[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 9948-9955]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1030
   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2728, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND 
HEALTH SMALL BUSINESS DAY IN COURT ACT OF 2004, H.R. 2729, OCCUPATIONAL 
SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION EFFICIENCY ACT OF 2004, H.R. 2730, 
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF OSHA CITATIONS ACT 
   OF 2004, H.R. 2731, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH SMALL EMPLOYER 
ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT OF 2004, AND H.R. 2432, PAPERWORK AND REGULATORY 
                        IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2004

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 645 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 645

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     2728) to amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 
     to provide for adjudicative flexibility with regard to an 
     employer filing of a notice of contest following the issuance 
     of a citation by the Occupational Safety and Health 
     Administration. The bill shall be considered as read for 
     amendment. The amendment recommended by the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce now printed in the bill shall be 
     considered as adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce; and (2) one motion 
     to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2729) to amend 
     the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to provide for 
     greater efficiency at the Occupational Safety and Health 
     Review Commission. The bill shall be considered as read for 
     amendment. The amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
     now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in 
     part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
     amended, to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate on the bill, as amended, equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce; and 
     (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 3. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2730) to amend 
     the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to provide for 
     an independent review of citations issued by the Occupational 
     Safety and Health Administration. The bill shall be 
     considered as read for amendment. The amendment recommended 
     by the Committee on Education and the Workforce now printed 
     in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in part B of 
     the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
     amended, to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate on the bill, as amended, equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce; and 
     (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 4. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2731) to amend 
     the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to provide for 
     the award of attorney's fees and costs to very small 
     employers when they prevail in litigation prompted by the 
     issuance of citations by the Occupational Safety and Health 
     Administration. The bill shall be considered as read for 
     amendment. The amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
     now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in 
     part C of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
     amended, to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate on the bill, as amended, equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce; and 
     (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 5. At any time after the adoption of this resolution 
     the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, 
     declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole 
     House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill 
     (H.R. 2432) to amend the Paperwork Reduction Act and titles 5 
     and 31, United States Code, to reform Federal paperwork and 
     regulatory processes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. Points of order against consideration of the 
     bill for failure to comply with clause 4(a) of rule XIII are 
     waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Government Reform. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall 
     be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
     of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Government Reform now printed in the bill. The committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be consider as 
     read. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in 
     part D of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in 
     the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a 
     Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, 
     shall be debatable for the time specified in the report 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question in the House 
     or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against 
     such amendments are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote 
     in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
     Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.
       Sec. 6. (a) In the engrossment of H.R. 2728, the Clerk 
     shall--
       (1) await the disposition of all the bills contemplated in 
     sections 2-5;
       (2) add the respective texts of all the bills contemplated 
     in sections 2-5, as passed by the House, as new matter at the 
     end of H.R. 2728;
       (3) conform the title of H.R. 2728 to reflect the addition 
     to the engrossment of the text of all the bills contemplated 
     in sections 2-5 that have passed the House;
       (4) assign appropriate designations to provisions within 
     the engrossment; and
       (5) conform provisions for short titles within the 
     engrossment.
       (b) Upon the addition to the engrossment of H.R. 2728 of 
     the text of the bills contemplated in sections 2-5 that have 
     passed the House, such bills shall be laid on the table.
       (c) If H.R. 2728 is disposed of without reaching the stage 
     on engrossment as contemplated in subsection (a), the bill 
     that first passes the House as contemplated in section 2-5 
     shall be treated in the manner specified for H.R. 2728 in 
     subsections (a) and (b), and only the other bills 
     contemplated in sections 2-5 that have passed the House shall 
     be laid on the table.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the

[[Page 9949]]

gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself 
such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, 
all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us is a rule for consideration of 
a package of bills, H.R. 2728, H.R. 2729, H.R. 2730, H.R. 2731 and H.R. 
2432, which are all being brought to the floor today by the House 
Republican leadership, that will help to cut the cost of burdensome 
regulations for American small businesses and help create new jobs in 
America.
  H. Res. 645 provides for the separate consideration of each of these 
five measures. Each bill covered under this rule will have its own 
debate time and the opportunity to be voted on by this body.
  Finally, the rule also provides, at the close of consideration of 
these measures, the Clerk of the House will be directed to combine the 
text of each of these bills that passes the House under this rule as 
one engrossed bill and send it to the other body.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here today to consider a rule for a number of 
common-sense bills that will eliminate unnecessary paperwork and bring 
some much-needed flexibility to the regulatory process for American 
small business. This legislation will also improve worker safety by 
making it easier for employers to work voluntarily and proactively with 
OSHA to ensure safe and secure workplaces.
  While this may seem like a complicated rule, its effect is quite 
simple: It will help to cut down on wasteful costs that many small 
businesses face as a result of burdensome, one-size-fits-all government 
regulations.
  The bills brought up for consideration under this rule will allow 
small businesses to focus more of their time and energy on competing in 
the marketplace, providing their customers with better goods and 
services and creating new jobs all across America, rather than spending 
their time filling out forms or arguing with some distant, nameless, 
faceless bureaucrat.
  One of the Republican Party's top priorities is to create an 
environment that empowers small businesses and their employees to 
succeed, which has been proved by the House's agenda over the last few 
weeks. Last week, the House took up and overwhelmingly passed 
legislation to allow low- and middle-income Americans to keep more of 
what they earn by permanently extending the 10 percent tax bracket 
created by President Bush's 2001 tax relief plan.
  The House also took up the opportunity to pass legislation that 
improves upon and strengthens Flexible Spending Accounts, addresses the 
skyrocketing cost of medical liability insurance and allows small 
businesses to join together to provide their employees with health 
insurance through Association Health Plans.
  This week, the House will be considering yet another tax relief bill 
on behalf of working families and will expand and make permanent the 
child tax credit. And we will also be considering these five bills to 
make it easier for our Nation's small businesses to create jobs that 
will help sustain our economy's growth.
  H.R. 2728, the Occupational Safety and Health Small Business Day in 
Court Act, amends the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to 
provide flexibility to employers filling out responses to OSHA 
citations. Currently, the law sets a strict and arbitrary deadline of 
15 days for businesses to respond to an OSHA citation, despite the fact 
that since the 1980s, a Federal rule of procedure has granted employers 
relief in cases where an employer filed a late notice of contest 
because of ``mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect.'' 
H.R. 2728 would simply codify this common-sense practice in law and 
give OSHA some direction in handling cases where a business misses its 
15-day window.
  H.R. 2729, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission 
Efficiency Act, would create greater efficiency at the Occupational 
Safety and Health Review Commission by adding two additional members to 
this board so that it may complete its work in a more timely fashion on 
behalf of employers and employees all across the United States.
  Under current law, the membership of the Commission is set at three 
appointed members. Two members are required to constitute a quorum, and 
the Commission can only take action on an affirmative vote of two 
members, regardless of whether these seats are vacant or filled.
  For over two-thirds of its existence, the Commission has been 
paralyzed by frequent vacancies that have resulted in several critical 
and well-documented inefficiencies, rendering the entire regulatory 
scheme devised by Congress for resolving OSHA disputes unworkable.
  By creating two new seats on the Commission, Congress can protect 
against the chance that an extended vacancy on the Commission will 
prevent this body from resolving disputes in a timely fashion.
  H.R. 2730, the Occupational Safety and Health Independent Review of 
OSHA Citations Act, will provide for the fair and independent review of 
citations issued by OSHA. Legislative history and practice have made it 
clear that while OSHA is responsible for rule-making, enforcement and 
adjudication of issues pertinent to workplace safety, the Occupational 
Safety and Health Review Commission is intended to provide an 
independent review of OSHA's functions and act as a check on any 
prosecutorial excess.
  This bill would simply restore responsible checks and balances to the 
current system by making it clear that the Commission's legal 
interpretations are given the proper judicial deference.
  H.R. 2731, the Occupational Safety and Health Small Employer Access 
to Justice Act, provides for the payment of attorney's fees and costs 
to very small employers when they prevail in legislation prompted by 
the issuance of citations by OSHA.
  The reason for this legislation is simple: The government should not 
be able to intimidate small businesses into blindly following their 
mandates simply because the business thinks it cannot afford to fight 
in a case where it might otherwise prevail.
  This bill will put American small businesses on a more level playing 
field with large and powerful government bureaucracies and give them 
the courage to speak up for themselves when they are right by removing 
the financial penalties that currently exist for defending themselves.
  Finally, H.R. 2432, the Paperwork and Regulatory Improvement Act, 
reduces Federal regulatory paperwork and red tape by requiring OMB to 
devote more effort to identifying ways to simplify Federal laws. This 
bill would also make permanent GAO's authorization to analyze major 
rules proposed by Federal agencies and require OMB to integrate its 
regulatory accounting reports with its annual budget report, so that 
lawmakers can compare the on-budget and off-budget costs associated 
with each agency requiring paperwork by the public.

