[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15683-15689]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF OSHA CITATIONS ACT 
                                OF 2005

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 351, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 741) to amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 
1970 to provide for judicial deference to conclusions of law determined 
by the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission with respect to 
an order issued by the commission, and ask for its immediate 
consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 351, the bill 
is considered as having been read for amendment.
  The text of H.R. 741 is as follows:

                                H.R. 741

       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 ``Occupational Safety and 
     Health Independent Review of OSHA Citations Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. JUDICIAL DEFERENCE.

       Section 11(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 
     1970 (29 U.S.C. 660(a)) is amended in the sixth sentence by 
     inserting before the period the following: ``, and with 
     respect to such record, the conclusions of the Commission 
     with respect to questions of law that are subject to agency 
     deference under governing court precedent shall be given 
     deference if reasonable''.

  The SPEAKER. The amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in 
the bill is adopted.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                                H.R. 741

       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 ``Occupational Safety and 
     Health Independent Review of OSHA Citations Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. INDEPENDENT REVIEW.

       Section 11(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 
     1970 (29 U.S.C. 660) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``The conclusions of the Commission with respect 
     to all questions of law that are subject to agency deference 
     under governing court precedent shall be given deference if 
     reasonable.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).


                             General Leave

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
on H.R. 741, the bill now under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the third bill we will debate today is another narrowly 
crafted bill that addresses a specific problem we found in the OSHA 
law.
  In 1970, when it created OSHA, Congress also created the Occupational 
Safety and Health Review Commission to independently review all OSHA 
citations. The commission was intended to hold OSHA in check and ensure 
that it did not abuse its authority. Congress passed the OSHA law only 
after being assured that judicial review would be conducted by ``an 
autonomous independent commission which, without regard to the 
Secretary, can find for or against the employer on the basis of 
individual complaints.''
  Congress even separated the commission from the Department of Labor. 
It was truly meant to be independent. The bill before us, the 
Occupational Safety and Health Independent Review of OSHA Citations 
Act, restores the original system of checks and balances intended by 
Congress when it enacted the OSHA law, and ensures that the commission 
and not OSHA would be the party who interprets the law and provides an 
independent review of OSHA citations.
  Now, let me try to put this in simpler terms. If you are stopped by a 
police officer and issued a citation for speeding, would you want the 
same police officer to be your judge and jury and decide whether you 
are guilty? Of course you would not. And unfortunately for small 
businesses today, the law is ambiguous and it is vague. Since 1970, the 
separation of power between OSHA and the review commission has become 
increasingly clouded because of legal interpretations, mostly argued by 
OSHA in efforts to expand its own authority.

                              {time}  1600

  Congress intended there to be a truly independent review of disputes 
between OSHA and employers, and when a dispute centers on OSHA's 
interpretation of its authority, Congress intended the independent 
review commission, not the prosecuting agency, OSHA, to be the final 
arbiter. H.R. 741 restores this commonsense system of checks and 
balances.
  Small businesses are the real engine of job growth in this country, 
and we should be helping them, not hindering their progress. Last week, 
the Department of Labor reported that more than 3.7 million new jobs 
have been created since May 2003. We want to make sure that onerous 
government regulations do not hamstring small businesses' ability to 
continue to hire workers and compete in our economy. That is another 
reason why all of these OSHA reform bills are important.
  The measure before us is a narrowly crafted, commonsense bill that 
address a specific problem in the OSHA law. It passed the House last 
year and deserves the support of all of our Members.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to make my comments on this bill very briefly. Essentially, 
H.R. 741 weakens the fundamental policy of the Secretary of Labor while 
enhancing the

[[Page 15684]]

