide unequivocal conclusions.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Price), an experienced physician.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from South
Carolina for his leadership on this, as well as so many other issues.
Mr. Chairman, I represent the Sixth District of Georgia, one that is
interested actively in the input of Members of Congress and the actions
of government. But they have some suspicion about the actions of
government.
When I came to Congress, I was told a story by a former Member who
told an amusing story about his sense that when Members of Congress get
on the airplane and they head toward Washington to come to work, they
think they are pretty smart folks. As they get closer to Washington,
they think that their intelligence increases. As they begin to descend
and come into Reagan National Airport, they really think they are
getting mighty smart. And then once they step off the plane, they think
they are the brightest people on the Earth.
[[Page H10926]]
I tell that because folks listening to this might be surprised that
there actually is a process in place for rulemaking within OSHA. There
is a process in place that maximizes workplace safety while it sets
standards based upon the strongest and the most complete scientific
information.
Now, today, the House of Representatives is considering a bill which
bypasses this process, bypasses the process and sets a permissible
exposure limit for diacetyl, making Members of Congress the ones who
are the experts on scientific evidence.
As my friend mentioned, before I came to Congress, I was a physician.
One of the things that concerned me greatly was that Members of
Congress, many Members of Congress think that they know best about so
many issues. One of them was how to practice medicine. In this
instance, it's what the level of appropriate exposure for a worker in
this Nation ought be for diacetyl.
Diacetyl is an artificial flavoring commonly used for popcorn. It has
been determined to be safe for general consumption, but the inhalation,
the breathing in of large quantities may be harmful, although there is
not any evidence that demonstrates that it can be solely harmful to an
individual, which is what this bill actually assumes or presumes.
You have heard talk about the National Institute of Occupational
Safety and Health, NIOSH. NIOSH is the group that studies these kinds
of things. In fact, they produced a study that concluded, ``There is
insufficient data that exists on which to base workplace exposure
standards or recommended exposure limits for butter flavorings.''
Those are the folks that are the scientists that are involved in
setting standards. We ought to listen to their recommendation. I
commend the author and I commend the individuals who want to push the
process forward more rapidly. I think that's an appropriate thing to
do. But by adopting this bill, Congress is effectively saying to OSHA
that your rulemaking process doesn't make any difference, that we don't
need to hear the folks who have the greatest amount of knowledge about
an issue, and that Congress is about to set standards based upon
incomplete scientific evidence.
Now that may not be of great concern to some, but it ought to be. It
ought to be. Regulations of this nature should only be based on the
most sound and thorough scientific data. Otherwise, Congress is coming
back every 6 months, every year, every 2 years and revising what they
have put in place because they haven't based their decisionmaking on
appropriate scientific information.
If this legislation is to go forward, then I would encourage my
colleagues to allow it to do so with the adoption of the Wilson
amendment. This amendment would ensure that a final safety standard for
diacetyl is in fact based on adequate scientific and complete review by
NIOSH. The Wilson amendment will guarantee that the most effective
worker protections are put in place with the backing of science rather
than identifying one compound without complete information.
If the goal here is workplace safety, if the goal is workplace
safety, then we ought to make certain that that safety, those
guidelines, those regulations are put in place and done correctly.
Members of Congress should have a critical eye on the OSHA rulemaking
process, without a doubt. But it's important that we not implement
mandates based upon incomplete scientific evidence and without all of
the facts.
So, for those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I once again thank my colleague
for his assistance and leadership in this area. I would urge adoption
of the Wilson amendment, and if that does not occur, then I would urge
defeat of the underlying bill.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to
the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me time
to speak on this important issue. As a cosponsor of H.R. 2693, I rise
to express my very strong support of the legislation and to highlight
the dangerous philosophy under which the current administration and,
consequently, OSHA has been operating.
Beside me you see in print the philosophy of ``Guidance'' over
standards and regulations. Just to be clear here, guidance is great,
but it's terribly dangerous when it comes at the expense of enforceable
standards. It is this issue that brings us to the floor today.
This Hazard Communications Guidance, which was released just on
Monday, starts with a sort of disclaimer paragraph that begins by
explaining, ``This guidance is not a standard or regulation and it
creates no new legal obligations.''