                              {time}  1045

  Like all the other bills being considered on this rule today, it 
would help create jobs and allow America's business men and women to 
spend less of their own time on resources, on complicated regulatory 
and taxes paperwork that hurts the economy, instead of running their 
own businesses.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud of this legislation that Congress has passed 
and will continue to pass to promote the Republican competitiveness 
agenda. I think it is important that we come to the floor today with a 
full discussion on legislation that will give Americans more time to 
spend running their businesses or with their families or however they 
choose to spend it.
  I think it is important to remember that every single time that we 
pass one-size-fits-all legislation giving a great deal of authority to 
the Washington-based bureaucracies, our small businesses bear the brunt 
of this inefficiency.
  OMB recently report to Congress that the annual cost of major Federal 
regulations issued between 1992 and 2002 are estimated to cost between 
$38 billion and $44 billion. This means that Americans spend about 
$1.50 in compliance cost for every one dollar in tax

[[Page 9950]]

cost devoted to regulation. Moreover, it means that every dollar of 
direct budget expenditure devoted to regulatory activity, the private 
sector spends $45 dollars in compliance. This overregulation of 
businesses puts us at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of the 
world and places an unnecessary limit on our economy.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the code of Federal regulations extends 19 
feet, and from 1991 to 2000 the number of pages in the CFR increased by 
28.1 percent. I am glad Congress is looking at ways to pare back this 
overwhelming bureaucracy, and I urge all of my colleagues to support 
this rule for these five bills to keep American businesses competitive 
in the global marketplace and to keep American jobs here at home. I 
urge all of my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume, and I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, just as a very brief response to my colleague from 
Texas, I find it strange that he would use the term that the regulatory 
measures that are set in place to protect American workers puts us at 
some competitive disadvantage; and I would just wonder, are we at a 
competitive disadvantage with countries that have children as young as 
9 and 10, 11 years old working? Are we at a competitive disadvantage 
with countries that have no concern for their workers who die in 
substantial numbers in plants and mines? That is what separates us from 
the rest of the world. We are better than that.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule 
and all five of the underlying pieces of legislation that it 
encompasses. For those who did not hear me the first time, I said five 
pieces of legislation under one rule.
  This is sort of the blue light special or the supersized rule, Mr. 
Speaker, five for the price of one. When we look at the number of 
amendments made in order under this rule, they total five as well and 
only one is from a Democrat. Republicans have taken their sheer wrong-
headedness to a whole new level with this rule. My outrage and the 
outrage of all in the minority is as much about process as it is about 
policy. Pure partisan politics never produces sound public policy, and 
election year politics and messaging have no place in the people's 
House. Yet that is all the majority seems interested in.
  The political score Republicans are seeking to settle with their 
barrage of anti-working class legislation is not going to be fulfilled 
by stifling debate and blocking Democrats out of the process. 
Republicans are calling this the ``OSHA Fairness Package.'' Fair for 
whom? The only victims I see here are not only the Democratic Party; it 
is the American worker that it is unfair to.
  For the last 3 weeks, Republicans have come to the floor to pass what 
they call middle-class tax relief. They said they were the party of the 
middle class and they stand for working-class values. They said they 
care about the well-being of America's working families. How 
disingenuous they are, Mr. Speaker.
  Four of the five underlying pieces of legislation represent a buffet 
of roll-backs in our laws governing working conditions. To quote the 
United Auto Workers on just one of the four bills: ``This legislation 
would give unprecedented and unwarranted authority to the Occupational 
Safety and Health Review Council to take away workers workplace health 
and safety.''
  Mr. Speaker, do we have an overwhelming epidemic in this country of 
unfair workplace lawsuits that I do not know about? The judicial 
process for violations in workplace health and safety standards has 
been in place in this country of ours for nearly 30 years. It is fair 
and most importantly it protects the rights of workers. Yet two of the 
four underlying bills affecting OSHA standards are coming as a direct 
result of recent court rulings that Republicans and their corporate 
friends do not agree with. The other two are aimed at stacking the OSHA 
commission with anti-worker commissioners and creating a system where 
only those who can afford legal representation will be permitted to 
file a complaint with the workplace safety and health board. A direct 
attack on American juris prudence is one of the measures that would 
allow that, if OSHA brings a complaint, OSHA must pay if it loses. I 
think that is also the American taxpayer.
  Apparently, Republicans' new policy is when the courts rule against 
you, legislate against the courts. When one of the senior Democrats of 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce, my good friend, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), came before this body, and he has 
served here for 30 years and is known throughout the country as a 
champion of working-class Americans, he came to the Committee on Rules 
yesterday on behalf of the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller), the ranking member, and Republicans denied him the opportunity 
to offer a substitute to legislate what came out of his committee.
  The majority protects their chairman's amendment, but they fail to 
extend the same courtesy and respect to the ranking member. Had the 
majority made the Miller substitute in order or the Kildee substitute 
in order, the House could have done something today that would have 
actually benefited working-class Americans. We could have had a real 
debate about the minimum wage, and we could have taken a vote and found 
out where Members really stand on the issue on whether workers in this 
country ought to get incrementally over a period of time $7 an hour 
instead of the current $5.15 cents an hour.
  It is kind of hard to make ends meet with gasoline being $2 a gallon 
and a person is being paid $5.15, while we here in the House have 
raised our wages six times since people that work at the minimum wage 
have had an increase. Perhaps the majority is blocking what it knows it 
cannot defeat; or better yet, perhaps the majority is just protecting 
its Members from taking a vote that will show their true colors. Shame 
on them and shame on this body if it allows this assault on American 
workers to continue.
  Some may suggest that it is just class warfare. Mr. Speaker, I simply 
point out that Democrats do not rule in this town, and we certainly did 
not start the fight. But if the majority thinks that we are going to 
sit idly by and allow this barrage of attacks on America's working 
class, then they have another thought coming to them. We are just not 
quite ready to give up on our country yet and certainly not ready to 
give up on our workers and the least among us who are working-class 
Americans, many of whom, 33 million or 44 million uninsured people in 
this country, are working Americans and here we are taking measures 
that are likely to impact all of them.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this closed rule. And this is the 25th 
of our rules with only one being open, and I ask my colleagues to 
reject the underlying piece of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman talking about the true colors 
that the Republican Party presents not only today but every single day 
that we are on this floor of the House of Representatives, because our 
special interest is our taxpayers and the working men and women of this 
country who keep it going and will continue to work for the special 
interests of the Republican Party to ensure that America has not only a 
sound economy but opportunities to where people can live the American 
dream.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Boehner), the gentleman that leads our party in this effort, the 
gentleman who is the chairman of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for the opportunity today to have 
this debate on how to bring some more equitable regulations over at 
OSHA.

