[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 30, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H2891-H2894]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5522, COMBUSTIBLE DUST EXPLOSION 
                    AND FIRE PREVENTION ACT OF 2008

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1157 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1157

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 5522) to require the Secretary of Labor to 
     issue interim and final occupational safety and health 
     standards regarding worker exposure to combustible dust, and 
     for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 
     of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Education and Labor. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall 
     be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
     of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Education and Labor now printed in the bill. The committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against the committee amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute are waived except those arising 
     under clause 10 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of 
     rule XVIII, no amendment to the committee amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 
     10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of the 
     bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the 
     bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  During consideration in the House of H.R. 5522 
     pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 
     the previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated 
     by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ross). The gentleman from Massachusetts 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln 
Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for 
debate only.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous 
consent that all Members may be given 5 legislative days in which to 
revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1157.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1157 provides for the 
consideration of H.R. 5522, the Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire 
Prevention Act of 2008, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 
hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Education and 
Labor, and makes in order the committee-reported substitute. It also 
makes in order two amendments printed in the Rules report, with a 
manager's amendment debatable for 10 minutes and the Wilson substitute 
debatable for 30 minutes.
  Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying 
legislation, H.R. 5522, the Worker Protection Against Combustible Dust 
Explosion and Fire Act of 2008. It directs the Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration to issue rules regulating combustible industrial 
dust that can build up to hazardous levels and explode.
  Combustible dust has caused deaths and injuries to workers in our 
Nation, deaths and injuries that could have been prevented. Most 
recently, everyone can recall the enormous explosion in February at the 
Imperial Sugar refinery in Savannah, Georgia, which claimed the lives 
of 13 workers and injured over 60. Many of these workers remain 
hospitalized today, receiving care for the severe burns they received 
on that awful day.
  While OSHA has marginally improved dust inspection procedures, this 
legislation goes further to bring combustible dust emissions under 
control by establishing stronger standards. Included are engineering 
controls, hazardous inspection, security assessments, housekeeping and 
explosion protection standards.

                              {time}  1415

  Specifically, the Worker Protection Against Combustible Dust 
Explosion and Fire Act requires OSHA to issue an interim final standard 
to control the risk of combustible dust explosions. The standard would 
contain provisions for housekeeping, engineering controls, and worker 
training.
  Mr. Speaker, in 2003, there was a series of similar explosions at 
various factories due to combustible dust. The U.S. government 
undertook a study carried out by the Chemical Safety Board to determine 
the causes and make recommendations to OSHA. That report came out 2 
years ago in 2006. OSHA has yet to issue standards to control the risks 
to workers and companies on the hazards of combustible dust.
  For this reason, the bill requires an interim standard to be issued. 
OSHA would then be required to issue a final standard within 18 months 
through its regular procedures. OSHA would be required to ``include 
relevant and appropriate provisions of National Fire Protection 
Association combustible dust standards.''
  H.R. 5522 would also direct OSHA to explicitly list combustible dusts 
as a ``physical hazard'' in the Hazard Communication Standard, which 
requires employers to train workers about the chemical hazards that 
they are exposed to.
  Mr. Speaker, every worker in this country deserves a safe and healthy 
work environment. The AFL-CIO, the UAW, the International Association 
of Firefighters, the American Industrial Hygiene Association, the SEIU, 
the Teamsters, and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union all 
strongly support this important legislation.
  By establishing stronger protections and safer standards, this 
legislation better ensures thousands of workers in refineries, mills, 
and plants from risk of death or injury.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule, and I support the 
underlying legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to 
thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for the time, and 
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  On February 7, 2008, a terrible explosion occurred at the Imperial 
Sugar Company refinery in the community of Port Wentworth, Georgia. The 
explosion killed 13 people, injured over 40 refinery workers. That 
explosion at the Imperial Sugar Company refinery pointed to the danger 
of combustible dust in the workplace. It's a very serious concern, and 
we must take every possible step to protect workers from those dangers.
  The underlying legislation, the Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire 
Prevention Act, would require OSHA to issue an interim final 
combustible dust standard within 90 days and a permanent standard 
within 18 months. It also