powers of the OSHA commission. Such action would create two divided 
regulators and a great deal of confusion. The Secretary of Labor is 
best able to regulate and enforce safety standards, and as such, the 
authority should remain with her. This is just plain common sense. I 
urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 741.
  We do not need more confusion. More confusion is only a way to 
trivialize and make OSHA less effective.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn my attention to an issue that 
should be of great concern to all Members of this body in relation to 
this particular subject, and that is worker deaths and serious 
injuries. Between 5,000 and 6,000 American workers are killed on the 
job every year by willful and negligent safety violations on the part 
of errant employers. I have talked about that already. The surviving 
family members killed by corporate wrongdoing deserve much more than 
just our sympathy, however. They deserve immediate congressional 
attention and action.
  Instead of considering these bills to weaken OSHA, we should be 
strengthening provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. We 
should be considering a bill like H.R. 2004, the Protecting America's 
Workers Act, which I introduced on April 28 to coincide with Workers' 
Memorial Day, a day set aside every year to honor workers killed on the 
job by safety violations. Joining me as cosponsors of H.R. 2004 are the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the gentleman from Maine 
(Mr. Michaud), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green) and the gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Ms. Kaptur). The bill will hold those who commit corporate 
manslaughter accountable at the same time it reinforces critical health 
and safety protections for workers nationwide.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) to give us an example of the seriousness of the 
situation.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
opportunity and take great privilege in coming to the floor today to 
place into the public realm a concern that is deep-seated in the city 
of Toledo and the State of Ohio which I am so honored to represent.
  It in fact deals with corporate manslaughter. I stand today to oppose 
any weakening of OSHA statutes, and support the Owens bill to 
strengthen worker safety and protection. For, in fact, if those 
protections had been in place, the men I am going to tell Members about 
today would not be dead. Our community would not be in mourning. Their 
families would not be in mourning.
  We have all observed with awe the marvelous photos of construction 
workers sitting on I-beams swinging above some of our Nation's major 
cities. High above New York City is one photo that comes to mind, as we 
admire the skill and the daring of these Americans who put their lives 
on the line every single day. These tradespeople indeed build America. 
I cannot think of a citizen in our country that does not respect their 
prowess and their skill.
  Well, the worst construction accident in the history of the State of 
Ohio occurred in our city on February 16 of last year. It occurred on a 
Federal project, a Federal project that I had authorized and that has 
been being built now for several years. I was so proud when we passed 
that legislation. I said this is going to be a Federal project which is 
going to be built without one death, and we worked for almost 2\1/2\ 
years to sign a safety agreement with each of the trades involved in 
this project and with the major company and the State of Ohio. It was 
difficult to bring them all to the table. I said I did not want this to 
be another Mackinaw. I did not want dead men at the base of another 
river. Instead, I hoped we would build this project and demonstrate 
respect for those doing the work.
  Well, on February 16, 2004, these four men lost their lives. Several 
others were seriously injured on this job. Crushed to death on this job 
were ironworkers Mike Phillips, age 42; Arden Clark, age 47; Mike 
Moreau, age 30; and Robert Lipinski, Jr., age 44.
  I cannot tell Members what it was like to go to the funeral of each 
of these men. How poignant, how unforgettable to be with those families 
following an accident I know could have been prevented. But, yes, there 
were people in this city, people in our capital of Columbus, people in 
that company who did not care, who simply did not care.
  One of the men who lost his life, his nickname was Bubba, Bubba 
Lipinski, he was such a magnificent man. He weighed about 320 pounds. 
He was not heavy-set; he was just strong. He was about 6 feet 6. When I 
walked into the funeral home, his casket was the size of a child's 
casket, a mountain of a man, crushed to death.
  Joe Blaze, the President of the Local Ironworkers observed, ``What 
happened will affect our community for generations.'' The local paper, 
The Toledo Blade, reported, ``Workers told investigators the crane's 
rear legs,'' this is, the crane that fell, ``were held up with 14 
inches of shims and no anchors in the footers while each front leg had 
shims in only one of only two anchors.'' The workers were literally 
crushed when this million-ton crane moved, and it just could not hold 
itself. And it fell, crushing them to death in the process.
  The question really is, why did it fall? Incredibly, its feet were 
not tied down. And people knew that. People in the company knew that. 
There are internal memos that show that they knew that.
  But though the accident occurred over a year ago, the State of Ohio, 
that I view as an accomplice in this willful manslaughter, will not 
release inspection records. OSHA will not permit its inspector general 
at the Department of Labor to give us the pre-accident inspection 
reports. So, who was on site? Who was not on site? Who should have 
inspected? Who did not?
  Moreover, there seems to be an issue of whether the Federal 
Government had responsibility to inspect a ``launching Gantry crane'', 
which is a specialized type of crane, that is, whether OSHA really had 
responsibility for inspecting launching Gantry cranes as opposed to 
other types of cranes.
  Another major wrinkle, is that this particular crane, and there were 
two of them, was made in Italy, not the United States. The crane was 
imported. The men were a little uncomfortable with that. They generally 
build their own cranes and then build bridges using those cranes. Yet 
the State of Ohio assured the workers that it was of equal measure to 
any crane built in the United States. But there seems to be a little 
stickler in the OSHA regulations that OSHA may not equally regulate 
foreign imported cranes to the same standards expected of U.S. made 
cranes. They are not held to the same standard. Hmmm, why would that 
be?
  I tried last month during the markup of the Labor, Health and Human 
Services appropriations bill to include simple report language in that 
bill, which is never denied to a member of this House, merely asking 
the Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
to gather all records relating to the inspections that should have been 
done on the job, or lack thereof, prior to the accident and to provide 
them to the public record as well as to provide any communications that 
have occurred with the U.S. Department of Justice related to this 
accident. This was denied to me as an elected representative of the 
people of my district. It was denied to me by the Republican majority 
of this House, by the Republican majority of my committee, and by the 
Republican leader of the committee that is on the floor today.
  I am angry. I am very angry. They do not want any oversight. They 
want the weaker OSHA regulations. They do not care about these men. 
They do not care about their families.
  I have asked the majority to hold oversight hearings regarding OSHA's