It concludes with, ``Failure to implement any specific
recommendations in this guidance is not in itself a violation of the
General Duty Clause. Citations can only be based on standards,
regulations, and the General Duty Clause.''
In fact, under this administration, OSHA has issued only one
significant new standard, which was on the cancer-causing chemical
hexavalent chromium, and this was done under court order.
This is an incredibly dangerous philosophy for workers nationwide who
rely on the health and safety precautions that OSHA is charged with
ensuring. OSHA's obligation to protect these workers is certainly not
met by simply enforcing current standards while ignoring emerging
dangers. OSHA has responsibility to promulgate new standards and
protections as soon as we learn of the hazardous nature of such
chemicals as diacetyl.
To my colleagues who would say that Congress should step back and let
OSHA do its job, I say gladly. We will step back when OSHA steps up and
fulfills its obligation to provide meaningful health and safety
protections for our Nation's workers.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation that will provide
this meaningful protection. It does this by requiring OSHA to issue an
interim standard and within 2 years to promulgate a final standard with
respect to diacetyl. Our workers deserve this added safety. So do our
families that use this product. This bill deserves our support.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), a member of the committee.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2693, the
Popcorn Workers Lung Disease Prevention Act. Millions of Americans
enjoy the convenience of microwave popcorn. However, few are aware that
those bags of popcorn may contain diacetyl, an artificial butter
flavoring and a deadly chemical when inhaled in high levels.
You earlier heard about Eric Peoples from Chairman Woolsey who worked
at the Jasper Popcorn Company. Mr. Peoples has the debilitating disease
of popcorn lung and as a result has only 24 percent of his lung
capacity. Everyday activities are no longer possible for him.
Another worker at the Jasper Popcorn Plant, Linda Redman, started
working at the plant in 1995. Within 2 years, her breathing was so
impaired that she had to quit. I believe that Eric and Linda's pain may
have been prevented if OSHA had acted to issue a standard to limit
workers' exposure to diacetyl. OSHA has still failed to issue a
standard, even though it was some 7 years ago that it was determined
that worker illnesses were related to the chemical diacetyl.
H.R. 2693 is a simple bill. It requires OSHA to issue an emergency
interim standard within 90 days to protect workers at popcorn and
flavoring manufacturing plants to minimize diacetyl, and it requires
OSHA to then issue a final standard within 2 years. An emergency
standard will help protect the thousands of workers who come into
contact with diacetyl every day. The Flavor and Extract Manufacturers
Association, the leading industry association for the flavoring
industry, recommended similar actions as far back as 2004.
The simple and sad truth is that OSHA has failed to do its job, and
thus in this case Congress must act to protect workers. These workers
deserve a safe workplace.
As Eric Peoples said, ``I played by the rules. I worked to support my
family.
[[Page H10927]]
This unregulated industry virtually destroyed my life. Please don't let
it destroy the lives of others.''
So I ask Members to join me in promising that we won't stand by and
let this industry destroy the lives of others. Let's pass H.R. 2693.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, we are considering this bill under unfortunate
circumstances. A number of workers have become ill, and it is not
entirely clear why. We suspect this particular food flavoring diacetyl
may be involved, so we all support a thorough investigation into this
substance and how exposure to it may impact workers.
Like my friends on the other side of the aisle, I wish there was an
easy answer. If only we knew what had made these workers ill, we could
immediately eliminate the risks. If only we knew for sure that diacetyl
and manufacturing alone caused lung obstruction, then Federal agencies
could go through the appropriate regulatory process to establish
exposure limitations and take the necessary steps to protect workers.
Unfortunately, we do not have enough information at this point in
time to take such action. Research is underway, and it is my hope that
the research continues quickly so we can get to the bottom of these
questions about how diacetyl impacts manufacturing workers.
Until that research is available and until we have a scientific basis
for regulation, in my mind we simply cannot move forward. There is a
very real danger that by acting too quickly, we could inadvertently
push manufacturers to begin using substitute flavorings. There is a
possibility that these substitute flavorings could also put workers at
risk; thus, a hurried regulation may provide a false sense of security
while manufacturing workers remain vulnerable.
Again, I understand the frustration about a lack of clarity on the
administration's intent in this area. Until the recent announcement by
the Department of Labor that it intends to undertake a rulemaking
process for this flavoring, we had not received any clear indication
from the administration that it intended to take action. As such, I
believe some on the other side the aisle believed they had no choice
but to act themselves.
