[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 30, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H2909-H2922]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COMBUSTIBLE DUST EXPLOSION AND FIRE PREVENTION ACT OF 2008
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1157 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. 5522.
{time} 1646
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. 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, with Mrs.
Christensen 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. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5522, the Combustible Dust
Explosion and Fire Prevention Act of 2008.
On February 7 of this year, a huge explosion ripped through the
Imperial Sugar refinery in Port Wentworth, Georgia. Eight workers died
instantly, and five more have died in the months since the explosion
from the horrific
[[Page H2910]]
burns that they suffered. More than sixty workers were injured, some so
seriously that they will never fully recover. This was a terrible
disaster, one of our Nation's worst workplace tragedies of the past
decade.
The cause of the explosion was combustible sugar dust. It may
surprise many of us that sugar dust can explode with such violence. But
it can, and so can many other dusts that are commonly found in U.S.
industrial sites.
In 2003, three fatal dust explosions occurred in the United States,
killing 14 workers. The U.S. Chemical Safety Board investigated these
incidents. The board examined whether these tragedies were just
coincidences or a major national problem. The Chemical Safety Board
also examined whether there were adequate laws to protect workers or
whether new protections were needed. The Chemical Safety Board found
that these explosions were not coincidences. In fact, between 1980 and
2005, 119 workers had been killed and 718 injured in dust explosions
that had also extensively damaged the industrial facilities. The
Chemical Safety Board also found that there were no enforceable
national regulations to prevent combustible dust incidents. Let me
repeat that. The Chemical Safety Board also found that there were no
enforceable national regulations to prevent combustible dust incidents.
The Chemical Safety Board concluded that controlling combustible dust
explosions isn't a mystery. In fact, the first National Fire Protection
Association standards to prevent combustible dust explosions were
issued in 1923. In November of 2006, the Chemical Safety Board, an
independent Federal agency whose members were all appointed by
President George W. Bush, concluded that the only way to prevent more
worker deaths was for OSHA to issue a comprehensive standard covering
combustible dust. That was in November of 2006. But to this day, OSHA
has taken no action to issue a standard. In fact, OSHA has refused to
act despite the fact that 70 more combustible dust explosions have
occurred since 2006.
Even now, after 13 needless deaths in Georgia, OSHA demonstrates no
understanding of the urgency of this problem. This is a shocking
failure by the very governmental agency responsible for keeping workers
safe.
Sadly, this isn't the only time that OSHA has failed to act on a
Chemical Safety Board recommendation, and it's not the only time where
the result of that inaction has been the death of American workers. The
Chemical Safety Board warned OSHA in 2002 that new rules were needed to
prevent reactive chemical explosions, but OSHA refused to act. Then
last December a reactive chemical explosion in Jacksonville, Florida,
killed four workers.
Because OSHA refused to act, Congress must now act. Congressman John
Barrow and I have introduced H.R. 5522 to force OSHA to do the job it
should have done on its own. The legislation will require OSHA to issue
an interim standard on combustible dust within 90 days and a permanent
standard within 18 months. It would require OSHA to base the new
standard on the National Fire Protection Association standards.
OSHA says that the combustible dust hazards are already covered by
numerous existing regulations. But that simply is not true. Most of the
existing standards do not even mention the word ``dust'' and do nothing
to educate or inform employers and employees how to prevent combustible
dust explosions. Existing OSHA standards also do not address what
levels of dust are safe, how to clean the dust safely, or how to
prevent dust from accumulating to unsafe levels.
And it is not true, as opponents of this bill say, that we don't
allow for public input. In fact, OSHA would have to conduct full public
hearings and a small business review but to do so on an expedited basis
that reflects the life-or-death urgency of this issue.
Because of the serious hazards imposed by combustible dust, because
OSHA has issued no major standard during this administration except
under pressure of the courts or the Congress, and because OSHA is
unable to meet the regulatory deadlines it sets for itself, it is
necessary to set some tight deadlines for action.
It is also not true that this bill requires OSHA to adopt the
National Fire Protection Association standards. The bill requires OSHA
to include only the relevant and appropriate provisions of the National
Fire Protection Association combustible dust standards. While the
National Fire Protection Association standards have proven to be
effective, OSHA should use its discretion, after full public hearings
and comments, to determine how the National Fire Protection Association
guidelines should be used in a final standard.
You will hear opponents of this measure say we should wait until the
OSHA investigation is completed and the results of OSHA's current
National Emphasis Program are in. But we have waited long enough. And,
in fact, again, the Chemical Safety Board recommendations predate that
accident based upon the urgent need for these regulations to save
American workers' lives and to prevent their injuries prior to that
time.
Again, if OSHA doesn't act, we must. We know that most businesses are
doing the best they can to make their workplace safe. But it is also
clear that other businesses may not be doing enough to ensure the
safety of their employees. The bottom line is that workers need
protection and the agency established by Congress 37 years ago to
protect workers has once again failed in that duty.
The goal today is to protect workers from those preventable
explosions, and we believe that this legislation accomplishes that goal
without imposing unreasonable burdens on employers.
I want to leave the House with the closing words of a witness who
appeared before the Education and Labor Committee, Tammy Miser. Tammy
Miser's brother, Shawn Boone, was killed in a combustible dust
explosion in 2003. Tammy recounted the terrible suffering that her
brother went through before he died, her hopes that something would
happen after the Chemical Safety Board recommendations were issued, and
her disappointment that OSHA has yet to act, even after the Imperial
Sugar explosion.
Tammy left us with this one request: ``that you not let our loved
ones die in vain and help us keep other families safe from the dangers
of combustible dust.''
It's the least we can do for Shawn Boone, the workers in Port
Wentworth, and the many other workers who have needlessly lost their
lives.
Madam Chairman, I strongly urge that all of my colleagues will
support H.R. 5522.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise in opposition to the bill at this time and in this form.
Consideration of this bill is a somber occurrence. It reminds us that
less than 3 months ago, workers at the Imperial Sugar refinery in Port
Wentworth, Georgia, lost their lives to a tragic workplace accident.
Even today many others remain injured.
As with any workplace accident of this magnitude, the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA, was dispatched to the scene
to investigate what went wrong. Preliminary reports indicate that the
explosion was linked to combustible dust, a known hazard for which at
least 17 OSHA standards currently apply.
OSHA has 6 months to complete its investigation, a time frame that I
think is appropriate for any injury of this seriousness. I expect that
investigation to provide us a thorough, candid examination of exactly
what went wrong so that steps can be taken to prevent such an accident
in the future.
Among the first questions OSHA needs to answer is whether existing
safety guidelines were followed at the Imperial refinery. This question
is fundamental. It will tell us whether the cause of this accident was
a lack of sufficient safety standards or a failure to follow the
standards that exist.
The bill before us today presumes that current safety standards were
insufficient. But the truth is we don't yet know whether that is the
case. Less than 3 months after the accident, OSHA has not even had an
opportunity to complete its investigation. We cannot possibly provide
effective new safety standards when we don't know which standards, if
any, we're lacking.
[[Page H2911]]
I understand why we're here today. Like Chairman Miller;
Representatives Barrow and Kingston, who represent the refinery and
surrounding areas; and all Members of this body, I grieve for the
workers who lost their lives. But making an end run around a proven
process for establishing workplace safety guidelines is the wrong
answer at the wrong time.
The bill before us proposes a highly proscriptive regulatory mandate
in an excruciatingly compressed time frame. More concerning still,
OSHA, the agency that would be responsible for implementing these new
requirements, does not believe this bill will produce the most
effective safety measures.
{time} 1700
Of course, this is not to say that we should do nothing in the face
of such an accident. To the contrary. I believe OSHA has a
responsibility to complete a thorough, aggressive investigation of the
accident at the Imperial Sugar refinery to determine its causes and
consider whether additional regulatory guidance is needed. If it
becomes clear that existing standards are ineffective, OSHA should move
forward with a robust regulatory process that provides clearer, more
effective guidance on combustible dust.
I want to be clear on this point. This bill at this time, and in this
form, is not the only opportunity to strengthen safety standards for
combustible dust. OSHA itself has not ruled out additional regulations
if it becomes clear that the 17 existing standards that apply to
workplaces with combustible dust hazards are not effective or clear
enough to protect workers.