[[Page 15685]]

action or inaction in this I-280 Federal interstate highway accident. 
No word yet. No word yet on their willingness to agree for a request 
for a hearing. Surely the Congress has an oversight responsibility in a 
matter as serious as this one.
  OSHA's Midwest office has ruled there was willful negligence on the 
job. And for reasons not completely understood, although they ruled 
willful negligence, they had to change the ruling. The ruling has now 
been changed. We do not know who changed the ruling. We want to know 
that. Now it has been termed ``unclassified''. It has gone from willful 
negligence, or corporate manslaughter, to unclassified. What does that 
mean?
  It probably means that as the individual court cases move forth 
locally, somehow civil litigation is going to be affected by a careful 
dance of words. How absolutely cruel. Cruel. We talk about being pro-
life. You are looking at a pro-life Member, and every one of those 
lives means everything to us. They went to work faithfully. They worked 
hard. They did magnificent work. I was up on that bridge last winter. 
It was blasted cold up there and windy. I represent the Saudi Arabia of 
wind up there on Lake Erie. They went to work in 32 degrees below zero. 
It was so cold with that wind factor.
  Now guess how much OSHA is able to fine the company, and this is a 
$300 million to $400 million project, how much is OSHA able to fine the 
company and others responsible for this serious loss, a total of 
$70,000 for each lost life. $70,000 for each lost life? That is 
travesty. For 4 lost lives, OHSHA will impose a fine totalling $280,000 
on a $300 million-plus project. That equals a fine of .0009% . . . 
almost embarrassing were it not so wrong. And, the money goes to the 
U.S. Treasury; it does not even go to the victims' families. What kind 
of country is this? What kind of shop are we running here?
  Well, in my opinion, in cases of such gross negligence and criminal 
manslaughter, there should be more than civil damages and OSHA fines.
  Our chief of police who is a very measured man said these men were 
murdered. There is criminal wrongdoing here. You know the amazing thing 
about our law, though this is a $300-plus million transportation 
project, I cannot even dedicate a few percentage points to give money 
to our local county prosecutor to investigate the nature of the 
negligence get to the bottom of this. The Department of Labor does not 
allow it. The Department of Transportation does not allow it. How do we 
find out what happened?
  My questions are, where was OSHA? Who was investigating and who was 
inspecting on site? Where was the State of Ohio Department of 
Transportation? Where was their inspection? Why did they sign an 
acceleration agreement with the company--to make work on the project 
move even faster when the workers were a year and a half ahead of 
schedule? Who knew those footers were not tied down, both at the front 
and back ends of the launching Gantry crane? Did OSHA purposely not 
inspect what is termed a launching Gantry crane? Did OSHA not inspect 
nor require equal standards on a foreign made crane similar to one that 
is made in the United States of America?

                              {time}  1615

  Why did I have to jump start the negotiation of a safety agreement 
before construction started? Why did OSHA not do that? Why did the U.S. 
Department of Transportation not do that? Why did the State of Ohio not 
do that? The State of Ohio has got their head in the sand. Those in 
charge are hiding in Columbus somewhere under the sidewalk. You cannot 
even find them. Here we have the largest transportation project in Ohio 
history with criminal manslaughter, and they are all taking the duck.
  Why is this Congress undermining what little authority OSHA ever had? 
What are we doing here? And who are we doing it for? Fru-Con, the major 
contractor? They have been responsible for five deaths in the last year 
at two different project sites. That is quite a record.
  We have now been told OSHA has not developed a standard or 