[[Page 9951]]

Small employers are the engine of job creation in America and for 
employers of 100 or less, they create about 70 percent of the new jobs 
that we see in our country each and every day. Yet these same employers 
are the ones that are dealing with the ever-rapidly rising cost of 
health insurance premiums for their employees, the cost of government 
regulations. They see competition not only from their neighbors down 
the street but competition from far beyond our seas. And if we want 
this engine of economic growth to continue to create jobs in America, 
we as Members of Congress ought to be looking at laws and regulations 
that affect their ability to compete both at home and abroad.
  I want to congratulate my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections. He and the 
members of his subcommittee did a marvelous job in looking at OSHA.
  Now, we have made great strides at OSHA over the last 5 or 6 years in 
terms of OSHA, a government agency, charged with protecting worker 
health and safety, working in a more cooperative way with employers all 
across the country. And what has happened? We have seen workplace 
injuries and accidents decrease. And this voluntary cooperation that we 
have under way, we believe can be enhanced by the four underlying bills 
that we bring to the floor today, whether it is giving the review 
commission a little more flexibility in looking at some regulations; 
whether it is expanding the review commission so they can speed up the 
adjudication of disputes between employers and OSHA; or whether it is 
to say to OSHA, before you bring a lawsuit against a small employer, 
you ought to consider the impact on it and what it does to the small 
employer, because if you bring this suit against a small employer and 
you lose, you ought to pay the legal costs for the employer.
  A lot of small employers do not want to take on the Federal 
Government, do not want to take on the U.S. Treasury or OSHA even if 
they think they are right because of the giant expense involved. Most 
of these businesses do not have the kind of capital that big businesses 
have; and as a result, they are reluctant to really adjudicate what 
they think is a legitimate claim. And we believe that if OSHA would 
have to pay those fees if they lose, it would bring more balance to 
this relationship between OSHA and the employers and maintain the 
cooperative spirit that we have seen grow over the last 5 or 6 years.
  So the four bills that we have before us I think will enhance worker 
safety, will enhance competitiveness for small companies. We ought to 
have a debate today, and I think the rule outlines a very fair process 
for the consideration of these four bills; and I would urge my 
colleagues not only to support the rule today but to support the four 
underlying bills that we are bringing to the floor under it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my friend, I will just respond to the 
chairman that if this is such a great worker-protection measure, why is 
it that no group that is a proponent of worker protection favors this 
measure? I just find that passing strange. I yield to the chairman to 
answer me if there is any worker group that I do not know about.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman realizes that here in 
Washington we do two things every day: We do public policy which 
represents the work we are bringing to the floor today; and, 
unfortunately, we also do politics.