The danger of combustible dust in the workplace is a serious concern,
and I am committed to appropriate and effective safety measures. That
is why we plan to offer an alternative proposal today that calls for a
more comprehensive approach that would include stakeholder input and
expertise in any regulatory action that may be needed.
We had hoped to see another amendment made in order, as proposed by
Representative Kingston. Because of the compressed timetable in the
bill, OSHA will not have to take into account economic feasibility of
the standard. Mr. Kingston's amendment would have simply asked that a
study on the job losses resulting from the standard be reported to
Congress. Surely it would not have been too much to ask whether
Congress was exacerbating job losses in an already weakening economy.
But, unfortunately, that amendment was not made in order.
Still, I continue to believe we can work together in good faith to
protect worker safety without undermining the proven road to developing
effective, enforceable safety protections.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Woolsey), the Chair of the subcommittee.
Ms. WOOLSEY. This past Monday was Workers Memorial Day. Workers
Memorial Day is the day when we remember those who have lost their
lives or have been injured as a result of unsafe health and safety
conditions in the workplace. On Workers Memorial Day we also recommit
to the fight for safe working conditions for every single worker in
America.
So, Madam Chairwoman, it's fitting that today we are considering H.R.
5522, the Worker Protection Against Combustible Dust Explosions and
Fires Act, which was introduced by Chairman Miller and Representative
Barrow, a bill that requires OSHA to develop a standard for combustible
dust. I am proud to be a cosponsor of that bill, and I want to commend
Chairman Miller and Representative Barrow because they introduced it.
Like other Members of Congress, I was absolutely shocked and saddened
by the combustible dust explosion at the Imperial Sugar Company in Port
Wentworth, Georgia, which resulted in 13 deaths and 60 injuries. My
heart goes out to the families of those who died, and my hopes and
prayers, all of our hopes and prayers are with those workers who were
seriously injured. The survivors have a tough road ahead of them.
Unfortunately, Madam Chairwoman, this explosion, like so many other
workplace incidents that have occurred lately, could have been
prevented. That is the most important part of it. It didn't need to
happen. Lives were senselessly lost, and more workers remain in
critical condition.
That is why immediately after the explosion, Chairman Miller and I
sent a letter to OSHA demanding that the agency begin work on a
standard for combustible dust. Such a standard was recommended not last
year, but longer than that ago, a year and a half ago, at least, by the
Chemical Safety Board. That is an independent Federal agency charged
with investigating chemical accidents. But OSHA has failed to act on
this recommendation, and unfortunately, but not surprisingly, OSHA has
failed to respond to our letter in a timely manner.
So that is why we in Congress need to act, and we need to act now. We
must act just as we did when we passed H.R. 2693, the Popcorn Lung
Disease Prevention Act. That was legislation that 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, a chemical that was killing and injuring workers.
I wish that we could trust OSHA under this administration to do the
job that was laid out for them. But we cannot. So that is why I urge my
colleagues to pass H.R. 5522. Take care of our workers.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I yield to the subcommittee ranking
member that has jurisdiction over this issue, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Kline), such time as he may consume.
Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Chairman, I rise in support of workplace safety, but in
opposition to H.R. 5522, the Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire
Prevention Act. We all share, I believe, the common goal of working to
protect employees from hazards in the workplace. The accident at the
Imperial Sugar refinery in Georgia is a tragedy. It must be fully
investigated. The Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health
Administration has undertaken the investigation that, by law, must be
completed within 6 months. The results of this investigation will help
identify the cause of the Imperial Sugar accident.
I appreciate the concern about workers' safety, but as lawmakers, we
have the responsibility to debate and enact laws that are reasonable.
The bill before us today is an impulsive attempt to rush into action
before OSHA can complete the investigation.
Under this bill, OSHA will be required to adopt an interim rule
within 90 days of enactment and a final rule within 18 months. This
accelerated time frame is not only unrealistic, but would also deny
stakeholder input ranging from industry, to academia, to organized
labor, and other groups who could provide important and insightful
contributions. By undermining the process, this legislation could have
negative consequences and actually undercut workers' safety.
In a letter to the committee dated April 8, 2008, the Department of
Labor's Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health, Edwin
Foulke, states: ``The time constraints of this legislation would give
OSHA no choice but to ignore other statutory and regulatory
requirements for rulemaking under the Occupational Safety and Health
Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Administrative Procedures Act,
numerous executive orders, and Office of Management and Budget
bulletins and guidelines.''
H.R. 5522 also disregards the preventive efforts that have been under
way well before the tragic accident in Georgia. Last year, based on the
recommendations by the Chemical Safety Board, OSHA initiated a National
Emphasis Program that aims to identify any gaps that may exist among
the standards that currently apply to workplaces with combustible dust.
While OSHA's opinion has been dismissed by the other side, yesterday
the President issued a veto threat, reiterating serious concerns with
this hasty regulatory proposal.
Again, we should not rush to legislative action. Rather, we should
take the time to thoroughly and thoughtfully review all the facts. I
urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow), the cosponsor of this
legislation.
[[Page H2912]]
Mr. BARROW. I thank Chairman Miller.
Madam Chairman, what we have learned in my community since the
Imperial disaster hit us is the experts have known about this problems
for decades. There have been voluntary standards that effectively deal
with this problem, but not enough people even know about the problem,
much less the solutions, and those who do know about the solutions,
aren't required to adopt them.
We have also learned that the only standards that are mandatory
really aren't designed with this problem in mind in the first place,
and they aren't working. So we have good standards that are not
mandatory and inadequate standards that are mandatory.
Up until now, the argument has been between those who say we wouldn't
go too fast in developing a national standard and those who argue we
are going too slow. There are those who argue the costs of a
comprehensive solution outweigh the benefits. I disagree. I say that if
we can prevent just one of these disasters from happening, if we can
prevent just one family from having to go through what families at
Imperial Sugar are still going through, it would all be worth it.
But don't take my word for it. The Savannah Morning News reported
this morning that the chairman and chief executive officer of the
National Safety Board believes this bill will, and I quote, ``would
save lives.'' He believes that the measure ``is good for business and
the corporate world should support it.''
He told the editorial board back home, ``I wish I could take 50
business people at a time to the refinery and have them take a look at
the destruction. This is what your facility could look like if you
don't take care of the dust.'' Mr. Bresland ought to know what he's
talking about. He's not a bureaucrat, he's a ``hard-headed businessman
from the corporate world'' who worked for many years at Honeywell
International. He is right. This bill isn't just good government, it's
also good business.
I commend Chairman Miller and Ms. Woolsey for their hard work in
support of this bill, and I urge my colleagues to join us and vote in
favor of it.
Mr. McKEON. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), who
represents constituents that work in this sugar factory, and has been
dealing with this problem now for 3 months. I am happy to yield him 4
minutes.
Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the ranking member and I thank the chairman of
the committee, and my colleagues, Mr. Barrow and Ms. Woolsey, for their
work on this. While I support many of the points of the ranking member,
I believe that this bill is a step in the right direction and something
that we are just going to have to push OSHA on.
The Imperial Sugar explosion, of course, was a very tragic accident,
of which Mr. Barrow and I were involved in it. I actually was there the
night that it happened and he and I went there for several days
afterwards to look at the damage. I met with many of the families. It's
a very sad thing. Sometimes in a situation like that it's hard to be
objective in terms of what to support and what not to support, or what
to change, especially since we don't know the exact cause of the
accident; if any of the existing standards, for example, were violated,
if a new standard would have prevented it, or if this is going to boil
down to housekeeping, in which there would already be a violation and
something a new standard or an old standard cannot address because the
employer did not do what the employer is supposed to do, which would be
to keep the workplace clean.
I share the goal of comprehensive worker safety, but sometimes the
history of legislating it shows that if we move too quickly, then you
might not get the goal that you want to do. Throughout its history,
OSHA standards set in process has been governed by the Administrative
Procedures Act. This generally requires a Federal agency to develop and
draft proposed regulations, issue proposed rules and regulations in a
transparent process that allows for comment and input from the
stakeholders and incorporate any appropriate stakeholders' comments in
the publication of the final rule.