promulgated a rule stating that foreign-manufactured cranes, like this 
one, must equal or exceed U.S. safety standards. Who is responsible? On 
whose hands does the blood of these men lie in this House? On whose 
hands does it lie? I have a pretty good idea. Recommendations for such 
a standard were made nearly a year ago but not acted upon. Why not? Why 
not? Why has this Congress not demanded and implemented as soon as 
possible these regulations? Or made meeting U.S. standards a condition 
of eligibility for Federal funding? There is a serious abdication of 
responsibility here. We were always taught in school, there are sins of 
commission and there are sins of omission. Both sides of the ledger you 
are accountable for. Here there is a serious abdication of 
responsibility by the U.S.--an ommission, a purposeful omission. The 
inept Department of Labor caused the deaths of these men, as well as 
those in this Congress that would seek to weaken OSHA and gave no value 
to their lives.
  These men died, in my view, because of the apparent willful 
negligence of our U.S. Department of Labor and the office of safety and 
health within it that was supposed to be set up to protect their lives 
as well as their allies here in the Congress who are completely 
undermining worker safety laws, They have abdicated their 
responsibility not just as lawmakers but as human beings to their 
fellow men and women to conduct aggressive oversight. The State of 
Ohio, as the contractural agent for the federal government, fell asleep 
on its oversight. The fact there are 4 dead men, and a half dozen 
injured is grim testament to that.
  I have appealed already to our Committee on Education and the 
Workforce to hold hearings into this tragedy in Ohio. The hearings 
ought to be held in Ohio. It is my hope that, in spite of the actions 
being taken today, there might be some accountability, some conscience 
out there that asks--no, that demands--that this Congress act on behalf 
of the mothers and the fathers and the wives and the children and every 
single person in our community that goes under that bridge every day or 
looks at that construction project, all the people that still lay 
wreaths at the site, they are numerous, all the prayers, all the 
offerings, all the memories that are there forever.
  I want to say to my colleague from New York, Mr. Owens you have my 
strongest support on your bill. I am so sorry that I have to come here 
to the floor today and speak these words that I know, for the families 
back home, is so very hard to listen to. But I feel it is my 
responsibility as the only voice they have got here. I want to say to 
the ironworkers union, if I can hold my composure, you deserve a lot 
better than this. You serve us with great distinction. We value the 
lives of your members and the faith that they put in us to protect 
them. Some of us take this obligation as a sacred obligation. We salute 
them.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My colleague from Toledo clearly laid out what was a tragedy in her 
community with regard to the four gentlemen who lost their lives in 
this accident. This accident continues to be under review by OSHA. We 
hope that OSHA will get to the bottom of what did happen, and, more 
importantly, who was responsible. I do not think it serves those 
families, the community or any of us to point fingers and to lay blame 
without facts. To my knowledge at this point, this particular case is 
still under investigation. There are still lots of details to be 
gleaned. And when this picture becomes clearer, we can then take a 
course of action that in fact may be appropriate. But I am waiting for 
this review and this investigation to continue.
  But the point here is that the bill that we are debating would 
actually, I think, assist in making the determination about who is 
guilty, because by making it clear that the review commission should 
hear these cases and can adjudicate these cases, you can make a 
determination about who was right and who was wrong by an independent 
commission, not by OSHA itself.