Mr. Chairman, I recognize the difficulty we face. We have workers who
have fallen ill and we do not know why. We have questions about a
flavoring that workers are exposed to during manufacturing, but we do
not know whether it is the sole cause of their ailments. We have a
Federal regulatory agency that is responsible for ensuring workplace
safety, but until this week we did not know whether the agency would
act.
{time} 1330
Republicans proposed a sensible alternative when this bill was
considered in the committee, and we plan to do the same today. We want
to balance our pressing desire to act quickly to protect workers with
our equally important need to adhere to sound science.
Because I believe it undermines the basic regulatory framework and
neglects the necessary scientific foundation, I regret I cannot support
the bill in its current form. I hope my alternative will be adopted so
that we can quickly increase evidence to guide the final rules to
provide the strongest protections possible.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the
balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, this isn't about confusion.
This isn't about uncertainty. This is about the absolute failure of a
Federal agency that has been established and designed to protect the
health and the safety of American workers, the Occupational Health and
Safety Administration, and the absolutely failure of that agency to
take action, the absolute failure of this administration, the Bush
administration, to insist they take action in light of mounting and
compelling evidence that workers in popcorn manufacturing facilities
and workers maybe now in other food industries have been stricken with
a horrible disease that has been directly related to diacetyl.
I appreciate they want to throw up all of the other reasons. Maybe it
wasn't O.J., but the fact of the matter is, here it is diacetyl, and we
have got to understand that because people are going in for lung
transplants, people are losing their ability to earn a living, and
people have died from the results of this, and manufacturers and others
are paying out millions of dollars.
The other side wants to offer an amendment that is based upon very
old information, 3 years old. In those 3 years, NIOSH has recommended
that actions be taken. The actions were not taken. NIOSH based that on
the information at that time.
Then the industry recommended that actions be taken to protect the
lives and the health and the safety of these workers, and actions were
not taken in many parts of that industry. And, lo and behold, on the
day that we are arguing this bill on the floor, we find out that OSHA
has finally taken action.
And what action has OSHA taken? It didn't take action in the absence
of information. It specifically states that they are updating the
material safety data sheets because they have to include newer health
effects information, information they need to understand the hazards
associated. The hazards associated.
This is OSHA as of today. OSHA couldn't figure it out yesterday, they
couldn't figure it out last year or the year before or the year before.
But because Congress is moving, they are now going to give people a
data sheet that says diacetyl, in the data sheet from OSHA today, can
cause damage to respiratory tract and lungs if inhaled, and it is
highly flammable.
This isn't because we don't have information. This is because they
refused to act earlier.
The gentleman from the other side wants to talk about the fact that
they have put together a rulemaking process. No, what they announced
was a one-day meeting, a one-day meeting of stakeholders, and then that
was the end of it. We don't know whether they are going to go to the
rest of the process or not. There is no indication in their past that
they have.
They have forfeited their right to suggest that they will set the
time and the tempo and the urgency of the protection of these workers
and their families. They have forfeited that. We are stepping in here;
and in the first interim standard we are asking NIOSH to do what they
have already recommended that they do, based upon the evidence they
have today. We are asking them to join with the manufacturers who have
made these same recommendations based upon the evidence that they have
today.
And what are they asking them to do? These are the first
precautionary things that you do: Isolate the mixing room from the rest
of the plant using walls, doors or other barriers; provide the mixing
room with a separate ventilation system and ensure that negative air
pressure relative to the rest of the plant is maintained in the mixing
room. Yes, they are doing this because they have information that this
can cause damage to your respiratory tracts and your lungs.
The other side wants to suggest in their amendment that if we just
knew more, we could do better. It goes on and on.
They suggest reducing the operating temperature and holding the
mixing tanks to the minimum temperature necessary, equipping the head
space of the mixing and holding tanks with flavor added to oil and held
in a pure form, automating the mixing process using closed processes to
transfer flavorings. These are all designed to protect these workers,
and they would not have happened but for this committee action, but for
this floor time and this debate, and but for us voting this bill out of
here.