The bill was improved greatly with the Woolsey substitute. That
substitute moved more of the capital and equipment-intensive mandates
to the final rule rather than the interim rule, including engineering,
administration, workplace practices. It also moved the reference to the
NFPA, the National Fire Protection Act, from the interim to the final
rule, and making the language more flexible. Those were very good
improvements. Lastly, it required that the 18-month final rule be made
under the normal rule making process.
Now I understand that the chairman may offer further improvements
during the floor debate tonight that may include making engineering
controls required under the interim standard effective 6 months after
the issuance of the interim rather than 30 days under the base bill in
clarifying that the standard must be promulgated in accordance with
normal OSHA rulemaking procedure including that that provides for the
review of small businesses.
I think that that might a good step because the more input you get
from the business community, the labor community, and the users, I
think the better. That's why I offered an amendment that would have
said that we should consider if there will be any job loss because of
these rules or because of the interim rules. I was very disappointed
that the Rules Committee did not allow my amendment to be considered on
the floor because I think it would have been very helpful and something
that certainly would have given bipartisan support to it.
{time} 1715
One thing I also want to point out, OSHA can actually make rules
themselves. The Assistant Secretary, Mr. Foulke, has stated, ``We have
not ruled out the possibility of doing rulemaking, and that is an
option for us still. But we are just trying to collect the data through
the National Emphasis Program where we look at sites and determine do
our standards actually cover what we need to cover? Or are there some
holes in the coverage that we may need to address, and would a
comprehensive standard address that.''
So we need to remember that if this bill gets bogged down somewhere
along the line, that OSHA itself probably will come out with some sort
of rule modification which could be helpful.
We have talked about the grain standard being a good standard.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia's time has expired.
Mr. McKEON. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. KINGSTON. The leadership of the committee has said that the grain
standard works fairly well. But I want to point out that this took 7
years, so maybe the reason the grain standard is working so well is
that it took a long time and lots of input to pass. I would hope that
we could take the lessons of the grain standard and not have to wait
anywhere near 7 years, but say, hey, that will has already been
invented. Let's apply what we found on the grain standard to this. I am
hoping that the chairman's amendment addresses some of those things,
but I am also confident that the Senate is going to do it as well.
Let me close by saying I believe under these circumstances that the
committee has done a good job. I think there has been some solid input
from the minority, and the majority has been listening. I do plan to
support the bill, but I do think we have a lot more that we could do to
improve it.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of
H.R. 5522, the Worker Protection Against Combustible Dust Explosion and
Fire Act of 2008. This bill would require the U.S. Occupational Safety
and Health Administration, OSHA, to issue rules regulating combustible
industrial dusts, like sugar dust, that can build up to hazardous
levels and explode.
Opponents of this bill claim that OSHA has enough existing standard
and education materials to protect workers. However, I would strongly
argue that the absence of clear OSHA standards puts thousands of
American workers and innocent bystanders at risk from workplace
hazards. Unfortunately, I have an example to back up my statement.
On December 19, 2007 there was a chemical explosion at the T2
Laboratories in Jacksonville, Florida. According to the U.S. Chemical
Safety Board, CSB, this explosion was one of the worse chemical
accidents in their
[[Page H2913]]
10-year history. Unfortunately, this isn't an isolated incident. A year
earlier, there was another explosion in Daytona Beach at the Bethune
Point Wastewater Plant. These two incidents demonstrate a critical need
for stronger OSHA regulations.
In 2002, following a series of fatal explosions and a large number of
deaths and injuries caused by runaway chemical reactions, the CSB
issued a report concluding that reactive incidents are ``a significant
chemical safety problem'' and that OSHA's Process Safety Management
Standard, PSM standard, has ``significant gaps in coverage of reactive
hazards.'' The study identified 167 serious reactive chemical accidents
resulting in 108 fatalities in the U.S. over a 20 year period. The CSB
therefore recommended that OSHA amend the PSM standard to better
control reactive chemical hazards.
Reactive hazards rulemaking had been on OSHA's agenda during the
Clinton administration as a result of a number of fatalities and a
labor union petition, but the Bush administration removed it from the
regulatory agenda.
OSHA's mission is to ensure employee safety and health and as OSHA is
watching the progress of H.R. 5522, I ask that they review the 2002
recommendations by the Chemical Safety Board and revise the Process
Safety Management standards to prevent further workplace accidents.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of
this bill to improve worker protections.
The Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Prevention Act would force
the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration to issue rules
regulating combustible industrial dusts, like sugar dust, that can
build up to hazardous levels and explode.
While OSHA already has the authority to issue such a rule without
Congress passing new legislation, the agency has failed to act despite
the fact that the dangers of combustible dust have been well known for
years.
In 2006, following a series of fatal combustible dust explosions, the
U.S. Chemical Safety Board conducted a major study of combustible dust
hazards.
It identified 281 combustible dust incidents between 1980 and 2005
that killed 119 workers, injured 718 others, and extensively damaged
industrial facilities.
Time and time again we have seen this administration fail to take
necessary actions to protect workers, and without action by Congress,
it appears OSHA has no plans to act on combustible dust regulation.
As recently as February of this year, we saw the tragedy that can be
caused by combustible dust explosions. The combustible dust explosion
at the Imperial Sugar Company in Port Wentworth, Georgia, was a
senseless tragedy that, like similar incidents, could have been
prevented with OSHA regulation and oversight.
The bill has three main components. First, it directs OSHA to issue
interim rules on combustible dust within 90 days. Second, it directs
OSHA to issue final rules within 18 months. The rules would be based on
effective voluntary standards devised by the National Fire Protection
Association, a nonprofit organization, and in addition to items
required in the interim rules, would include requirements for building
design and explosion protection. Lastly, it directs OSHA to revise the
Hazard Communication Standard to include combustible dusts.
Madam Chairman, I urge my colleague to join me in supporting this
resolution to make sure OSHA takes necessary actions to protect
workers.
Mr. BACA. Madam Chairman, I rise today to speak in support of H.R.
5522, the Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Prevention Act of 2008.
H.R. 5522 would direct OSHA to improve engineering controls, and
worker training.
OSHA would be directed to issue a final standard to include
requirements for building design and explosion protection within 18
months; and to include combustible dusts in the Hazardous Communication
Standard.
This bill reduces workplace hazards; Workers have a right to work in
a safe environment with trustworthy safety standards;
Workers should not have to fear dust explosions or resultant fires;
In February, 6 people died and 42 were injured when sugar dust
exploded in a silo at Imperial Sugar Company's largest refinery in
Savannah, Georgia.
Families should not have to worry that their loved one will not
return home due to a dust explosion.
OSHA must immediately protect workers in these plants.
I urge your support of H.R. 5522.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong
support of H.R. 5522, requiring the Secretary of Labor to issue interim
and final occupational safety and health standards regarding worker
exposure to combustible dust, and for other purposes. I would like to
thank my distinguished colleague from California, Chairman of the
Committee on Education and Labor, Representative George Miller for his
leadership on this important issue.
The Worker Protection Against Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Act
requires the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA,
to issue rules regulating combustible industrial dusts, like sugar
dust, that can build up to hazardous levels and explode. There are
numerous occasions in recent history where combustible dust levels have
resulted in explosions, killing and injuring numerous workers. On
February 7, 2008, the Imperial Sugar refinery in Port Wentworth,
Georgia, exploded, killing 13 workers and seriously injuring more than
60 others in a combustible dust explosion. The tragedy at Imperial
Sugar shows that the threat of dust explosions is very real at
industrial worksites across America and needs to be addressed
immediately.
In 2003, there were a total of 3 catastrophic dust explosions that
resulted in the death of 14 workers. These explosions prompted the
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, CSB, to issue a report
in November 2006, identifying 281 conbustible dust incidents between
1980 and 2005 that resulted in the death of 119 workers and injured
718. The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board concluded their
report finding, ``combustible dust explosions are a serious hazard in
American industry.'' Since 2001, in case after case and industry after
industry,
Since 2001, in case after case and industry after industry, OSHA has
chosen to emphasize voluntary compliance over setting strong rules and
enforcing them. Effective voluntary guidelines to control combustible
dust hazards and prevent dust explosions already exist. But in order to
truly protect workers, OSHA needs an enforceable standard in order to
ensure industry compliance and to protect workers. Without an OSHA
standard, many employers are unaware of the hazards of combustible
dusts, while others have chosen not to adopt voluntary standards.