[[Page H2892]]

lists a specific number of items that would be required under the 
Interim Final Standard including a written dust control program, hazard 
assessment, worker training and employee participation in the 
development and conduct of the dust control program. OSHA would also be 
required to include combustible dust in the definition of physical 
hazards in OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard.
  It is quite disconcerting, Mr. Speaker, that on an issue as important 
as workplace safety, the majority is only allowing the House of 
Representatives to consider one amendment by the minority, one 
Republican amendment. The majority campaign platform said they would 
run the House of Representatives in an open and bipartisan manner, yet 
they systematically and consistently block the minority time and time 
again from offering amendments.
  All Members of this representative institution wish to do the most 
they can to provide workers a safe working environment, Mr. Speaker. 
And it is most unfortunate that the majority blocks Members from 
offering their proposals. Instead of offering such a tightly structured 
rule, the majority should be allowing every Member the opportunity to 
offer their thoughts and proposals to the House for consideration.
  As important as the underlying legislation may be, I believe there 
are other issues that are on the minds of Americans at this point that 
are pressing to Americans: For example, confronting the rising cost of 
gasoline.
  On Monday, hundreds of truckers drove through the streets of this 
capital city to protest in desperation the rising cost of diesel fuel. 
They are not the only ones desperate due to the rising oil prices. All 
consumers are paying more for gasoline, which also causes price 
increases in virtually every consumer product, including food. A recent 
policy found that 44 percent of Americans find paying for gasoline to 
be their top personal economic problem.
  Since Democrats took control of Congress in January of last year, the 
cost of a gallon of unleaded gasoline has skyrocketed. According to 
AAA, the national average for regular unleaded gas has gone up $1.20 
during that time. The cost of gas has gone up more in 15 months than it 
had gone up in the prior 6 years.
  But oil prices don't have to be so high, Mr. Speaker, because I 
understand the majority claims to have a plan, a plan to reduce oil 
prices. Just over 2 years ago, April 2006, now-House Speaker  Nancy 
Pelosi, then the Democrat minority leader, issued a press release 
claiming that House Democrats, ``have a commonsense plan to bring down 
skyrocketing gas prices.'' Two weeks after that press release, then-
Minority Leader Pelosi said that Democrats have ``real solutions'' that 
would lower the price at the pump. That was 2 years ago.
  Democrats have controlled Congress for a year and a half, and we have 
yet to see them act on their ``commonsense plan to bring down 
skyrocketing gas prices.''
  Instead of empty promises, Republicans are working on providing 
relief to consumers faced with the constantly rising cost of gasoline. 
For example, last week, I, along with several of my colleagues, 
introduced H.R. 5905, the CARS Act, the prime sponsor of which is 
Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart. That legislation would give commuters a 
tax break on their commuting expenses. That important legislation will 
actually help taxpayers with the rising cost of gasoline, unlike the 
majority's ``mystery plan,'' the mystery plan, Mr. Speaker, that we 
have not yet seen.
  At this time, I reserve my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I 
would ask the gentleman if he has any other speakers.
  I will reserve my time and let the gentleman close.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, again, I would like 
to thank Mr. McGovern for the time. Back in April of 2006, as I just 
said, over 2 years ago, the now distinguished Speaker, Ms. Pelosi, 
issued the following statement, ``With skyrocketing gas prices, it is 
clear that the American people can no longer afford the Republican 
rubberstamp Congress and its failure to stand up to Republican big oil 
and gas company cronies. Americans this week are paying $2.91 a gallon 
on average for regular gasoline, 33 cents higher than last month and 
double the price than when President Bush first came into office.''
  Mr. Speaker, most Americans would be happy if they were paying $2.91 
for a gallon of gasoline.
  In the same press release, the distinguished Speaker went on to say, 
``Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas 
prices.''
  Well, while I hear they have a plan, I haven't seen the mystery plan, 
Mr. Speaker. Instead, while we wait for the majority to act, the cost 
of fuel continues to rise with the average cost of a gallon of gasoline 
now being over $3.60, hitting consumers at the pump every time they go 
to fill up their cars, reinforcing the fact that the majority has yet 
to confront the high price of gasoline.
  Today, Investor's Business Daily in an editorial said that this 
Congress is ``possibly the most irresponsible in modern history. This 
is especially true when it comes to America's dysfunctional energy 
policy.''
  Mr. Speaker, I insert into the Congressional Record that editorial 
from Investor's Business Daily.