[[Page 15686]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying that 
neither this bill nor the other three weaken OSHA. We designed these 
bills to help OSHA. Part of the problem is that this 34-year-old bill 
has been changed by activist judges, it has not been reviewed or looked 
at in 34 years in any sense, and these simply bring fairness back into 
the equation. As you can imagine, 34 years ago, we had an OSHA bill 
that was drawn up by a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate that 
was very fair, just a little tilted in one direction, and we are trying 
to undo that tilt just a little bit so finally, finally, maybe we can 
get OSHA to work with the small business community to benefit the 
workers.
  The Occupational Safety and Health Independent Review of OSHA 
Citations Act restores congressional intent where the operation of the 
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission is concerned. It just 
puts it back like it was 34 years ago. It got knocked out of whack with 
activist judges. When the Occupational Safety and Health Act was 
passed, the only reason it passed was a last-minute compromise to 
create an independent review commission. If you do not believe me, you 
do not have to. Go read the testimony. It is exactly what happened in 
the seventies.
  It is clear in the legislative language of the OSH Act that Congress 
empowered the commission to interpret ambiguities under the act. This, 
however, has been undermined by legal interpretations that did not 
consider congressional action at the time. I would think all of us 
would want them to consider what we in Congress did.
  Mr. Speaker, the OSH Act empowers OSHA to inspect and propose 
citations for violations of safety and health standards. The 
commission's responsibility is to review contested citations and render 
judgment. OSHA's responsibility is to make up the rules and enforce the 
rules. But they should not sit in judgment of their own rules. That can 
never be fair to anybody. The Congress in 1970 understood that, and we 
are going to fix that in OSHA sometime very soon. Congress did not 
intend for OSHA to create the regulations, enforce them, and then turn 
around and interpret them. I would compare OSHA's role to a prosecutor, 
and the commission's role to a court. Congress never intended that OSHA 
should also be the judge and jury. This is the commission's role.
  Unfortunately, that position has been undermined by other court 
cases, cases that did not directly deal with safety and health law, for 
pity's sake, which suggested that deference should be given to OSHA 
instead. In my view, this must be corrected, and as long as I am in 
this town and in this body, I am going to try to correct it.
  H.R. 741 simply states that deference shall be given to the 
reasonable findings of the commission in accordance with the governing 
court precedents as Congress originally intended. In the 108th 
Congress, most of us understood this was important: 224 voted for it; 
204 against. I know that the union bosses are against anything we do, 
anything that might possibly help the majority of citizens in this 
country who are in small business. Lord, they are always against it. 
But those of you who care about union members, think about them on 
these votes. Don't worry about the union bosses. They are going to 
contribute to you, anyway. Think about the workers. They are the folks 
who would appreciate this kind of legislation.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
  Mr. TIAHRT. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding me this 
time, and I appreciate the leadership that he has presented to this 
Congress on making America more competitive in the world economy.
  Mr. Speaker, this week, Congress embarks on an important agenda to 
make America more competitive in the global marketplace. Over the next 
several weeks, the House will pass significant legislation as part of 
the Republican Congress' competitiveness agenda. Glo-
balization is not something we can ignore, nor is it something we can 
stop. As Thomas Friedman says in his book, The World is Flat, 
globalization is a reality of our world today. How Congress deals with 
this reality will determine whether America remains the dominant 
economic superpower or whether we are relegated to a second-class 
economy.
  America's businesses and workers have the skills and talent to 
compete and succeed in the global economy when given the opportunity to 
succeed. Unfortunately, over the past 40 years, Congress has 
constructed barriers to competitiveness. This institution now has a 
responsibility to break down these barriers and allow workers and 
businesses to prosper. This week of the competitiveness agenda is 
dedicated to eliminating bureaucratic red tape. Over the years, 
regulation after regulation has been levied upon our businesses, 
hindering their growth and development. Some of these regulations have 
proved helpful, but far too often these policies work simply to 
constrain our businesses from effectively competing and thereby keeping 
our workers from earning the best wages and benefits. OSHA is an 
excellent example of a good idea poorly executed that now hinders our 
businesses and workers.
  The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) has been a leader in the 
fight to keep American businesses competitive without sacrificing 
workplace safety and health protections. The four bills that we are 
considering today will establish basic principles of fairness, reduce 
regulatory burdens and expedite administrative reviews that will 
increase business productivity among America's small businesses. I want 
to thank the gentleman from Georgia for his vision and hard work on all 
these issues.
  In 1971, OSHA was created to ensure a safe and healthy workplace for 
workers throughout the Nation. However, the bureaucracy has led OSHA to 
develop an adversarial relationship with our small businesses, defying 
common sense, good government principles and congressional intent. In 
order to successfully create a safe work environment, OSHA must be 
cooperative, not confrontational or punitive. People who own and 
operate businesses do not want dangerous workplaces or injured workers. 
They want to do the right thing, and OSHA should be there as a guide 
and resource, cooperatively working for a safer work environment. 
Unfortunately, this is simply not what is happening with OSHA.
  This is particularly true in the residential construction industry 
where OSHA seemed to unfairly target small homebuilders in Sedgwick 
County, Kansas. In June of 2003, I was contacted by a group of 
homebuilders in Wichita who were frightened by the prospect of having 
to stop working in order to avoid fines from OSHA. These constituents 
told me OSHA was planning to fine builders for plastic cups on stairs 
and for workers' failure to wear earplugs while operating a wet vac. 
While seemingly minor issues to most of us, these fines, which some in 
the community claimed could be as high as $50,000, would effectively 
put small businesses out of business.
  While OSHA claimed these reports were exaggerated, there is no way I 
can exaggerate the impact OSHA's hostility and excessive regulation can 
have on the still-recovering Wichita economy. In the case of these 
small construction companies, OSHA chose surprise visits, ill-conceived 
compliance guidelines and an adversarial demeanor to achieve everyone's 
goal of a safer, more secure workplace. The results were that many 
small contractors in my area of the country were forced to stop working 
in order to avoid unfair fines which could have been as high as $7,000 
per infraction, no matter how insignificant. Under this approach, OSHA 
was doing more to hurt employees than to help them, threatening the 
ability of the men and women of the residential construction to make a 
living. That is why I am a strong supporter of the gentleman from 
Georgia's OSHA reform legislation, including H.R. 741. This is 
important piece of legislation would establish an independent review of 
OSHA citations.