This is the least we can do, to ask these agencies to do what was
already recommended they should do in 2003, to do at least what the
manufacturers have already recommended they do in 2004. And then we ask
them to proceed with a permanent standard using their scientific
evidence, their data, their knowledge, not ours. And that is the
process by which these workers are going to get protection.
They are not going to get protection from the gentleman's amendment
on the other side of the aisle, and they are not going to get it from
stalling the Congress from going forward.
[[Page H10928]]
This is our opportunity to respond to an urgent medical crises in
this industry by these workers and their families. I ask my colleagues
to support this legislation when it comes time for final passage and to
defeat the Wilson amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HARE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Popcorn
Workers Lung Disease Prevention Act. As a Member of the Education and
Labor Committee I had the privilege of participating in a hearing at
which Eric Peoples, a former microwave popcorn worker, testified. Mr.
Peoples had contracted a respiratory disease from exposure to the
butter flavoring chemical, diacetyl, during his work at the factory. I
was appalled to find out that despite the mountain of evidence showing
the links between diacetyl and respiratory damage comparable to
inhaling acid, the workers were told this product was safe. Now, Mr.
Peoples struggles with only 24 percent lung capacity and is waiting for
a lung transplant.
OSHA is failing to protect workers from chemical hazards. According
to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,
occupational diseases caused by exposure to chemical hazards are
responsible for an estimated 50,000 deaths each year.
This bill does the job OSHA has failed to do. H.R. 2693 would require
OSHA to issue an interim final standard to minimize worker exposure to
diacetyl at popcorn manufacturing and packaging plants. OSHA would then
be required to issue a final standard within 2 years that would apply
to all locations where workers are exposed to diacetyl.
It is necessary for Congress to take this step to protect our
workers. I urge my colleagues to stand with me in passing the Popcorn
Workers Lung Disease Prevention Act.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered
read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:
H.R. 2693
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 ``Popcorn Workers Lung Disease
Prevention Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) An emergency exists concerning worker exposure to
diacetyl, a substance used in many flavorings, including
artificial butter flavorings.
(2) There is compelling evidence that diacetyl presents a
grave danger and significant risk of life-threatening illness
to exposed employees. Workers exposed to diacetyl have
developed, among other conditions, a debilitating lung
disease known as bronchiolitis obliterans.
(3) From 2000-2002 NIOSH identified cases of bronchiolitis
obliterans in workers employed in microwave popcorn plants,
and linked these illnesses to exposure to diacetyl used in
butter flavoring. In December 2003, NIOSH issued an alert
``Preventing Lung Disease in Workers Who Use or Make
Flavorings,'' recommending that employers implement measures
to minimize worker exposure to diacetyl.
(4) In August 2004 the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers
Association of the United States issued a report,
``Respiratory Health and Safety in the Flavor Manufacturing
Workplace,'' warning about potential serious respiratory
illness in workers exposed to flavorings and recommending
comprehensive control measures for diacetyl and other ``high
priority'' substances used in flavoring manufacturing.
(5) From 2004-2007 additional cases of bronchiolitis
obliterans were identified among workers in the flavoring
manufacturing industry by the California Department of Health
Services and Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/
OSHA), which through enforcement actions and an intervention
program called for the flavoring manufacturing industry in
California to reduce exposure to diacetyl.
(6) In a report issued in April 2007, NIOSH reported that
flavor manufacturers and flavored-food producers are widely
distributed in the United States and that bronchiolitis
obliterans had been identified among microwave popcorn and
flavoring-manufacturing workers in a number of States.
(7) Despite NIOSH's findings of the hazards of diacetyl and
recommendations that exposures be controlled, and a formal
petition by labor organizations and leading scientists for
issuance of an emergency temporary standard, the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has not acted to
promulgate an occupational safety and health standard to
protect workers from harmful exposure to diacetyl.
(8) An OSHA standard is urgently needed to protect workers
exposed to diacetyl from bronchiolitis obliterans and other
debilitating conditions.
SEC. 3. ISSUANCE OF STANDARD ON DIACETYL.
(a) Interim Standard.--
(1) Rulemaking.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall promulgate an interim
final standard regulating worker exposure to diacetyl. The
interim final standard shall apply--
(A) to all locations in the flavoring manufacturing
industry that manufacture, use, handle, or process diacetyl;
and
(B) to all microwave popcorn production and packaging
establishments that use diacetyl-containing flavors in the
manufacture of microwave popcorn.