                              {time}  1100

  This being a presidential election year, much less a congressional 
election year, means there is an awful lot of politics being played by 
some of the opponents of political opponents that we might have; but I 
think if my colleagues were to look at the four underlying bills, my 
colleagues will see today that we will have broad bipartisan support 
for all four of these bills. Why? Because they are merely money sense.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the 
gentleman did not answer my question. Is there a group of proponents of 
workers' rights that support these measures? Is the answer yes or no?
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
the bigger proponent of protecting workers' rights are employers, 
because American employers understand that the single greatest asset 
they have are the men and women who work for them each and every day.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I think I know the answer. The 
answer is ``no,'' and I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Owens), who does know something about this measure as the ranking 
member of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, my good friend.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I am here to protest, first of all, the 
package, the packaging process, the rules process. Lumping five bills 
together, four of them dealing with OSHA matters, there is an effort to 
trivialize, to minimize and to make invisible this particular, very 
serious action being taken against working families and organized 
labor.
  Working families need the protection of the government in the 
workplace. They are vulnerable and they are often victimized. The 
overwhelming number of business people in America are fair-minded, the 
small business people as well as corporations, but there is a 
percentage, which is far too large, that is greedy, selfish and always 
seeking to get more profits by exploiting workers.
  The highest cost of most of these businesses is the labor costs. To 
drive down the labor costs they will do almost anything. It is not 
enlightened self-interest, because they are really making profits, but 
they want more and more.
  This package that is being presented on OSHA I call the ``more 
injuries and more deaths package'' because the end product of chipping 
away at OSHA provisions is to create a situation where more workers out 
there are left vulnerable to injuries and to death.
  This majority party started its offensive against the working class 
or working families with a very brutal and obvious attack. The first 
big action of this majority party when the administration was changed 
in the White House was to repeal the ergonomics standards that it had 
taken 10 years to put in place. Ergonomics standards in OSHA dealt with 
injuries suffered by large numbers of workers in a new environment, a 
high-tech environment, with different kinds of injuries being 
generated, but they wiped that out overnight. That was an obvious, 
brutal, in-your-face attack on working families and organized labor.
  Since then, they have sought to chip away, in every way possible, in 
a long history from 1995, when the change in the majority took place, a 
steady history of trying to pass bills to cripple OSHA; and they have 
become less and less strident as time goes on. We have beat back a 
number of them, but they have come back in other forms, and what we 
have in this package is the elephant which has been knocked to his 
knees.
  The repeal of the ergonomics standards knocked OSHA to its knees. 
That elephant is now being fed spoonfuls of poison. These are spoonfuls 
of poison. They seem common-sensical, they seem trivial, but it is just 
one way to poison the animal. It will die just the same.
  OSHA is made weaker and weaker. The budget has gotten smaller. The 
number of inspectors, which always was inadequate has been cut. We 
never intended to cover inspections adequately, but we did do a better 
job before this present majority took over.
  So the cornerstone of the majority Republican Party policy is being 
enumerated here in terms of workers--we really want them to be more 
vulnerable; we really want them to have lower costs. We are not going 
to talk about minimum wage. We are not

[[Page 9952]]