[[Page 15687]]

  The American political structure is based on a system of checks and 
balances, Federal and State, the executive, legislative and judicial 
branches. However, OSHA currently acts both as the prosecutor and the 
judge for the disposition of OSHA citations. Not only is this 
inherently unfair and inconsistent with our political system, the 
structure of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission does 
not live up to congressional intent.
  As the gentleman from Georgia has eloquently explained, when Congress 
established the OSHRC, it was designed to be an independent judicial 
entity to provide proper and nonbiased review and adjudication of OSHA 
citations.

                              {time}  1630

  This independent citation is critically important to the integrity 
and fairness of OSHA. Restoring this independence will help OSHA and 
the workers it serves.
  I support the competitiveness agenda for America, and I support 
eliminating bureaucratic red tape, and I support the gentleman from 
Georgia's (Mr. Norwood) OSHA reform legislation.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Price), a member our committee.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, once again I want to commend the 
chairman of the committee for his wonderful work in this area and 
commend the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) for keeping this issue 
alive as he has tried to enact these appropriate reforms.
  Once again from the opposition we have heard some very interesting 
stories. But the problem is they do not have anything to do with the 
bill. I am reminded of the newspaper correction column, that column 
that is on page 5 or 6 or 10 or 12. We need a correction column right 
here. The misstatements and the untruths by the opponents would be 
amusing if this were not so doggone important.
  We are not interested in dismantling OSHA. We are interested in 
improving workers' safety. I rise to support H.R. 741, and I want to 
once again bring us back to the magnitude of the issues we are talking 
about. Small business, 99.7 percent of all business is small business; 
and 75 percent of all new jobs are hired in the small business sector.
  Have my colleagues ever been up against Big Brother? Ever been up 
against Big Brother? OSHA's budget is $468 million; 2,200 employees; 
1,100 inspectors. OSHA is Big Brother. And the analogy has been used 
here, but what if Big Brother were the prosecutor and the judge and the 
jury? Unfair? Unfair? You bet. That is the current system. That is the 
current system under which we are working. OSHA is the prosecutor, it 
is the judge, and it is the jury. And that was not the intent. That was 
not the intent.
  H.R. 741 restores the original intent and the original system of 
checks and balances that was intended by Congress. Read the bill. What 
does it say? All it says is: ``The conclusions of the Commission with 
respect to all questions of law that are subject to agency deference 
under governing court precedent shall be given deference if 
reasonable.'' That is it. That is all it says. What does it mean? It 
means that the review committee will be the independent committee and 
the commission that Congress intended originally. Very simple common 
sense.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt H.R. 741.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the critical question is what more important things 
should we be doing? This commission bill which creates confusion, to 
our knowledge, is still not sanctioned by the administration or the 
Secretary of Labor. Why are we putting such great amounts of time and 
energy into proposing new powers for this commission when there are 
other more important things that we ought to be addressing?
  And the statement by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) was all 
related to what other important things should we be doing. Why can we 
not have hearings when there is a major accident with four men being 
killed under the circumstances they were killed in Ohio? Why can we not 
call in OSHA and demand that there be an expedited investigation? Why 
are citations allowed to be unclassified? This committee, the Committee 
on Education and the Workforce, has oversight over the work of the 
Department of Labor and OSHA. Why can we not get better answers? Why 
can we not consider my bill, H.R. 2004, the Protecting America's 
Workers Act, which will call for penalties for corporations who are 
guilty of the kind of neglect that led to the deaths of the four 
workers in Ohio?
  Even by conservative estimates, 15 workers in this country will be 
killed on the job today, July 12. They will be killed due to serious 
safety lapses on the part of their employers. Why are we wasting our 
time playing around with the adjustment of a commission when these 
workers deaths are still going on in America?
  I spoke earlier about the fiery explosion some 3 months ago at the BP 
plant in Texas City that killed 15 workers and injured more than 100 
others. This happened three months ago. It is not ancient history. Why 
has this committee with jurisdiction not examined that explosion more 
closely here in Washington? I had also previously mentioned the bridge 
collapse in Toledo, which the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) 
discussed in greater detail.
  Many other cases of worker deaths, equally as tragic and preventable, 
only make local headlines. They only know about them locally. And they 
go on in different parts of the country because we are not aware of the 
seriousness of the situation. The fact is that much of what happens in 
one area can be prevented from happening in another area if we would 
just address those serious issues.
  Every year in New York City, for example, a number of unprotected 
construction workers are killed by free-falls from buildings and 
collapses of faulty scaffolds and concrete walls. Almost 8 months ago 
in Walnut Creek, California, a gas pipeline explosion killed five 
workers, and badly injured four others. The list goes on and on.
  We welcome this opportunity to get on the record from both the 
Members of Congress and the American people the fact that these things 
are continuing--this steady rate of somewhere between 5,700 and 6,000 
workers dying each year--and it has been going on too long. Why not 
address the fact that this is something that can be stopped? We can 
change the death rate by having a more effective OSHA instead of 
playing around the edges, as these four bills are doing.
  In the words of a New York State Supreme Court justice, these worker 
deaths in New York were not simply ``random accidents'' but rather, and 
I am quoting the judge here, ``tragic certainties.'' ``Tragic 
certainties.'' The workers died as the direct result of some employer's 
willful safety violations or serious negligence. What is even more 
reprehensible is that too often, and in the specific worker death cases 
I just referred to, the employers responsible for these fatalities are 
repeat safety offenders.
  In a forum I held last year entitled, ``Jobs to Die For: Inadequate 
Enforcement of U.S. Safety Standards,'' I heard from the grieving 
parents of 22-year-old Patrick Walters. Patrick was buried alive on 
June 14, 2002, working on a sewer pipe in a 10-foot trench. Patrick had 
spoken before about his fear of being suffocating because he was 
repeatedly sent down into the trenches without any protective equipment 
and without a metal trench box. We have a picture of Patrick here. He 
is the young man at the top tier of the poster to my right.
  I mentioned Patrick's employer before, Moeves Plumbing, with respect 
to H.R. 739. I did this because Moeves Plumbing is a repeat safety 
offender. The firm has been the subject of 13 OSHA inspections since 
1989. Patrick died only weeks after OSHA had cited Moeves Plumbing for 
willful trenching violations. When OSHA settled the case of Patrick 
Walters' death with Moeves Plumbing, however, they changed the willful 
violation to an ``unclassified'' one. Have we heard that before today? 
Unclassified, just as they did in the case of Ohio. It was not a 
willful violation, but an unclassified violation. A