This important act directs OSHA to issue an interim final Combustible
Dust standard within 90 days. The standard would include measures to
minimize hazards associated with combustible dust through improved
housekeeping, engineering controls, worker training and a written
combustible dust safety program. This legislation also directs OSHA to
issue a final standard within 18 months and fulfill all administrative
rulemaking requirements including full public hearings, feasibility
analysis and small business review. Lastly, H.R. 5522 directs OSHA to
include combustible dusts in the Hazard Communication Standard which
requires workers to receive information and training about the hazards
they face on their jobs daily.
In addition, I would like to have seen companies submit
certifications showing that they are in compliance of these sets of
standards. This recommendation would ensure that companies follow the
criteria outlined within this bill by certifying compliance. Also, the
Secretary of Labor should do continuous inspections during the initial
months of enactment, to ensure companies are in compliance.
Madam Chairman, this important legislation requiring the Secretary of
Labor to issue interim and final occupational safety and health
standards regarding worker exposure to combustible dust, and for other
purposes, is necessary in order to protect Americans across the Nation.
This important Act will help to prevent further accidents from
occurring within the workplace. For these reasons, I strongly support
H.R. 5522 and urge all members to do the same.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield back the balance of my time.
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. 5522
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 ``Combustible Dust Explosion
and Fire Prevention Act of 2008''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) An emergency exists concerning worker exposure to
combustible dust explosions and fires.
(2) 13 workers were killed and more than 60 seriously
injured in a catastrophic combustible dust explosion at
Imperial Sugar in Port Wentworth, Georgia on February 7,
2008.
(3) Following 3 catastrophic dust explosions that killed 14
workers in 2003, the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation
Board (CSB)
[[Page H2914]]
issued a report in November 2006, which identified 281
combustible dust incidents between 1980 and 2005 that killed
119 workers and injured 718. The CSB concluded that
``combustible dust explosions are a serious hazard in
American industry''.
(4) A quarter of the explosions occurred at food industry
facilities, including sugar plants. Seventy additional
combustible dust explosions have occurred since 2005.
(5) Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) often do not
adequately address the hazards of combustible dusts, and the
OSHA Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) inadequately
addresses dust explosion hazards and fails to ensure that
safe work practices and guidance documents are included in
MSDSs.
(6) The CSB recommended that OSHA issue a standard designed
to prevent combustible dust fires and explosions in general
industry, based on current National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) dust explosion standards.
(7) The CSB also recommended that OSHA revise the Hazard
Communication Standard (HCS) (1910.1200) to clarify that
combustible dusts are covered and that Material Safety Data
Sheets contain information about the hazards and physical
properties of combustible dusts.
(8) OSHA has not initiated rulemaking in response to the
CSB's recommendation.
(9) OSHA issued a grain handling facilities standard (29
C.F.R. 1910.272), in 1987 that has proven highly effective in
reducing the risk of combustible grain dust explosions,
according to an OSHA evaluation.
(10) No Occupational Safety and Health Administration
standard comprehensively addresses combustible dust explosion
hazards in general industry.
(11) Voluntary National Fire Protection Association
standards exist which, when implemented, effectively reduce
the likelihood and impact of combustible dust explosions.
SEC. 3. ISSUANCE OF STANDARD ON COMBUSTIBLE DUST.
(a) Interim Standard.--
(1) Application and 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 combustible
dusts. The interim final standard shall, at a minimum, apply
to manufacturing, processing, blending, conveying,
repackaging, and handling of combustible particulate solids
and their dusts, including organic dusts (such as sugar,
candy, paper, soap, and dried blood), plastics, sulfur, wood,
rubber, furniture, textiles, pesticides, pharmaceuticals,
fibers, dyes, coal, metals (such as aluminum, chromium, iron,
magnesium, and zinc), fossil fuels, and others determined by
the Secretary, but shall not apply to processes already
covered by OSHA's standard on grain facilities (29 C.F.R.
1910.272).
(2) Requirements.--The interim final standard required
under this subsection shall include the following:
(A) Requirements for hazard assessment to identify,
evaluate, and control combustible dust hazards.
(B) Requirements for a written program that includes
provisions for hazardous dust inspection, testing, hot work,
ignition control, and housekeeping, including the frequency
and method or methods used to minimize accumulations of
combustible dust on ledges, floors, equipment, and other
exposed surfaces.
(C) Requirements for engineering, administrative controls,
and operating procedures, such as means to control fugitive
dust emissions and ignition sources, the safe use and
maintenance of dust producing and dust collection systems and
filters, minimizing horizontal surfaces where dust can
accumulate, and sealing of areas inaccessible to
housekeeping.
(D) Requirements for housekeeping to prevent accumulation
of combustible dust in places of employment in such depths
that it can present explosion, deflagration, or other fire
hazards, including safe methods of dust removal.
(E) Requirements for employee participation in hazard
assessment, development of and compliance with the written
program, and other elements of hazard management.
(F) Requirements to provide written safety and health
information and annual training to employees, including
housekeeping procedures, hot work procedures, preventive
maintenance procedures, common ignition sources, and lock-
out, tag-out procedures.
(3) Procedure.--The requirements in this subsection shall
take effect without regard to the procedural requirements
applicable to regulations promulgated under section 6(b) of
the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C.
655(b)) or the procedural requirements of chapter 5 of title
5, United States Code.
(4) Effective date of interim standard.--The interim final
standard shall take effect 30 days after 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.--
(1) Rulemaking.--Not later than 18 months 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
combustible dust explosions.
(2) Requirements.--The final standard required under this
subsection shall include the following:
(A) The scope described in subsection (a)(1).
(B) The worker protection provisions in subsection (a)(2).
(C) Requirements for managing change of dust producing
materials, technology, equipment, staffing, and procedures.
(D) Requirements for building design such as explosion
venting, ducting, and sprinklers.
(E) Requirements for explosion protection, including
separation and segregation of the hazard.
(F) Relevant and appropriate provisions of National Fire
Protection Association combustible dust standards, including
the ``Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions
from the Manufacturing, Processing, and Handling of
Combustible Particulate Solids'' (NFPA 654), ``Standard for
Combustible Metals'' (NFPA 484), and ``Standard for the
Prevention of Fires and Dust Explosions in Agricultural and
Food Processing Facilities'' (NFPA 61).
SEC. 4. REVISION OF THE HAZARD COMMUNICATION STANDARD.
(a) Revision Required.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, not later than 6 months after the date of enactment
of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall revise the hazard
communication standard in section 1910.1200 of title 29, Code
of Federal Regulations, by amending the definition of
``physical hazard'' in subsection (c) of such section to
include ``a combustible dust'' as an additional example of
such a hazard.
(b) Effect of Modifications.--The modification under this
section shall be in force until superseded in whole or in
part by regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Labor
under section 6(b) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act
of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655(b)) and shall be enforced in the same
manner and to the same extent as any rule or regulation
promulgated under section 6(b).
(c) Effective Date.--The modification to the hazard
communication standard required shall take effect within 30
days after the publication of the revised rule.
The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in House Report
110-613. Each amendment may 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 110-613.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam 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 2, beginning on line 4, strike ``Combustible Dust''
and all that follows through ``Act'' on line 5, and insert
``Worker Protection Against Combustible Dust Explosions and
Fires Act''.
Page 5, line 22, insert ``controls (which requirements
shall be effective 6 months after the date on which the
interim standard is issued)'' after ``engineering''.
Page 7, line 4, strike ``The'' and insert ``Except as
specified in paragraph (2)(C) with regards to engineering
controls, the''.
Page 8, beginning on line 8, strike ``, including'' and all
that follows through line 15 and insert a period.