going to deal with these things which benefit workers. We are going to 
continue to encourage outsourcing so that more and more jobs are going 
overseas, and employers can threaten the workers with outsourcing if 
they act up.
  We are going to continue to foster policies which make corporations 
more and more profitable despite this recession ending, which shows 
that profits are going up. Corporations, while there is unemployment, 
remain the same. Wages are not going up. We are making a clear 
statement, we want more of the same and we are going to reduce the 
labor force even further to peasants and serfs who are unable to take 
care of themselves in the workplace.
  The greatest increase in jobs inside this economy, inside America, is 
going to take place and is taking place in the construction industry; 
and what they are doing is having large companies subcontract to 
smaller companies, and the smaller companies become the protectorate of 
the set of bills that we have here. They have less than 100 employees. 
They can then proceed to get away with the kinds of violations that we 
would never allow a larger company because it has different 
responsibilities.
  So this effort, in the name of small businesses, is also an effort 
which goes after the most vulnerable workers. Construction, the 
dirtiest work, the most dangerous work, has taken place with immigrant 
workers and with people who are at the very lowest levels, unable to 
get any kind of job anywhere else. The number of deaths and injuries 
that have taken place in the last few years has increased dramatically 
in this area while the overall number might have gone down a little.
  This area is an area where we have had a series of articles appearing 
in the New York Times which highlight the fact that the OSHA 
regulations, at present, are minimal. They do not deal with the serious 
situation that the workplace has in terms of safety and even in terms 
of death.
  We had a hearing just last Wednesday, and I am going to later on read 
some testimony from those people, but I want to conclude by saying we 
have a Democratic package for working families in this Nation which 
includes ending the current tax incentives for shipping jobs overseas, 
enacting a robust highway bill that would create over 1.8 million good-
paying jobs, providing a tax credit for small businesses so small 
businesses can lower their health care costs, extending Federal 
unemployment benefits for 2.5 million out-of-work Americans, raising 
the minimum wage, ensuring that individuals develop the skills that the 
employers need by increasing job training.
  That, in contrast, to a package which is seeking to drive down the 
working conditions and place the workers in a more vulnerable position 
so that profits for unscrupulous small businesses can be greatly 
increased. This package does that. We ought to pay a lot of attention 
to it and not rush it through this process today.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia Beach, Virginia (Mr. Schrock).
  Mr. SCHROCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for H.R. 
2432, the Paperwork and Regulatory Improvements Act.
  Last June, with bipartisan cooperation, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Ose) introduced this good government bill that improved the 
existing processes governing paperwork and regulations. The bill makes 
incremental improvements instead of changing the role of Congress in 
its oversight of agency rules.
  The overall burden of Federal paperwork and regulatory requirements 
is staggering and is a real drain on job growth, productivity and 
American competitiveness. In fact, Federal paperwork and regulatory 
burdens have increased in each of the last 8 years.
  H.R. 2432 includes legislative changes to ensure reduction in tax 
paperwork burdens on small business, assist Congress in its review of 
agency regulatory proposals and improve public and congressional 
understanding of the true costs and benefits of regulations.
  Since 1942, the Office of Management and Budget has had statutory 
responsibility to review and approve each new, revised or continuing 
paperwork imposition on the public. Currently, the IRS accounts for 
over 80 percent of all the federally imposed paperwork burden on the 
public. H.R. 2432 requires OMB to conduct a systematic review and then 
submit a report on specific actions the rest can take to reduce tax 
paperwork on small business.
  To assist Congress in its review of agency regulatory reforms, H.R. 
2432 permanently establishes a regulatory analysis function in the 
General Accounting Office. In 2000, Congress authorized a 3-year pilot 
test for this regulatory analysis function, but it was never funded. 
This was partly because GAO intended to use contractors instead of in-
house expert staff during the test period. H.R. 2432 would require 
GAO's having in-house expertise comparable to OMB's expertise.
  With GAO's help, Congress will be better equipped to review final 
agency rules under the Congressional Review Act and to submit timely 
and knowledgeable comments on proposed rules during the public comment 
period.
  Current law requires OMB to submit an annual regulatory accounting 
statement and associated report on impacts, such as on small business, 
with the President's fiscal budget. To date, all six of OMB's final 
regulatory accounting reports have been incomplete, and none have been 
submitted in final form with the fiscal budget. As a consequence, their 
utility in the decision-making process has been hindered.
  To improve OMB's regulatory accounting reports, this bill requires 
OMB to seek agency input annually, as it does for its information 
collection budget and the fiscal budget. The bill also requires OMB to 
conduct a study of regulatory budgeting to determine if agencies can 
better manage regulatory burdens on the public.
  This bill has been endorsed by many organizations such as the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, 
National Federation of Independent Business, National Small Business 
Association and the Small Business Survival Committee.
  The Congressional Budget Office provided a preliminary estimate of 
the budgetary impact of this bill, saying the bill would cost about $10 
million a year and would not affect direct spending or revenues. CBO's 
estimate includes $8 million for GAO and $2 million for OMB.
  The current budget for OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs is $7 million. OIRA has multiple functions besides paperwork 
and regulatory reviews, such as government-wide statistical policy and 
information policy.
  As a consequence, the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) and I will 
be introducing a substitute today authorizing $5 million for GAO's 
permanent regulatory analysis function. This amount is based on the 
proportionate share of OIRA's budget for its paperwork and regulatory 
reviews.
  I support the rule with 1 hour of general debate, equally divided, 
and which makes in order the only two amendments submitted to the 
Committee on Rules, one from the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) 
and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) and one submitted by 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose). I urge my colleagues to 
support the rule.
  H.R. 2432 should result in needed paperwork and regulatory relief, 
especially for small businesses, and help Congress fulfill its 
constitutional role as a coequal branch of government.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time I have no further 
speakers that have come to the floor, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for the time, 
and frankly, I am quite pleased to have the opportunity today, Mr. 
Speaker, to address four very important measures that I have had the 
honor, along with the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner), to 
sponsor.
  Before addressing the mechanics of each of these important bills, and 
I will as they are considered, I would like to provide a little useful 
background.

[[Page 9953]]

  If performance outcomes are what truly counts in government programs, 
performance outcomes, how well is that government program doing, my 
colleagues should know that the relevant indicators suggest that OSHA, 
under President Bush, is performing better than at any time in the 
agency's history.
  Now, if we can spend just a little time looking at the facts, and I 
hate to confuse anybody with facts, but looking at the facts, we should 
look at the GAO report.