[[Page 15688]]

weak OSHA, a corrupt OSHA changed it to ``unclassified.'' Without a 
willful violation, the Solicitor of Labor would not recommend criminal 
prosecution of Moeves Plumbing. As Patrick's parents told me last year: 
``We need to get some stiffer penalties and some muscle behind it, or 
Moeves' company is going to kill another child again. They will. It's 
only a matter of time.''
  Patrick's parents, who still live in the Cincinnati area, continue to 
see Moeves employees working inside trenches without any cave-in 
protections. As Patrick's father told a reporter in March of 2005, 
March of this year, about the owner of Moeves Plumbing: ``She's killed 
two people now, and she'll probably kill two people again. It's obvious 
she's not listening to what OSHA is telling her.''
  Under the current OSHA Act, the maximum penalty any employer can 
receive for causing the death of a worker, considered a misdemeanor, is 
6 months in prison and a $10,000 fine. Six months in prison and a 
$10,000 fine. Unlike surviving relatives of other crime victims, family 
members of workers killed on the job are left without any victim 
services or assistance under current law. They even lack a voice in any 
OSHA investigations of their loved ones' deaths. They also lack any 
voice in OSHA's subsequent negotiations with culpable employees over 
the downgrading of initial citations and fines tied to the worker 
fatalities.
  By stiffening criminal penalties for those found guilty of blatant 
safety violations that result in worker deaths, the Protecting 
America's Workers Act will make other employers think twice about 
ignoring basic health and safety rules that risk workers' lives. H.R. 
2004 incorporates in its entirety the provisions of a bill I introduced 
last year, and that was called the Workplace Wrongful Death 
Accountability Act. Both bills would make it a felony offense to kill a 
worker and provide for a term of no more than 10 years in prison. A 
felony offense to kill a worker, and there will be a term of no more 
than 10 years in prison. For a second offense, the maximum term for a 
culpable employer would be 20 years in prison. Fines would be set in 
accordance with title 18 of the U.S. Code, which is standard practice 
for all other criminal matters.
  In other legislative matters, everyone agrees that holding people 
accountable by such means as stiffened penalties serves a critically 
important deterrent purpose. We are often on this floor talking about 
the need to not be soft on crime, to come with the hardest possible 
punishment as a deterrent. Yet I know that there are many on the other 
side of the aisle who are absolutely allergic to what I am proposing 
here, the prospect of holding accountable any employer whose willful or 
grossly negligent safety offenses kill workers. They don't want to hold 
accountable any employer whose willful or grossly negligent safety 
offenses kill workers. The opposition to holding such bad actors 
accountable does not even waver in instances where a number of workers 
are killed by the same safety violations over a 5- or 10-year period. 
The opposition also does not waver no matter how many workers are 
killed by an employer's egregious safety offenses.
  I am heartened, however, by the fact that yesterday's ``Inside OSHA'' 
reports that Senator Enzi from Wyoming, who chairs the Health, 
Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, supports stiffening criminal 
penalties for health and safety violations that kill workers. As I 
understand it, Senator Enzi and I might differ on the maximum penalty 
for corporate manslaughter, but we agree on the need to make this a 
felony offense.
  I believe Senator Enzi would prefer to see a maximum prison sentence 
for a first offense set at 18 months, whereas my bill would set the 
maximum at 10 years, in accordance with standard criminal law. Senators 
Kennedy, Corzine, and others introduced the Protecting America's 
Workers Act on the Senate side; and they agree with setting the maximum 
penalty for corporate manslaughter at the 10-year mark.
  Mr. Speaker, the Protecting America's Workers Act would also extend 
OSHA coverage to millions of workers who currently lack the protection 
of workplace safety and health laws. Among others, these include public 
employees in a number of States and localities, certain transportation 
workers such as flight attendants, and a number of Federal workers, as 
well as those in public/private entities such as the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission. Moreover, this act provides stronger protections for any 
worker who reports safety and health violations of an errant employer.