Page 8, after line 15, insert the following:
(3) Procedure.--The final standard required by this
subsection shall be promulgated in accordance with the
procedural requirements for rulemaking under section 6(b) of
the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C.
655(b)) and under title 5, United States Code, including the
requirements relating to small businesses in chapter 6 of
such title.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1157, the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 4
minutes.
This manager's amendment is offered because during the drafting and
the refining of this bill we have had numerous extensive conversations
with OSHA, with its technical staff and with affected industry
associations about problematic issues. Our goal is to save workers
lives, but also make these OSHA standards workable for businesses who
need to implement them. To that end, the manager's amendment makes four
adjustments to the bill:
One, several industry associations were concerned that the short 1-
month effective date on the interim standards was too short to make
some of the capital improvements that may be needed for engineering
controls. The manager's amendment therefore provides for engineering
controls required by
[[Page H2915]]
the interim standards shall be effective 6 months after the issuance of
the standard, rather than 30 days.
Because emphasizing specific National Fire Protection Association
standards was seen as putting more emphasis on some than on others that
were not mentioned, the manager's amendment maintains the provisions
that OSHA shall include appropriate and relevant National Fire
Protection Association standards in its final standards, but eliminates
reference to specific National Fire Protection Association standards.
Then, because we want to make perfectly clear that OSHA is expected
to conduct a full review of small business impacts of this standard,
the manager's amendment clarifies that the final standard shall be
conducted in accordance with the usual rulemaking procedural
requirements, including those that provide for a small business review.
Finally, it changes the title to ``The Worker Protection Against
Combustible Dust Explosions and Fires Act.''
I would encourage all of my colleagues to support the manager's
amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
bill, although I do not expect to oppose it.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from California is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, although the changes in this amendment
are modest, they are a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, they
simply do not go far enough.
Specifically, this amendment includes a cosmetic change to the
requirement that OSHA include National Fire Protection Association
standards among its new mandates. As Chairman Miller knows, the NFPA
standards are voluntary guidelines that offer a far more complex,
stringent protocol that may be adopted in whole or in part by industry
participants. These guidelines play an important role as voluntary
practices that can enhance safety efforts, but they are entirely
inappropriate as a replacement for effective OSHA rulemaking.
So while I appreciate that this amendment removes a direct mandate
for a specific NFPA standard, I remain deeply concerned that the
amendment retains the requirement that OSHA include relevant and
appropriate NFPA standards in the final rule. I fear that this may be a
distinction without a difference.
The amendment includes other modest improvements, including a more
reasonable time frame for implementation of the engineering controls in
the interim standard. It also clarifies that the final rule would be
developed under more normal and inclusive procedures. Both of these
steps improve the underlying bill, but because they fail to fully
address concerns about the bill's abbreviated timeline, they are half
measures at best.
However, I do appreciate the gentleman's efforts, and I will support
the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded
vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California will be
postponed.
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 110-613.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment
made in order under the rule.
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:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. INVESTIGATION ON COMBUSTIBLE DUST AND
DETERMINATION OF ADDITIONAL ACTION.
(a) Determination by the Secretary.--Upon completion of the
Department of Labor's investigation of the accident that
occurred at Imperial Sugar in Port Wentworth, Georgia on
February 7, 2008, and based on the data gathered from the
Combustible Dust National Emphasis Program, the Secretary of
Labor shall determine--
(1) if the safety standards that are in effect as of the
date of enactment of this Act do not adequately address the
issue of combustible dust; and
(2) whether an occupational safety and health standard
regarding combustible dust is necessary.
(b) Rulemaking or Report to Congress.--If the Secretary
determines that an occupational safety and health standard
regarding combustible dust is necessary, the Secretary shall
promulgate a rule pursuant to section 6(b) of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 U.S.C. 655(b)) not
later than 36 months after the completion of the
investigation described in subsection (a). If the Secretary
determines that such a standard is not necessary, the
Secretary, not later than 6 months after making such a
determination, shall transmit a report to Congress that
specifically addresses the Secretary's reasons for
determining that a combustible dust standard is unnecessary.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1157, the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) and a Member opposed each will control 15
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
While I share the majority's commitment to ensuring workplace safety,
I believe the underlying bill fails to provide for the most effective
means to ensure that safety.
Currently, there are several initiatives concerning dust under way at
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA. Since October,
the agency has implemented a combustible dust National Emphasis
Program. This agency has sent high hazard alert letters to over 30,000
businesses emphasizing the need to prevent dust from accumulating.
Most importantly, OSHA is in the midst of the investigation of the
February disaster at the Imperial Sugar refinery. The Imperial Sugar
refinery in Georgia is located in a community adjacent to the Second
Congressional District of South Carolina, which I have the honor to
represent.
Instead of undermining the progress of existing combustible dust
safety efforts, this substitute requires the Department of Labor to
gather all necessary information about the Imperial refinery explosion
specifically, as well as the broader dust hazard being examined through
the National Emphasis Program. Once that information has been gathered
and analyzed, the Secretary of Labor will be able to determine whether
and what type of combustible dust standard is necessary.
Should the Secretary determine that existing safety requirements can
effectively protect against the combustible dust hazard, the Secretary
will be required to report to Congress as to why no new regulatory
framework is necessary. But if the National Emphasis Program and the
results of the Imperial refinery investigation show that additional
guidance and regulation are needed, this substitute requires OSHA to
complete a rigorous regulatory process that includes all relevant
stakeholders within a fixed time frame.
Our amendment will allow for the regulation to be completed
expeditiously and thoroughly without circumventing the Occupational
Safety and Health Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the
Administrative Procedures Act and other laws and regulations that
ensure effective Federal regulations.
We have heard concerns from OSHA that the underlying bill will be
difficult to comply with and difficult to enforce. This leaves workers
at risk. I have trust in my constituent, Monty Felix of Sandy Run,
South Carolina, who is the National President of the American
Composites Manufacturers Association, to promote safety. We need the
expertise of successful manufacturers.
Our goal today should be to move forward with the most effective
strategy to ensure a safe workplace. I believe this substitute achieves
that goal, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this
substitute.
I yield at this time to the ranking member from California (Mr.
McKeon).
[[Page H2916]]
Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman for yielding and I am pleased to
lend my support to this amendment.
As Representative Wilson has made clear, this amendment will ensure
OSHA takes the necessary steps to protect workers against the hazards
of combustible dust. It demands an aggressive investigation into the
Imperial Sugar refinery, it requires that OSHA utilize the findings of
its National Emphasis Program on dust hazards, and it calls for a
comprehensive, inclusive and effective standard to be established if it
becomes clear that existing safeguards are not protecting workers.
The amendment fulfills our shared commitment to workplace safety, and
it does so without undermining the credibility of the rulemaking
process. I urge its adoption.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition
to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 15 minutes.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Chairman, this amendment is an attempt to gut this legislation.
This amendment would have OSHA not only wait for the outcome of the
Imperial Sugar investigation, but also from findings from the
combustible dust National Emphasis Program before deciding on whether
or not to move forward. The National Emphasis Program could go on for
years before there are findings. In fact, at the end of the day, OSHA
could decide to do nothing.
To do nothing has turned out to be very expensive for the American
workers in those workplaces where there is combustible dust. The track
record is horrible with respect to OSHA preventing these dust
explosions from taking place. That is the reason that prior to the most
recent explosion that Mr. Barrow and I are trying to address, prior to
that, the Chemical Safety Board made a recommendation to OSHA that they
should promulgate these enforceable regulations, because there are no
enforceable regulations with respect to dust currently in effect,
except for what we did years ago in the grain industry.
{time} 1730
Except for what we did years ago in the grain industry, and that
dramatically reduced the number of incidents that took place. So to
adopt the Wilson amendment is to adopt a position to do nothing, and to
take an agency that has chosen time and again to do nothing in this
field that any way provides for enforceable regulations of this most
dangerous material when the workplace is not properly maintained and
preventible actions are taken. That is just not acceptable. That is not
acceptable in the name of the workers who died in the Port Wentworth
plant. It is unacceptable to the workers who died earlier from the
explosions.