                              {time}  1115

  It is saying very clearly that the voluntary compliance strategies 
are showing very good results. In fact, they are saying this may 
actually be working because the performance outcomes are better than 
they have ever been in the history of OSHA.
  I have a couple of graphs, so you do not have to believe me, and they 
are put out by the Department of Labor statistics. It is indicating 
that workplace injuries as of 2002 and workplace fatalities as of 2002 
are the lowest; they are the lowest they have ever been in the history 
of OSHA. Injury and illness rates and a number of workplace fatalities 
are down and are declining. And I believe, I firmly believe that one of 
the major reasons for this performance improvement is a new and 
improved vision for OSHA.
  I know people do not like to change laws once they are passed, but 
they do need to be measured against performance outcomes, and sometimes 
you need to change laws when you know you are on the wrong track. OSHA 
has a vision that rejects the blunt confrontation and embraces the idea 
of cooperation between employers and government, between business and 
government. Let us come together to work together to make this a safer 
and a healthier workplace.
  The simple truth is we can achieve much better results working 
together than working against each other, and that seems to be what GAO 
is saying. It seems to be what the numbers are saying. Or as we say 
where I come from, you are likely to attract more bees with honey.
  Now, this does not mean, in our opinion, that you should let the fox 
guard the hen house. Far from it. It simply means that we will have a 
better balance to our regulatory approach at OSHA if it includes two 
useful components: one, a more effective targeting of enforcement 
resources to where they are most needed. That is just common sense. 
And, two, strong encouragement for employers to cooperate toward the 
performance improvements.
  Why would they not? If they feel they can work with this government 
and try to improve the health and the safety of their workplace, why in 
the world would they not? Obviously, they are. The GAO studies keep 
pointing to the fact that that is working. Targeting focuses on a few 
bad actors in the business community, while cooperation focuses on the 
vast majority of employers who very much want a healthier and a safer 
workplace.
  I would suggest this: performance improvements at OSHA simply did not 
come about by accident. In fact, by 1993, OSHA was strongly heading in 
the other direction of not using the carrot but using the hammer. 
Almost one of the worst OSHA bills that could ever have become law, in 
my opinion, occurred in 1994 with the Ford-Kennedy bill. Thank God that 
did not pass. It would not have improved workplace safety. And the GAO 
recently reported that one reason might be the exciting results 
reported by those employers who have already cooperated with OSHA. They 
are working together. What they are really trying to do is get where 
they can trust each other, where the employer feels he can call the 
government and ask for help and not be fearful that he will be tricked 
and drug into court.
  What was most exciting about GAO's findings is that the word is 
getting out among the business community that safety pays. What 
relevance does all this have to the bills that we are going to consider 
today? The answer is a great deal of relevance, because each of these 
measures is directly tied to the general idea of a working formula to 
promote cooperation and trust.
  I would like to explain that. I would suggest in the course of our 
debate over the next few hours that we will repeatedly hear several 
themes. These themes are: justice, flexibility, efficiency, elimination 
of waste, and a government that plays fairly and within the rules. Each 
of these words accurately describes one or more of the purposes of the 
four measures we will consider today.
  I will describe the mechanics of these measures and relate how each 
fits into this larger picture of positive performance results for OSHA 
as each is considered.
  I would like to urge each of our Members to support this rule and 
allow this very important discussion to begin. Obviously, I urge each 
of my colleagues to vote for the underlying bills.
  I hear over and over again the term ``working families.'' That is 
used most frequently, I think, by the minority. And what they generally 
mean by working families is the 8 percent of our population that are in 
unions. Well, I like the words working families too. And when it comes 
to having protection from the government, the other 92 percent of the 
working families deserve that just as well. The baker with three 
employees, the florist with two, the local filling station guy who has 
two employees, they deserve protection equally as do the 8 percent that 
are in the unions.
  So I would say to my colleagues that it is as simple as this: if you 
have no small businesses in your district, then you ought to vote 
``no'' on this rule. But if you do have small businesses in your 
district, you better give this some consideration, because this is 
fairness for the little guy who happens not to be in a union, who has 
no way on Earth to stand up to the Labor Department or the finances of 
the Federal Government.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. I have great respect and admiration for my friend, the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, and I speak 
often about working families. I am mindful that many of those working 
families are members of labor organizations, and I am supportive of 
them.
  The statistic the gentleman quoted was somewhere in the neighborhood 
of 6 to 8 percent. But that leaves us a whole lot of other people who 
are working at the minimum wage who are also working families who may 
be injured, who may be killed in these workplaces. And I rather 
suspect, as one who has the third largest number of small businesses 
among the 435 of us in the House of Representatives, that I am 
certainly interested in those businesses flourishing and continuing to 
provide for the workers.
  I can assure my colleague that one thing we could be doing here that 
would help everybody would be to incentivize those small businesses 
with the necessary funds for tax protection that would allow them to be 
able to provide insurance for their workers, and I cite several of them 
that I visited recently that say that is particularly important. It is 
also particularly important to them that the regulatory measures be 
reduced, and there is some currency in our being able to do that. But 
at the expense of people who are likely to be injured, and at the 
expense of people who are likely to be killed on their jobs, I simply 
do not believe that any business wishes to be in a position of not 
having the necessary regulation to protect their workers.
  We do not do a very good job here in Congress, and I suggest we might 
want to look at the atmosphere that some of these people work in and 
the kinds of injuries they receive right here on Capitol Hill; the kind 
of long hours the people that transcribe our words here on the House 
floor work; the people that protect us in law enforcement and the 
helter-skelter schedules they are confronted with. There are a lot of 
workers that do not have fair protection. And for us to cut back on 
opportunities to protect them, in my view, is unwarranted, unsound, bad 
policy, and bad politics.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page 9954]]