(2) Requirements.--The interim final standard required
under subsection (a) shall provide no less protection than
the recommendations contained in the NIOSH Alert ``Preventing
Lung Disease in Workers Who Use or Make Flavorings'' (NIOSH
Publication 2004-110) and include the following:
(A) Requirements for engineering, work practice controls,
and respiratory protection to minimize exposure to diacetyl.
Such engineering and work practice controls include closed
processes, isolation, local exhaust ventilation, proper
pouring techniques, and safe cleaning procedures.
(B) Requirements for a written exposure control plan that
will indicate specific measures the employer will take to
minimize employee exposure; and requirements for evaluation
of the exposure control plan to determine the effectiveness
of control measures at least on a biannual basis and whenever
medical surveillance indicates abnormal pulmonary function in
employees exposed to diacetyl, or whenever necessary to
reflect new or modified processes.
(C) Requirements for airborne exposure assessments to
determine levels of exposure and ensure adequacy of controls.
(D) Requirements for medical surveillance for workers and
referral for prompt medical evaluation.
(E) Requirements for protective equipment and clothing for
workers exposed to diacetyl.
(F) Requirements to provide written safety and health
information and training to employees, including hazard
communication information, labeling, and training.
(3) Effective date of interim standard.--The interim final
standard shall take effect upon issuance. The interim final
standard shall have the legal effect of an occupational
safety and health standard, and shall apply until a final
standard becomes effective under section 6 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 U.S.C. 655).
(b) Final Standard.--Not later than 2 years after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall,
pursuant to section 6 of the Occupational Safety and Health
Act (29 U.S.C. 655), promulgate a final standard regulating
worker exposure to diacetyl. The final standard shall
contain, at a minimum, the worker protection provisions in
the interim final standard, a short term exposure limit, and
a permissible exposure limit that does not exceed the lowest
feasible level, and shall apply at a minimum to all
facilities where diacetyl is processed or used.
SEC. 4. STUDY AND RECOMMENDED EXPOSURE LIMITS ON OTHER
FLAVORINGS.
(a) Study.--The National Institute of Occupational Safety
and Health shall conduct a study on food flavorings used in
the production of microwave popcorn. The study shall
prioritize the chemicals that are most closely chemically
associated with diacetyl to determine possible exposure
hazards. NIOSH shall transmit a report of the findings of the
study to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
(b) Recommended Exposure Limits.--Upon completion of the
study conducted pursuant to subsection (a), NIOSH shall
establish recommended exposure limits for flavorings
determined by such study to pose exposure hazards to workers
involved in the production of microwave popcorn.
The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute is in order except those printed in House Report 110-
349. Each amendment can be offered only in the order printed in the
report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered read,
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent of the
amendment, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. George Miller of California
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed
in House Report 110-349.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. George Miller of California:
Page 6, line 21, insert ``, if at such time, diacetyl is
still being processed or utilized in facilities subject to
such Act'' after ``diacetyl''.
Page 7, line 5, strike ``of'' and insert ``for''.
Page 7, line 7, strike ``used in the production'' and all
that follows through ``NIOSH'' and insert ``that may be used
as substitutes for diacetyl and''.
Page 7, strike lines 13 through 18 and insert the
following:
(b) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed as affecting the timing of the rulemaking outlined
in section 2.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 678, the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller) and
[[Page H10929]]
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, this is an amendment technical in nature, and it clarifies
that if no one is using diacetyl, it is not necessary for OSHA to issue
a standard. The second portion clarifies that the purpose of the
required NIOSH study is to study the health effects of substitutes of
diacetyl. I urge passage of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he
may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), my next-door
neighbor of historic Savannah.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
I am opposed to the amendment because I am opposed to the bill.
One of the great things about Congress, I say to people, is it is the
ultimate place for those of us with attention deficit disorder, because
we have the privilege on a day-to-day basis to go from health care, to
war, to weapons systems. Which airplane is better, the C-5 or the C-17?
To go to farm issues. How about the cotton program? Is it good? Well,
should we model it after the peanut program?
Then education: college, primary, private school. Should there be
prayer? Should we lower the student-teacher ratio? Indeed, the
President of the United States, President Clinton, stood in this
Chamber once and called for school uniforms. We were experts on that
for the day.