OSHA has refused to act. They have not acted on a single standard in
the entire last 8 years unless they were prodded by the Congress or the
courts. So to now say that you are going to take the lives of American
workers and you are going to give those lives again back to OSHA, where
they have not seen any hazard, they have not seen any danger in spite
of the explosions is just the height of irresponsibility by this
Congress. And I would hope that the Congress would overwhelmingly
reject this amendment that allows OSHA to continue the status quo that
allows OSHA to continue its irresponsible position.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Chairman, I submit for the Record
a letter dated April 29, 2008, from the OSHA Fairness Coalition, which
is two dozen industry associations, relative to this issue.
OSHA Fairness Coalition,
April 29, 2008.
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
We write to express our strong opposition to the
Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Prevention Act of 2008,
H.R. 5522 which will be considered on the House floor this
week. While we were saddened to see the accounts of the
explosion at the Imperial Sugar plant near Savannah, Georgia
we do not believe this bill, as it was approved by the
Education and Labor Committee, is an appropriate response to
that tragedy or the hazards of combustible dust and urge you
to oppose this bill.
While H.R. 5522 was improved in committee, we are still
troubled by its mandate that OSHA promulgate an interim final
regulation (IFR) within 90 days without any of the normal
rulemaking procedures associated with OSHA rulemaking. The
IFR would therefore be issued without any opportunity for
comments by those subject to it, nor would OSHA perform any
analyses such as those for significant risk, economic and
technological feasibility, and small business impact, among
others. The bill would then require that within 18 months
OSHA promulgate a final standard that would carry forward all
of the requirements of the IFR and add others mandating
engineering, administrative, and work practice controls. The
final standard would also have to incorporate provisions from
various voluntary consensus standards issued by the National
Fire Protection Association (NFPA). Further refinements from
the Chairman that may be accepted on the floor do not alter
the requirement for an IFR with none of the normal OSHA
rulemaking protections.
We object to the short circuiting of the normal rulemaking
process that this bill would impose. Normal OSHA rulemaking
allows the agency to produce the most feasible, narrowly
tailored regulation, which in turn maximizes the chances for
implementation and compliance. Abandoning these procedures is
a prescription for an ineffective regulation which will not
produce safer workplaces. Indeed, even the Chemical Safety
Board report referenced in this bill recommends that OSHA
conduct a full rulemaking, and makes no mention of an IFR.
Additionally, instructing OSHA to incorporate provisions
from voluntary consensus standards issued by the NFPA may
sound like a good way to expedite rulemaking on this issue,
but doing so is inappropriate. The process for producing
these consensus standards is not at all like the process
which OSHA undertakes to produce a regulation. There is no
opportunity for the general public to examine and comment on
these consensus standards. Nor are these standards subject to
any of the critical reviews regarding quality of data,
feasibility, and impact that OSHA regulations must undergo.
The consensus process, which produces these standards, leaves
significant terms and requirements intentionally vague and
ambiguous so that different groups and interests will endorse
these standards. But this also makes these standards
unsuitable for becoming a mandatory OSHA regulation.
Furthermore, none of the NFPA standards are fully available
to the public without charge. While the NFPA has put them on
their website for reading access, to print them, and
therefore have them available for use, requires paying NFPA a
fee. We object to giving NFPA such a windfall revenue stream.
The hazard of combustible dust is an issue which is already
covered by numerous OSHA regulations, in addition to a wide
array of private sector information. OSHA has responded in
the wake of the Imperial Sugar explosion in various ways that
will help employers become more knowledgeable about this
hazard including reissuing a Safety and Health Information
Bulletin, and reissuing a National Emphasis Program and
targeting companies that may have combustible dust hazards in
a way that will combine greater information with greater
inspection and enforcement activity. The investigation of the
tragedy at the Imperial Sugar plant has yet to determine that
a lack of regulatory guidance contributed to the explosion
and there is no evidence that a new OSHA standard would have
prevented that tragedy, particularly if that regulation is
produced in the manner specified in H.R. 5522. Providing
employers with useful, practical information on how to avoid
a hazard will always be more effective in preventing such
disasters than issuing a new regulation which will only serve
as a means for enforcement after the fact.
H.R. 5522 would produce a flawed regulation by discarding
normal OSHA rulemaking procedures and because of this, we
urge you to oppose the Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire
Prevention Act of 2008, H.R. 5522.
Sincerely,
American Bakers Association.
American Composites Manufacturers Association.
American Forest & Paper Association.
American Foundry Society.
Associated Builders and Contractors.
Associated General Contractors.
Building Owners and Managers Association International.
Independent Electrical Contractors, Inc.
Mason Contractors Association.
National Association of Home Builders.
National Association of Manufacturers.
National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors.
National Automobile Dealers Association.
National Federation of Independent Business.
National Marine Manufacturers Association.
National Mining Association.
National Paint and Coatings Association.
National Roofing Contractors Association.
Plumbing Heating Cooling Contractors National Association.
Printing Industries of America.
Retail Industry Leaders Association.
Textile Rental Services Association of America.
The Industrial Minerals Association--North America.
[[Page H2917]]
The National Industrial Sand Association.
The National Oilseed Processors Association.
The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Additionally, I would like to bring the attention of our Members to
the first and last paragraphs of that letter:
This coalition writes to express their strong opposition to the
Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Prevention Act of 2008, H.R. 5522,
which will be considered on the House floor this week. While we were
saddened to see the accounts of the explosion at the Imperial Sugar
plant near Savannah, Georgia, we do not believe this bill, as was
approved by the Education and Labor Committee, is an appropriate
response to that tragedy or the hazards of combustible dust, and urge
you to oppose the bill.
It concludes with the statement:
H.R. 5522 would produce a flawed regulation by discarding normal OSHA
rulemaking procedures. And, because of this, we urge you to oppose the
Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Prevention Act of 2008, which is
H.R. 5522.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Barrow).
Mr. BARROW. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I understand the appeal that the amendment has. I can appreciate its
superficial appeal and what I think it is getting at. But the notion
that we have to finish everything before we do anything is a formula to
do nothing.
With the National Emphasis Program and everything that is going on
right now at OSHA, it is perfectly obvious that the current folks who
have got OSHA under their control can cram more activity into less
action than anybody I know or any agency I know.
The time for us to take into consideration and to follow all leads
and to learn as much as we can will always be with us, but the time to
act is now. This is the time to take the actions and begin the process
of fixing what's broke with the regulatory system at OSHA.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman. I think the
gentleman has the right to close on his amendment.
Could the Chair advise me of the time I have remaining.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California has 12\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would just note that a significant number of the signatories to the
letter that was referred to by my colleague on the other side of the
aisle really have little or nothing to do with these standards or are
impacted by them. And this is the same coalition that continues to call
for no action with respect to actions by OSHA, and it is that approach
to the protection of American workers and to the safety of those
workers that has led to the tragedy that we witnessed at the Imperial
Sugar facility. And, clearly, these are accidents that we know are
preventable, that we know we can dramatically reduce because we have
the experience from the grain dust standards.
This legislation is designed to be workable. It was worked, as I
pointed out, with numerous conversations with the technical staff of
OSHA, with the affected industries and the trade associations that are
involved with this.
I would note that the National Fire Protection Association, when we
tell OSHA that they should select the ones that are relevant to the
standards and the ones that are meaningful to this effort, we are
talking about standards in which a consensus has been arrived at within
the industries. These are consensus regulations that are put out there,
but they are not required. And we think that in our discussions again
with the OSHA staff and with the associations this is a good place to
start because of the consensus. There may have to be additions and
subtractions, and that is within the discretion of OSHA during the
process that is anticipated under this legislation.
So I would hope that we would reject this amendment by Mr. Wilson and
that we would pass the underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Chairman, indeed, I would like to
commend Chairman Miller and Congressman Barrow. I know that the intent
is very positive to address a terrible tragedy that occurred in
February at Port Wentworth with the Imperial refinery explosion.
I do want to point out that it has been stated that we do not have
sufficient regulations relative to combustible dust, but that there are
17 standards addressing combustible dust which do apply, and would
submit these for the Record.