            [From Investor's Business Daily, Apr. 30, 2008]

                            Congress Vs. You

       We've said it before, but we'll say it again: This Congress 
     is possibly the most irresponsible in modern history. This is 
     especially true when it comes to America's dysfunctional 
     energy policy.
       The media won't call either the House or the Senate on its 
     failures, for one very obvious reason: They mostly share an 
     ideology with the Democrats that keeps them from 
     understanding how free markets and supply and demand really 
     work. Sad, but true.
       So we were happy to hear the president do the job, calling 
     out Congress for its inaction and ignorance in his wide-
     ranging press conference Tuesday.
       ``Many Americans are understandably anxious about issues 
     affecting their pocketbook, from gas and food prices to 
     mortgage and tuition bills,'' Bush said. ``They're looking to 
     their elected leaders in Congress for action. Unfortunately, 
     on many of these issues, all they're getting is delay.''
       Best of all, Bush didn't let the issue sit with just 
     generalities. He reeled off a bill of particulars of 
     congressional energy inaction, including:
       Failing to allow drilling in ANWR. We have, as Bush noted, 
     estimated capacity of a million barrels of oil a day from 
     this source alone--enough for 27 million gallons of gas and 
     diesel. But Congress won't touch it, fearful of the clout of 
     the environmental lobby. As a result, you pay at the pump so 
     your representative can raise campaign cash.
       Refusing to build new refineries. The U.S. hasn't built one 
     since 1976, yet sanctions at least 15 unique ``boutique'' 
     fuel blends around the nation. So even the slightest problem 
     at a refinery causes enormous supply problems and price 
     spikes. Congress has done nothing about this.
       Turning its back on nuclear power. It's safe and, with 
     advances in nuclear reprocessing technology, waste problems 
     have been minimized. Still, we have just 104 nuclear plants--
     the same as a decade ago--producing just 19% of our total 
     energy. (Many European nations produce 40% or more of their 
     power with nuclear.) Granted, nuclear power plants are 
     expensive--about $3 billion each. But they produce energy at 
     $1.72/kilowatt-hour vs. $2.37 for coal and $6.35 for natural 
     gas.
       Raising taxes on energy producers. This is where a basic 
     understanding of economics would help: Higher taxes and 
     needless regulation lead to less production of a commodity. 
     So by proposing ``windfall'' and other taxes on energy 
     companies plus tough new rules, Congress makes our energy 
     situation worse.
       These are just a few of Congress' sins of omission--all 
     while India, China, Eastern Europe and the Middle East add 
     more than a million barrels of new demand each and every 
     year. New Energy Department forecasts see world oil demand 
     growing 40% by 2030, including a 28% increase in the U.S.
       Americans who are worried about the direction of their 
     country, including runaway energy and food prices, should 
     keep in mind the upcoming election isn't just about choosing 
     a new president. We'll also pick a new Congress.
       The current Congress, led on the House side by a speaker 
     who promised a ``common sense plan'' to cut energy prices two 
     years ago, has shown itself to be incompetent and 
     irresponsible. It doesn't deserve re-election.

  Today, I will be asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question for this rule, Mr. Speaker. If the previous question is 
defeated, I will amend the rule to make it in order for the House to 
consider any amendment that would actually do something to reduce gas 
prices for consumers, such as H.R. 5905, the CARS Act, which would give

[[Page H2893]]