  Mr. Speaker, we began this debate today by talking about doing the 
things the Republican Party has as an idea and a vision, about making 
businesses more efficient and effective and working closer on the 
things that will encourage not only us to be more productive but to 
employ more people. The gentleman from Florida earlier asked a very 
simple question: Who would possibly support this bill? Who are they? 
Well, I provided the gentleman a list of some 38.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I did not say who; I said which of the 
worker proponent organizations supported the bill. And I thank the 
gentleman for providing me this list of outstanding organizations that 
support this measure. But name me the work proponent organizations that 
support this measure, and I do not think any are on the gentleman's 
list.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his 
clarification and accept that.
  I would like to run through very quickly the organizations that do 
support this commonsense OSHA reform, and I am just going to run 
through a few:
  The National Center For Assisted Living, National Council on Chain 
Restaurants, National Federation of Independent Businesses, United 
States Chamber, National Restaurant Association, National Retail 
Federation, National Soft Drink Association.
  And, Mr. Speaker, I will submit this list at this point for the 
Record.

         Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of 
           Representatives,
                                                     May 18, 2004.

           Organizations Supporting Common Sense OSHA Reforms

       Dear Colleague: The House today will consider four common 
     sense OSHA reform measures (H.R. 2728, H.R. 2729, H.R. 2730, 
     and H.R. 2731) to ensure OSHA enforcement efforts are fair 
     for small businesses that make good faith efforts to comply 
     with all health and safety laws. These reforms will improve 
     worker safety by making it easier for employers to work 
     voluntarily and proactively with OSHA to ensure safe and 
     secure workplaces. Following are a list of organizations 
     supporting these reforms:

     Air Conditioning Contractors of America
     American Bakers Association
     American Hotel & Lodging Association
     American Farm Bureau Federation
     American Furniture Manufacturers
     Associated Builders & Contractors
     Associated General Contractors of America
     American Health Care Association
     American Trucking Associations
     Food Marketing Institute
     Independent Electrical Contractors
     International Foodservice Distributors Association
     IPC--The Association Connecting Electronics Industries
     Management Advisers, LLC
     Mason Contractors Association
     National Association of Home Builders
     National Association of Manufacturers
     National Beer Wholesalers Association
     National Center for Assisted Living
     National Council of Aagricultural Employers
     National Council of Chain Restaurants
     National Electrical Contractors Association
     National Federation of Independent Business
     National Funeral Directors Association
     National Oilseed Processors Association
     National Ready Mixed Concrete Association
     National Restaurant Association
     National Retail Federation
     National Roofing Contractors Association
     National Small Business Association
     National Soft Drink Association
     Printing Industries of America Inc.
     Retail Industry Leaders Association
     Society of American Florists
     Society for Human Resource Management
     The American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute
     The Brick Industry Association
     U.S. Chamber of Commerce

       Developing better cooperation between OSHA and employers 
     will improve workplace safety, enhance business 
     competitiveness, and foster more job creation to spur the 
     economy. We encourage you to help improve workplace safety 
     and enhance small business competitiveness by voting YES on 
     these important OSHA reform measures. For more information, 
     please contact the Education & the Workforce Committee at x5-
     4527.
           Sincerely,
     John Boehner (R-OH),
       Chairman, Education & the Workforce Committee.
     Charlie Norwood (R-GA),
       Chairman, Workforce Protections Subcommittee.

  Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleagues who are listening to this 
debate, who want to do the right thing for small businesses, that it is 
always interesting to me that as we enter debates on the floor of the 
House of Representatives, and one of the biggest debates we have had 
has been about manufacturing, yet almost every single time as the 
Republican Party stands up for those organizations that are engaged in 
manufacturing, about jobs in this country, we vote for those bills and 
our colleagues on the other side vote against them. Yet all we hear 
about is loss of jobs.
  I would like to say that today this vote is about small business and 
the ability for small business to compete effectively, efficiently, and 
to give them more fair footing. I support this rule and I support this 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219, 
nays 195, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 180]

                               YEAS--219

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--195

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano

[[Page 9955]]


     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Andrews
     Berman
     Boucher
     Brown, Corrine
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Dunn
     Forbes
     Istook
     Leach
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Oberstar
     Rangel
     Shays
     Tauzin
     Towns
     Wexler
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1154

  Mr. CAPUANO, Mrs. TAUSCHER, Mr. ROTHMAN, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Ms. 
DeGETTE, and Mr. MORAN of Virginia changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania changed his vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________