Appendix A. Standards Addressing Combustible Dust
1910.272 Grain Handling.
1910.94 Ventilation Standard.
1910.22 Housekeeping.
1910.176 Housekeeping violations in storage areas.
1910.269 Housekeeping violations at coal-handling
operations.
1910.132 Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).
1910.119 Process Safety Management.
1910.307(b) Electrical Violations
1910.178 Powered Industrial Trucks.
1910.252 Welding, cutting, and brazing.
1910.145 Warning Sign.
1910.1200 Hazard communication violations.
Subpart E--Means of Egress 1910.33-37
1910-156-157 Fire protection violations.
F1910.263 Bakery equipment violations.
1910. 265 Sawmill violations.
1928 Agriculture. The only provisions discussed in this
NEP which may be cited in connection with agricultural
operations are the hazard communication standard (see 29 CFR
1928.21) and the general duty clause. Industries in SIC 0723,
Crop Preparation Services for Market, Except Cotton Ginning,
listed in Appendix D, are engaged in agricultural operations.
Additionally, it has been stated that combustible dust maybe doesn't
apply to some of the associations that are referenced in the letter
that I previously handed in. I would like to point out that in fact it
may appear that way, but just a few minutes ago I just met with members
of the National Association of Home Builders. I am still a dues-paying
member of the Greater Columbia Home Builders Association. And as we
were discussing this bill with members who were visiting in my office,
they expressed concern that they felt like that this could be negative
toward the home building industry. So, indeed, it doesn't appear
sometimes that things apply, but they do even where you wouldn't expect
it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I would just say that the problem
with home building is not explosions, it is implosions.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. I would like to introduce appendix D,
which are industries which may have combustible dust. And, indeed,
Chairman Miller and myself are learning that there is a broad array of
industries, dozens of them, that could be impacted by combustible dust
and I believe that we are actually helping by bringing this to the
attention of the American people.
APPENDIX D--INDUSTRIES THAT MAY HAVE COMBUSTIBLE DUSTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SICS Industry NAICS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0723............................. Crop Preparation 115114, 115111
Services for
Market, Except
Cotton Ginning.
2052............................. Fresh cookies. 311821
crackers,
pretzels, and
similar ``dry''
bakery products.
2062............................. Refining purchased 311312
raw cane sugar and
sugar syrup.
2087............................. Flavoring extracts, 311930
syrups, powders,
and related
products, not
elsewhere
classified.
2099............................. Prepared foods and 311212
miscellaneous food
specialties, not
elsewhere
classified..
2221............................. Broadwoven Fabric 313210
Mills, Manmade
Fiber and Silk.
2262............................. Finishers of 313311
Broadwoven Fabrics
of Manmade Fiber
and Silk.
2299............................. Textile Goods, Not 31311
Elsewhere
Classified.
2421............................. Sawmills and 321113
Planning Mills,
General.
2431............................. Millwork........... 321911
2434............................. Wood Kitchen 33711
Cabinets.
2439............................. Structural Wood 321213, 321214
Members, Not
Elsewhere
Classified.
2452............................. Prefabricated Wood 321992
Buildings and
Components.
2493............................. Reconstituted Wood 321219
Products.
2499............................. Wood Products, Not 321920, 321219
Elsewhere
Classified.
2511............................. Wood Household 337122
Furniture, Except
Upholstered.
2591............................. Drapery Hardware 337920
and Window Blinds
and Shades.
2819............................. Industrial 325188, 325998,
Inorganic 331311
Chemicals, Not
Elsewhere
Classified.
2821............................. Plastic Materials, 325211
Synthetic Resins,
and
Nonvulcanizable
Elastomers.
2823............................. Cellulosic Manmade 325221
Fibers.
2834............................. Pharmaceutical 325412
Preparations.
2841............................. Soap and Other 325611
Detergents, Except
Specialty Cleaners.
2851............................. Paints, Varnishes, 32551
Lacquers, Enamels,
and Allied
Products.
2861............................. Gum and Wood 325191
Chemicals.
2899............................. Chemicals and 325510, 325998
Chemical
Preparations, Not
Elsewhere
Classified.
3011............................. Tires And Inner 326211
Tubes.
3061............................. Molded, Extruded, 326291
and Lathe-Cut
Mechanical Rubber
Goods.
3069............................. Fabricated Rubber 326299
Products, Not
Elsewhere
Classified.
3081............................. Unsupported 326113
Plastics Film and
Sheet.
3082............................. Unsupported 326121
Plastics Profile
Shapes.
3086............................. Plastics Foam 326140, 326150
Products.
3087............................. Custom Compounding 325991
of Purchased
Plastics Resins.
3089............................. Plastics Products, 326199
Not Elsewhere
Classified.
[[Page H2918]]
3291............................. Abrasive Products.. 327910
3313............................. Alumina and 331312
Aluminum
Production and
Processing.
3334............................. Primary Production 331312
of Aluminum.
3341............................. Secondary Smelting 331314
and Refining of
Nonferrous Metals.
3354............................. Aluminum Extruded 331316
Products.
3363............................. Aluminum Die- 331521
Castings.
3365............................. Aluminum Foundries. 331524
3369............................. Nonferrous 331528
Foundries, Except
Aluminum and
Copper.
3398............................. Metal Heat Treating 332811
3441............................. Metal Cans......... 332431
3469............................. Metal Stampings, 332116
Not Elsewhere
Classified.
3471............................. Electroplating, 332813
Plating,
Polishing,
Anodizing, and
Coloring.
3479............................. Coating, Engraving, 332812
and Allied
Services, Not
Elsewhere
Classified.
3496............................. Miscellaneous 332618
Fabricated Wire
Products.
3499............................. Fabricated Metal 332999
Products, Not
Elsewhere
Classified.
3548............................. Lighting Equipment, 335129
Not Elsewhere
Classified.
3644............................. Noncurrent-Carrying 335932
Wiring Devices.
3714............................. Motor Vehicle Parts 336322
and Accessories.
3761............................. Guided Missiles and 336414
Space Vehicles.
3799............................. Transportation 333924
Equipment, Not
Elsewhere
Classified.
3995............................. Burial Caskets..... 339995
3999............................. Manufacturing 321999, 325998,
Industries, Not 326199
Elsewhere
Classified.
4221............................. Farm product 493130
warehousing and
storage.
4911............................. Electric Services 221112
Establishments
engaged in the
generation,
transmission, and/
or distribution of
electric energy
for sale.
4952............................. Sanitary treatment 221320
facilities.
4953............................. Refuse Systems..... 562920
5093............................. Scrap and waste 423930
materials.
5162............................. Plastics materials 424610
and basic forms
and shapes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I would hope that people would vote
against the Wilson amendment. The people who are truly impacted by
combustible dust are the workers who have been killed in the past and
the workers that will be killed and injured in the future if we do not
have an enforceable standard. I appreciate you have 17 regulations and
all these things that OSHA is yakking about now, after years of doing
nothing. The fact of the matter is, according to the Chemical Safety
Board, they are not enforceable standards with respect to dust.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Chairman, I do urge my colleagues
to support the amendment. The amendment is really, I believe, quite
simple. It provides for a sequence of investigation, development of
regulations, and promoting safety in the workplace.
I urge a positive vote on the amendment this evening.
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.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded
vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina will be
postponed.
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will
now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 110-613 on which
further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 1 by Mr. George Miller of California.
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Wilson of South Carolina.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. George Miller of California
The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr.
George Miller) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 412,
noes 0, not voting 24, as follows:
[Roll No. 230]
AYES--412
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Norton
Nunes
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Pearce
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--24
Andrews
Barton (TX)
Blunt
Boehner
Boustany
Cole (OK)
Davis, Tom
Doggett
Duncan
Forbes
Fortuno
Goodlatte
Higgins
Hill
Hoyer
Issa
Jones (OH)
Lee
Obey
Payne
Pence
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Wynn
{time} 1806
Mr. SESSIONS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
[[Page H2919]]
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Wilson of South Carolina
The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Wilson) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 178,
noes 237, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 231]
AYES--178
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Bean
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Conaway
Costa
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Dent
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--237
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kingston
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
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
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Johnson (IL)
NOT VOTING--20
Andrews
Barton (TX)
Blunt
Boehner
Boustany
Cole (OK)
Davis, Tom
Doggett
Duncan
Forbes
Fortuno
Goodlatte
Higgins
Hill
Issa
Jones (OH)
Payne
Pence
Rush
Wynn
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There are less than 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.