commuters a tax break on their commuting expenses and actually help 
alleviate the price of energy for the consumer. It will also give the 
majority the chance to introduce, Mr. Speaker, the ``mystery plan'' 
that they claim to have.
  By voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members can take a stand 
against these high fuel prices and demand that the majority act on 
their plan. The majority said they had a plan. Let's see the mystery 
plan, Mr. Speaker. Let's see the mystery plan.
  I encourage a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me remind my colleagues that the 
underlying bill that we are dealing with is a bill that would actually 
protect workers in the workplace, the Combustible Dust Explosion and 
Fire Prevention Act of 2008, and it's a bill that responds to a 
terrible tragedy that has killed a number of workers and injured a 
number of workers. We need to pass this bill, and I hope we will pass 
the rule and pass the underlying bill.
  But I have to say, Mr. Speaker, it is almost laughable to hear a 
member of the minority get up and talk about energy prices. The 
Republicans have controlled the White House for 8 years. They 
controlled the Congress for 12 years, and we have seen energy costs 
rise and rise and rise under their leadership; and we have seen their 
policy, which is to give more subsidies and more tax breaks to Big Oil, 
and they have fought us consistently in trying to invest resources into 
alternative sources of energy, into forms of energy to help make us 
more independent from foreign oil.
  Speaker Pelosi called on President Bush to suspend purchases of oil 
from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve temporarily. You know, filling the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve, Mr. Speaker, takes 70,000 barrels of oil 
off the market each day even though the reserve is 97 percent full with 
enough to meet our national security needs. That's a good idea. 
Republicans opposed that.
  At a time of record gas prices, suspending these government 
purchases, as we have done in the past, could reduce gas prices by 5 to 
24 cents a gallon, a critical first step for America's families, 
businesses and the economy.
  For years, Mr. Speaker, Democrats fought to reduce our dependence on 
foreign oil and bring down gas prices and launch a cleaner, smarter 
energy future for America. Yet with Republican obstructionism, American 
consumers and businesses have had more pain at the pump paying a record 
$3.56 a gallon.
  President Bush and congressional Republicans have spent all of their 
time in power doling out billions and billions and billions of dollars 
in subsidies to big oil companies instead of working for energy 
independence plans for America.
  We have had a number of important pieces of legislation that we have 
brought to the floor such as H.R. 1252, the Federal Price Gouging 
Prevention Act, to crack down on gas price gouging, something that is a 
reality in this market.

                              {time}  1430

  It was opposed by 140 Republicans.
  We had a bill, H.R. 2264, the No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels 
Act, to hold OPEC accountable for oil price fixing. That was opposed by 
67 Republicans, including almost the entire Republican leadership.
  We have had a bill to repeal the subsidies to profit-rich big oil 
companies and invest in renewable energy, which was H.R. 5351, the 
Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008. It passed on 
February 27, 236-182. One hundred seventy-four Republicans opposed 
that, including the President of the United States. Now, get this, Mr. 
Speaker, the Republicans have opposed a measure that would take away 
the taxpayer-funded subsidies from the five biggest oil companies in 
this country that are making record profits, historic profits, it would 
take those subsidies and put it into renewable energy to help us become 
more energy independent, and they opposed it, and the President said he 
would veto it. And they have stopped progress on that measure.
  They opposed the Energy Independence and Security Act, which would be 
an energy independence law with a market manipulation ban and new 
vehicle mileage standards. Again, the majority of the Republicans stood 
up and opposed these commonsense measures to help us become more energy 
independent and to help bring these gas prices down.
  So their record is clear. It has been one of obstructionism. And it 
has been a record that has always been in the corner of Big Oil and 
against investing properly in some of these new technologies.
  So President Bush and the Republicans have blocked our efforts 
virtually every step of the way. I hope that that will change after the 
next election. I expect that will change after the next election. But 
it is time for the Republicans to change their habit of saying ``no'' 
to consumers and American business on gas prices and always saying 
``yes'' to Big Oil.
  Enough is enough. It is time for House Republicans to provide the 
critical votes needed for a veto-proof majority for the legislation 
that I have outlined here today.
  Americans are paying a heavy price for the obstructionism of the 
Republicans in this Congress and the President of the United States. 
They don't want to give any more taxpayer subsidies to the big oil 
companies. They want us to redirect those resources into commonsense, 
clean, renewable, alternative sources of energy. If we do that, Mr. 
Speaker, then we will get these gas prices under control, and we will 
also take a big step forward in cleaning up our environment.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous 
question and on the rule.

   Amendment To H. Res. 1157 Offered By Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balarat of 
                                Florida

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution or the operation of the previous question, it 
     shall be in order to consider any amendment to the substitute 
     which the proponent asserts, if enacted, would have the 
     effect of lowering the national average price per gallon of 
     regular unleaded gasoline. Such amendments shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for thirty minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question in the House 
     or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against 
     such amendments are waived except those arising under clause 
     9 of rule XXI.
       Sec. 4. Within five legislative days the Speaker shall 
     introduce a bill, the title of which is as follows: ``A bill 
     to provide a common sense plan to help bring down 
     skyrocketing gas prices.'' Such bill shall be referred to the 
     appropriate committees of jurisdiction pursuant to clause 1 
     of rule X.
       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous

[[Page H2894]]

     question is defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading 
     opposition member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who 
     then manages an hour of debate and may offer a germane 
     amendment to the pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________