                              {time}  1645

  This bill requires OSHA to investigate any workplace incident that 
results in the death of a worker or the hospitalization of two or more 
workers. At the same time, it gives surviving family members of workers 
who are killed greater participation rights in OSHA's workplace 
investigation and penalty negotiation process with the respective 
employers responsible for these fatalities. Moreover, it prohibits OSHA 
from downgrading willful citations in worker fatalities, downgrading 
them to this ``unclassified'' category. They should not be categorized 
as ``unclassified'' ever again.
  Last, but not least, this bill that I propose strengthens workplace 
prevention efforts by requiring employers to cover the costs of 
personal protective equipment for their employees.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the New York Committee on the Safety 
and Health, NYCOSH, joined by COSH committees in other States, for 
launching a national campaign against corporate killing. This 
grassroots campaign will alert workers and the wider public about the 
importance of ensuring employers do not place profits above basic 
safety measures at the expense of workers' very health and lives. This 
is a serious business that this committee ought to be about. This is a 
serious business that ought to be on the floor today. This grassroots 
campaign says what Congress should also be saying, that it is important 
to ensure that employers, that bosses do not place profits above basic 
safety measures at the expense of workers' health and lives.
  Mr. Speaker, the time for the Protecting America's Workers Act is 
now. Although we have been making progress and making the American 
workplace safer in prior administrations, that progress has stalled, 
and we need to act immediately in a serious manner and stop the kinds 
of adjustments that are taking place in the bills that are on the floor 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.
  Mr. Speaker, having been an employer, I realized early on that the 
greatest asset in my business were the people who work for me. And 
having worked every job known to man growing up, I know that the people 
I worked for realized that the greatest asset they had in their 
business were their workers. When it comes to the protection of 
workers, I believe that all employers are interested in trying to 
protect their employees.
  Congress, in 1970, passed the OSHA Act, putting in statute a set of 
laws, rules and regulations about the protection of American workers. 
And over the last, really the last 7 or 8 years, we have made great 
progress in reducing workplace accidents, illnesses and deaths, because 
OSHA, at the prodding of many of us, began to work more cooperatively 
with employers around the country. I have been to many work sites in my 
own district where voluntary protection programs have been instituted 
and have been signed off by OSHA that allow employers and their 
employees to work cooperatively in order to have a safer workplace. And 
the results, the results are pretty clear. If you look at, over the 
last 5 years, the rate of illness, workplace injuries, and deaths has 
continued to decline precipitously. We are making real progress. So I 
would continue to urge OSHA to work with employers and their employees 
to help create the safer workplace that all of us want.
  Now, the bill before us simply says that there ought to be this 
independent

[[Page 15689]]

review of the decisions that OSHA makes, that OSHA as the policeman, as 
the prosecutor, as the judge and the jury, is not fair to American 
workers or their employers. And we believe that when Congress created 
OSHA in 1970, they believed, and it is clear in the legislative 
language and in their intent, that they believed that there would be an 
independent review commission making these decisions. All we do in this 
bill is to make clear that it is Congress's intent and that OSHA will, 
in fact, abide by the law as it was written.
  So I would urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill today.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 741. Instead 
of working to strengthen OSHA standards, my Republican colleagues have 
presented yet another piece of legislation aimed to weaken it by 
undermining the clout of the Secretary of Labor.
  The Secretary of Labor should be the final authority on how OSHA law 
is interpreted, and this bill undermines the Secretary's authority . . 
. giving the Commission too much latitude.
  The Secretary of Labor needs an unbiased group of peers during the 
appeals process. If the Commission's authority on the interpretation of 
OSHA law trumps the Secretary of Labor, what legal basis would the 
Secretary have to appeal a decision with which he/she disagrees?
  The Commission's role is to fact-find and review while the Secretary 
of Labor is the enforcer. If the Commission becomes both the fact-
finder and the enforcer, the employee cannot be ensured protection from 
bias. This legislation undermines the entire appeals process. It is 
unnecessary and not in the best interests of the employer or the 
employee.
  If the administration was really interested in helping workers, it 
wouldn't be focusing on these unnecessary semantics in the law. But 
instead, it would be granting workers something they really need, like 
increased minimum wage or stricter penalties for employers that ignore 
safety regulations. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting real 
worker reforms, not legislation promoting the erosion of worker 
protections.
  Mr. Speaker, the administration's priorities are wrong, and I urge my 
colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 741.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today speak in 
opposition to H.R. 741, a bill to amend the Occupational Safety and 
Health Act of 1970 by requiring judges in OSHA appeals cases to give 
more weight to the commission's decisions than to Labor Department 
regulators. Supporters argue the legislation would codify the intent of 
the 1970 Occupational Safety and Health Act (PL 91-596). However, I 
would argue that the measure would violate a 1991 Supreme Court ruling 
that gave the Labor Department priority in interpreting OSHA 
regulations.
  Nearly every working man and woman in the Nation comes under OSHA's 
jurisdiction (with some exceptions such as miners, transportation 
workers, many public employees, and the self-employed). Users and 
recipients of OSHA services include: occupational safety and health 
professionals, the academic community, lawyers, journalists, and 
personnel of other government entities. To ensure that these 
individuals are safe and protected on the job, OSHA and its State 
partners have approximately 2,100 inspectors, including complaint 
discrimination investigators, engineers, physicians, educators, 
standards writers, and other technical and support personnel spread 
over more than 200 offices throughout the country. This staff 
establishes protective standards, enforces those standards, and reaches 
out to employers and employees through technical assistance and 
consultation programs. OSHA has proven that it is committed to doing 
its job and the Labor Department should continue to have the authority 
to interpret OSHA regulations.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 741.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rehberg). All time for debate having 
expired, pursuant to House Resolution 351, the previous question is 
ordered on the bill, as amended.
  The question is on 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________