Tax policy: Who should get tax breaks and who should not? Trade
policies: Which countries are going to be the best to trade with us?
Immigration.
The list goes on and on and on. But, unfortunately, our expertise
does not continue with the demand and the issues.
And here we are talking about popcorn. I would say to my friend from
California that 99.9 percent of the Members here have never been in a
popcorn factory. I listened to my friend, Mr. Miller. He knows a lot
about this. I am impressed that he knows mixing rooms and building
walls and so forth, but I would say most of us do not.
That is why we have agencies and commissions like OSHA set up,
because they fill in the blanks where we cannot be experts. They have
scientists who go in and make rulemaking policies in a balanced way,
nonpolitical and nonemotional. It is scientific. They go in there and
say, before we go out and set a bunch of standards on the private
sector, let's make sure that we have the experts doing the
decisionmaking.
And yet here we are, the nanny-state of Congress. Nurse Ratched once
more knows best, completely oblivious to the fact that one of the
largest manufacturers of microwave popcorn just recently said they
would eliminate this product from their bands, and another manufacturer
did the same thing. And even OSHA on September 24 said they will move
forward with various measures to address the hazards of the workplace.
I think it is interesting that we have set up OSHA to help us, and
yet we have decided now that we know popcorn and we know best.
But I would say to my friend from California, your expertise is not
matched by 99 percent of us. I would say Ms. Woolsey, being a great
Member who does her homework, and Mr. Wilson and the staffers who are
here, you all are popcorn experts in Congress, and that's it. There are
no other popcorn experts in Congress.
I think we do have some experts on trade and on taxes and on military
things, but even they have to rely on agencies and organizations to
give them better information. Yet we are leapfrogging over this
information. I don't know if it is political or what, but we seem to be
in a big rush to forget the standards that should be set by the proper
agency.
Later, we will have the opportunity to vote on the Wilson alternative
that would give OSHA time to set a standard that would be, after a
NIOSH study, based on solid scientific evidence. It seems to me that is
a more reasonable and balanced approach to solving this problem. And we
are not even convinced. The data doesn't even say this problem is as
big and as urgent as those who are advocating this bill are.
So I recommend a ``no'' vote on this amendment, even though I know it
is technical in nature. But I think we should ultimately vote on the
Wilson amendment in support of it, and then I think we should pass the
bill. But if the Wilson amendment does not pass, we should vote this
bill down. Because Congress is not an expert on this and we should know
our limitations and we should let the proper agencies with the
scientists and the experts make the rulemaking on something so micro-
technical as micro-popcorn.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the
balance of my time.
I find it rather incredible that the gentleman from Georgia would
come down and ridicule the idea that Congress would act in this matter
when there has been such malfeasance by OSHA, by the Bush
administration, and by the oversight of this Congress. I guess you can
try to make light of it if you don't want to take responsibility for
your actions.
What we are recommending today in this legislation is what NIOSH
recommended for the protection of these workers in 2003, and it didn't
happen, and nobody on the other side of the aisle asked the question:
Why? So now we have workers who have worked in popcorn factories and
maybe now in other manufacturing facilities that are losing their lung
capacity, that are seeking lung transplants, that have died and have a
disease that is called ``grotesque'' by the medical profession and who
suggest, when you get this, it is the equivalent of the damage to your
lungs if you inhaled acid.
There may be something trite in that, there may be something cavalier
in that, but I don't see it. I don't see it. These families, these
workers, are asking for our help. These workers are dying.
{time} 1345
The industry has tried and is asking for our help. The labor unions
are asking for our help. The scientists are asking for our help.
The gentleman would make light of this. He ought to talk to the
families who have had members who have died or who have been severely
impaired or are hoping that they can get a lung transplant before they
die so they might have a chance to see their children and their
grandchildren grow up and enjoy their family. It's not to be made light
of.
There's a great deal of malfeasance here by this administration, by
OSHA, by the Department of Labor and by failure to have oversight on
this in this committee. They ought not to come to this floor and make
light of this measure. This is about people's lives and about their
health and about their well-being, and we should pass this amendment.