{time} 1815
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California changed her vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. 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 (Ms.
Baldwin) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Christensen, 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. 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, pursuant to House Resolution 1157, she
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.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Walberg
Mr. WALBERG. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. WALBERG. Yes, I am, in its present form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Walberg moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 5522, to the
Committee on Education and Labor with instructions to report
the bill back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
At the end of the bill insert the following:
SEC. 5. EXEMPTION FOR GRAIN PENDING DETERMINATION OF IMPACT
ON PRICES.
Neither the interim nor final standards required under this
Act shall apply to any organic dust which is a food grain
until the Secretary makes a determination that the
application of such standard or standards will not increase
the domestic price of such food grain.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
This motion to recommit is simple and straightforward. It maintains
our
[[Page H2920]]
commitment to safety. And it does nothing--I repeat nothing--to prevent
OSHA from developing a combustible dust safety standard.
This motion is simply a way for us to tell our constituents, the
hardworking families who are struggling with the rising cost of living
and an uncertain economy, that we're sensitive to their concerns; that
we recognize that rising food costs, in particular, are a difficult
burden to bear for many families; and that we know that in these
difficult times, the very last thing we should be doing is driving up
the cost of food for our children and our families.
The motion I have offered makes clear that the new mandates included
in this bill will not be imposed on food grain production until we have
determined that it will not cause an increase in prices at the grocery
store.
During today's debate, we heard numerous objections to this bill,
including its impact on the grain and feed industry that is so integral
to food production and distribution in this country. I know that
Members on both sides of the aisle have heard directly from the grain
industry on this measure, and many of us have wondered how we can
enhance worker safety without unnecessarily driving up food costs.
The answer, Madam Speaker, is to pass this motion to recommit.
By voting ``yes'' on this motion, OSHA will still be required to
begin immediate development of a combustible dust standard. By voting
``yes'' on this motion, there will be no delay in implementation of
these new rules for facilities that do not handle food grains. And lest
anyone be concerned about the workers at facilities producing the
grains we eat, if we pass this measure, these workers will continue to
be protected as well under the same standard that has already produced
a 60 percent reduction in grain facility explosions.
Feed, corn, and flour mills are already covered by existing OSHA
grain-handling regulations. As a member of both the House Education and
Labor Committee and Agriculture Committee, I understand that the food
manufacturing industry is affected by combustible dust as much as any
other industry.
Reregulating and duplicating existing Federal regulations on American
family farmers and small rural businesses could seriously impact
commodity prices and drive up the cost of everything from a loaf of
bread to a gallon of gasoline.
I find it ironic that at the same time the leaders within the
majority party are advocating for up to $300 million in additional
spending for international food aid in the supplemental, these same
folks are simultaneously considering legislation that could further
drive up the price of food here at home.
My motion to recommit ensures we conduct a thorough economic analysis
on the impact of H.R. 5522 on food prices. This MTR will ensure we do
not unnecessarily cause irreparable harm to family farms, agricultural
producers and American consumers by driving up the price of food
because of another unintended consequence in the majority's continued
rush to regulate first and ask questions later.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition
to the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker and Members of the
House, this is a very serious piece of legislation and a very important
piece of legislation. The idea that we would delay this until some time
that the Secretary of Labor could make some certification about its
impact on food costs is really unacceptable.
Let's look at the record of the Secretary of Labor. Since January
1980 until 2006, there were 281 explosions in these kinds of facilities
due to dust. Seven hundred eighteen people were injured and 119 died in
those explosions. One hundred nineteen bread-winners were killed in
those explosions. That's the result of a study from the Chemical Safety
Board of whose members are all appointed by President George W. Bush,
an independent agency that may be the gold standard in terms of
independent review of accidents.
They then recommended that OSHA adopt dust standards. OSHA did
nothing. Did nothing. No enforceable standards were adopted by that
point. No enforceable standards at all. And then in February 2008, the
Imperial Sugar plant exploded.
In the meantime, 67 explosions took place since the Chemical Safety
Board recommended the standard. Five hundred seventy-five injuries and
14 deaths took place before OSHA did anything. And the Chemical Safety
Board recommendations continue to say there are no enforceable
standards with respect to dust. Not only does it devastate the lives of
these individuals and their families and the community, it devastates
the facility, a facility here that is key to the commerce of that area.
So talk about an impact on price in a tight market when these
facilities start pumping up.
The feed and grain people, they're under their own standards. And
what is their analysis of that standard? That it drove technologies, it
drove better design, and better productivity in their markets. That's
their findings. They're not implicated in these standards. What
happened there? Eight people were killed in the explosion, 20 were put
into medically induced comas for a number of weeks, 5 of those died,
and 3 are still in the hospital.
Since the Chemical Safety Board made its recommendation, there have
been 67 explosions, and OSHA never found the urgency to protect these
workers. Now to come along and to be so cynical as to suggest that if
we could just keep killing the workers, the price of food will stay
down.
You know, it's funny. I read the papers, read the business journal,
read The Wall Street Journal, and they're talking about how the price
of food has driven the profits of the grain companies; but when they
talk about why it's gone up, it says, ``The crisis stems from a
combination of heightened demand for food from fast-growing developing
countries like China and India, low grain stockpiles caused by bad
weather, rising fuel prices and the increasing amount of land used to
grow crops for ethanol'' and others.
Some people say it's because Zimbabwe has quit producing food under
the corrupt regime of Mr. Mugabe, so Africa has a double problem. I see
the Governor of Texas, Mr. Rick Perry, thinks we ought to cut back on
ethanol production. He doesn't think we ought to keep killing American
workers. Nowhere in this paper, The Wall Street Journal mind you,
nowhere in this paper, when you read about food prices, do you see any
mention that we ought to continue to subsidize food prices by blowing
up processing plants and killing and injuring workers. Nowhere do you
see that except, perhaps, in this amendment.
{time} 1830
We ought not to accept this amendment. These workers and this
critical industry are entitled to this protection. And the facts on the
ground are: The last time we put in a standard was for the feed and
grain industry, and it has turned out to be wildly successful. Why is
it wildly successful? Because injuries went down 40 percent, fatalities
went down 60 percent, explosions went down 60 percent.
Don't you think we know enough now to think that these other workers
in this industry are entitled to this protection? But OSHA has done
nothing. OSHA has done nothing. And if OSHA is not going to act, we
must. In this administration, OSHA has only acted when prodded by the
courts or the Congress, never on their own. Never on their own have
they suggested that they were going to go out and do this. Even after
the recommendation of a presidentially appointed commission to look at
these kinds of accidents, appointed by this President, they've chosen
to do nothing. And it's important; it's important to these workers,
it's important to the Congress.
John Barrow and I have put together legislation that works for the
industry. We've consulted with the industry. We've sat down with the
industry. We've sat down with OSHA. And we ought to oppose this motion
to recommit in the name of the workers, in the name of their families,
in the name of our Nation, we owe it to protect these workers.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
[[Page H2921]]
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. WALBERG. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 187,
noes 225, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 232]
AYES--187
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Kagen
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--225
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kingston
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
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)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--19
Andrews
Barton (TX)
Blunt
Boehner
Boustany
Cole (OK)
Davis, Tom
Doggett
Forbes
Goodlatte
Hill
Issa
Payne
Pence
Rush
Shuster
Slaughter
Tierney
Wynn
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members have 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.
{time} 1848
Mr. KAGEN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 232, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
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.
Recorded Vote
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded
vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 247,
noes 165, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 233]
AYES--247
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kingston
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
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
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
[[Page H2922]]
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weller
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
NOES--165
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Dent
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Latham
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--19
Andrews
Barton (TX)
Blunt
Boehner
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Cole (OK)
Davis, Tom
Dicks
Doggett
Forbes
Goodlatte
Hill
Hunter
Issa
Payne
Pence
Rush
Wynn
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members have 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.
{time} 1856
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________