[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.

                          ____________________