We should reject the next amendment and we should pass this
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Wilson of South Carolina
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed
in House Report 110-349.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Wilson of South Carolina:
Page 6, line 18, strike ``the date of enactment of this
Act,'' and insert ``the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health concludes there is sufficient data to
support a recommended exposure limit and establishes such
recommended exposure limit,''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 678, the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) and the gentleman from California (Mr.
George Miller) each will control 5 minutes.
[[Page H10930]]
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very
straightforward. This would ensure that the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, OSHA, sets a permissible exposure limit as
directed by the underlying bill, which can be relied in science.
I offered this amendment in the Education and Labor Committee, and we
agreed to work together to see if we could reach an agreement. Between
committee action and today, we were unable to reach an agreement on the
timeframe addressed by my amendment. So I'm offering it for floor
consideration.
I understand my colleagues' goal is to set a standard for a substance
that appears to be harming manufacturing workers in and around
microwave popcorn manufacturing facilities. I know the well-meaning
intention of their efforts. Unfortunately, I do not share their belief
that this legislation will accomplish that goal.
First, there is widespread concern that while diacetyl is
unquestionably a marker, it is not the sole cause of lung impairment in
these workers. In addition to this, however, this bill would regulate
diacetyl and require a standard to be set based on little or no
available science. In other words, if a food manufacturing facility
substitutes diacetyl with another flavoring chemical, there is no
guarantee that that chemical is not the one making manufacturing
workers sick.
Technically, the bill before us requires OSHA to set an interim final
rule for diacetyl manufacturers and microwave popcorn plants to
implement engineering controls for diacetyl exposure. It then directs
OSHA to set a standard that will apply to all food manufacturing
facilities. The expansion of coverage from the interim rule to the
final rule and the time frame of 2 years in which OSHA is given to set
the standard will impact OSHA's ability to follow the appropriate legal
guidelines that would apply to a normal rulemaking.
All my amendment does is ensure that OSHA promulgates a regulation
with appropriate stakeholder input and the science to establish a
technically feasible permissible exposure limit. Also, I would note
that OSHA announced Monday that it would undertake a rulemaking on this
substance.
I should note that there is a great deal of ongoing research and data
gathering concerning the health effects of diacetyl. For example, the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health is working to
improve measuring diacetyl, while the National Jewish Medical Center is
working to gather data from workers about lung function. California
OSHA also is working with the industry to gather the much-needed
information to set a standard. Without any conclusive evidence, which
has yet to be generated by any source at this point in time, we are
putting the cart before the horse, and because of this, I respectfully
urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment ensures that OSHA can
continue to slow-walk a final rulemaking on diacetyl exposure for all
workers. Hundreds of workers are exposed to diacetyl, and they've
fallen ill with this debilitating lung disease that, as the chairman
told you, was equivalent to inhaling acid. Can you imagine what their
lungs look like and why at the age of 30 a young father has to have a
double lung transplant, and maybe that won't even save his life?
The amendment removes the requirement that OSHA complete final
rulemaking within 2 years of enactment of this legislation.
Under this amendment, the final rule would not be required to be
completed until 2 years after NIOSH makes a finding that there's
sufficient data to support a recommended exposure limit. NIOSH has
already told us that they know this is something that they support and
diacetyl should be and must be controlled. If NIOSH is delayed, more
workers, including the workers we're talking about today, will be
unprotected.
While workers in popcorn and flavoring facilities would be protected
under the emergency standard, workers in other parts of the food
industry where diacetyl is being used would be left unprotected for an
indeterminate number of years. Not days, not months, but years. One
food manufacturer, for example, recently announced a new line of
artificial butter containing diacetyl despite its hazards to workers.
Those workers would lose protections because of the Wilson amendment.
This interim rule, Mr. Chairman, covers a narrow band of workers,
popcorn workers and flavoring facilities. By slow-walking this final
rulemaking, as Mr. Wilson's amendment would allow, other workers
exposed to diacetyl will continue to get sick. They will continue to
die.
Vote ``no'' on any further delay to workplace safety rules.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the
time remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) has 2
minutes remaining. The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller)
has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he
may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the
distinguished ranking committee member.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for
his work on this amendment.
We're kind of facing a dilemma. I think both of us, both sides, want
to protect workers. However, we want to make sure that they're
protected by sound science.
This amendment immediately starts the 90-day rule which would protect
people from diacetyl, those working on popcorn or other products, and
then it requires that within the 2 years they have the final rule based
on sound science. I think that this amendment would solve the dilemma
to make sure that if diacetyl isn't the only cause, we have the time to
find the science to make sure that the workers really are protected. We
may find that diacetyl and diacetyl alone is the cause, but if not and
we have moved forward just on diacetyl, these workers will think
they're protected, and in the long run they will not be. And this is
why we're really concerned. We move quickly to provide the 90-day rule,
but then allow the time within the 2 years to base the final ruling on
sound science.
For that reason, I ask that we support the gentleman's amendment that
would fix this bill.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I
have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. And the gentleman has the right to
close on his amendment; is that correct?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina has 30 seconds
remaining. The gentleman from California has the right to close.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2
minutes.
This amendment was offered in committee, and we rejected the
amendment, and we offered to work with the gentleman. We've had a
series of discussions, and he's been involved and staff have been
involved in the discussions, but at the end of the day the simple fact
was that they would not agree to any deadlines for NIOSH or OSHA to act
in this amendment.
We think the timetables that are in the legislation are very
important. If we take off these timetables, all of the past evidence
suggests that OSHA and NIOSH will sort of turn to norm and, once again,
we will have an open-ended process here where there isn't an urgency
about the impacts of diacetyl.
We know what diacetyl does. That's become very clear. We don't know
about everything else in the workplace. We don't know about everything
else in the workplace, but we know what this very bad chemical can do
to people and what it's causing for them to do it.
And so we lay out NIOSH to do it. They've already recommended the
manufacturers are laid out. Then OSHA will do the final rulemaking. If
they come back and say they can't do it, that's their scientific
evidence.
[[Page H10931]]
We're not putting a legislative prescription on them, but what we are
insisting is they address it and they address it now and they address
it on the evidence that is here and emerging and that they make a
decision and they protect these workers.
That's what this legislation is about, and that's what this amendment
would negate.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, again, I urge adoption of
the amendment. I want to commend my colleagues again for their good
intentions.
I would like to restate that as a former member of the State board of
the American Lung Association for a number of years, I've had a long-
time concern about lung illnesses. I sincerely believe that the
amendment that I have, which provides that action would be taken upon
scientific evidence, is in the interest of the manufacturing workers in
the United States.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members of the
House to vote against the Wilson amendment and then to support the
legislation. If we adopt the Wilson amendment, we're going right back
to the status quo, and the status quo is killing these workers in these
facilities. And we have the ability to stop it with this legislation.
We should stop it now. We should not any longer empower OSHA to
continue to drag their feet and ignore the health and the safety of
these workers and their families.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the Wilson amendment and an ``aye'' vote on
the legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189,
noes 233, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 912]
AYES--189
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Bachmann
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costa
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--233
Abercrombie
Allen
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boswell
Boucher
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Emanuel
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kuhl (NY)
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--15
Ackerman
Bachus
Carson
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Gordon
Herger
Hinojosa
Jindal
Johnson, E. B.
Kucinich
Musgrave
Putnam
Souder
Waters
{time} 1427
Mr. SAXTON, Mrs. MALONEY of New York, Mr. SHULER, Ms. WASSERMAN
SCHULTZ, and Mr. SCOTT of Georgia changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mrs. BLACKBURN and Messrs. HOEKSTRA, BUCHANAN, ALTMIRE, DONNELLY, and
ELLSWORTH changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. There being no further amendments, the question is on
the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Ross) having assumed the chair, Mr. Cardoza, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2693), to
direct the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to issue a
standard regulating worker exposure to diacetyl, pursuant to House
Resolution 678, he reported the bill back to the House with an
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment
reported from the Committee of the Whole? If not, the question is on
the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
[[Page H10932]]
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. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 260,
nays 154, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 913]
YEAS--260
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boswell
Boucher
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Butterfield
Buyer
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fortenberry
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weller
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NAYS--154
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Hoekstra
Hunter
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Lamborn
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rehberg
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Walberg
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2
Cardoza
Melancon
NOT VOTING--16
Ackerman
Bachus
Carson
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Gordon
Herger
Hinojosa
Jindal
Johnson, E. B.
Kucinich
Putnam
Scott (GA)
Souder
Waters
Whitfield
{time} 1449
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________