[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 7331-7344]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




       COMBUSTIBLE DUST EXPLOSION AND FIRE PREVENTION ACT OF 2008

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1157 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 5522.

                              {time}  1646


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 5522) to require the Secretary of Labor to issue interim and 
final occupational safety and health standards regarding worker 
exposure to combustible dust, and for other purposes, with Mrs. 
Christensen in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McKeon) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5522, the Combustible Dust 
Explosion and Fire Prevention Act of 2008.
  On February 7 of this year, a huge explosion ripped through the 
Imperial Sugar refinery in Port Wentworth, Georgia. Eight workers died 
instantly, and five more have died in the months since the explosion 
from the horrific burns that they suffered. More than sixty workers 
were injured, some so seriously that they will never fully recover. 
This was a terrible disaster, one of our Nation's worst workplace 
tragedies of the past decade.
  The cause of the explosion was combustible sugar dust. It may 
surprise many of us that sugar dust can explode with such violence. But 
it can, and so can many other dusts that are commonly found in U.S. 
industrial sites.
  In 2003, three fatal dust explosions occurred in the United States, 
killing 14 workers. The U.S. Chemical Safety Board investigated these 
incidents. The board examined whether these tragedies were just 
coincidences or a major national problem. The Chemical Safety Board 
also examined whether there were adequate laws to protect workers or 
whether new protections were needed. The Chemical Safety Board found 
that these explosions were not coincidences. In fact, between 1980 and 
2005, 119 workers had been killed and 718 injured in dust explosions 
that had also extensively damaged the industrial facilities. The 
Chemical Safety Board also found that there were no enforceable 
national regulations to prevent combustible dust incidents. Let me 
repeat that. The Chemical Safety Board also found that there were no 
enforceable national regulations to prevent combustible dust incidents.
  The Chemical Safety Board concluded that controlling combustible dust 
explosions isn't a mystery. In fact, the first National Fire Protection 
Association standards to prevent combustible dust explosions were 
issued in 1923. In November of 2006, the Chemical Safety Board, an 
independent Federal agency whose members were all appointed by 
President George W. Bush, concluded that the only way to prevent more 
worker deaths was for OSHA to issue a comprehensive standard covering 
combustible dust. That was in November of 2006. But to this day, OSHA 
has taken no action to issue a standard. In fact, OSHA has refused to 
act despite the fact that 70 more combustible dust explosions have 
occurred since 2006.
  Even now, after 13 needless deaths in Georgia, OSHA demonstrates no 
understanding of the urgency of this problem. This is a shocking 
failure by the very governmental agency responsible for keeping workers 
safe.
  Sadly, this isn't the only time that OSHA has failed to act on a 
Chemical Safety Board recommendation, and it's not the only time where 
the result of that inaction has been the death of American workers. The 
Chemical Safety Board warned OSHA in 2002 that new rules were needed to 
prevent reactive chemical explosions, but OSHA refused to act. Then 
last December a reactive chemical explosion in Jacksonville, Florida, 
killed four workers.
  Because OSHA refused to act, Congress must now act. Congressman John 
Barrow and I have introduced H.R. 5522 to force OSHA to do the job it 
should have done on its own. The legislation will require OSHA to issue 
an interim standard on combustible dust within 90 days and a permanent 
standard within 18 months. It would require OSHA to base the new 
standard on the National Fire Protection Association standards.
  OSHA says that the combustible dust hazards are already covered by 
numerous existing regulations. But that simply is not true. Most of the 
existing standards do not even mention the word ``dust'' and do nothing 
to educate or inform employers and employees how to prevent combustible 
dust explosions. Existing OSHA standards also do not address what 
levels of dust are safe, how to clean the dust safely, or how to 
prevent dust from accumulating to unsafe levels.
  And it is not true, as opponents of this bill say, that we don't 
allow for public input. In fact, OSHA would have to conduct full public 
hearings and a

[[Page 7332]]

small business review but to do so on an expedited basis that reflects 
the life-or-death urgency of this issue.
  Because of the serious hazards imposed by combustible dust, because 
OSHA has issued no major standard during this administration except 
under pressure of the courts or the Congress, and because OSHA is 
unable to meet the regulatory deadlines it sets for itself, it is 
necessary to set some tight deadlines for action.
  It is also not true that this bill requires OSHA to adopt the 
National Fire Protection Association standards. The bill requires OSHA 
to include only the relevant and appropriate provisions of the National 
Fire Protection Association combustible dust standards. While the 
National Fire Protection Association standards have proven to be 
effective, OSHA should use its discretion, after full public hearings 
and comments, to determine how the National Fire Protection Association 
guidelines should be used in a final standard.
  You will hear opponents of this measure say we should wait until the 
OSHA investigation is completed and the results of OSHA's current 
National Emphasis Program are in. But we have waited long enough. And, 
in fact, again, the Chemical Safety Board recommendations predate that 
accident based upon the urgent need for these regulations to save 
American workers' lives and to prevent their injuries prior to that 
time.
  Again, if OSHA doesn't act, we must. We know that most businesses are 
doing the best they can to make their workplace safe. But it is also 
clear that other businesses may not be doing enough to ensure the 
safety of their employees. The bottom line is that workers need 
protection and the agency established by Congress 37 years ago to 
protect workers has once again failed in that duty.
  The goal today is to protect workers from those preventable 
explosions, and we believe that this legislation accomplishes that goal 
without imposing unreasonable burdens on employers.
  I want to leave the House with the closing words of a witness who 
appeared before the Education and Labor Committee, Tammy Miser. Tammy 
Miser's brother, Shawn Boone, was killed in a combustible dust 
explosion in 2003. Tammy recounted the terrible suffering that her 
brother went through before he died, her hopes that something would 
happen after the Chemical Safety Board recommendations were issued, and 
her disappointment that OSHA has yet to act, even after the Imperial 
Sugar explosion.
  Tammy left us with this one request: ``that you not let our loved 
ones die in vain and help us keep other families safe from the dangers 
of combustible dust.''
  It's the least we can do for Shawn Boone, the workers in Port 
Wentworth, and the many other workers who have needlessly lost their 
lives.
  Madam Chairman, I strongly urge that all of my colleagues will 
support H.R. 5522.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise in opposition to the bill at this time and in this form.
  Consideration of this bill is a somber occurrence. It reminds us that 
less than 3 months ago, workers at the Imperial Sugar refinery in Port 
Wentworth, Georgia, lost their lives to a tragic workplace accident. 
Even today many others remain injured.
  As with any workplace accident of this magnitude, the Occupational 
Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA, was dispatched to the scene 
to investigate what went wrong. Preliminary reports indicate that the 
explosion was linked to combustible dust, a known hazard for which at 
least 17 OSHA standards currently apply.
  OSHA has 6 months to complete its investigation, a time frame that I 
think is appropriate for any injury of this seriousness. I expect that 
investigation to provide us a thorough, candid examination of exactly 
what went wrong so that steps can be taken to prevent such an accident 
in the future.
  Among the first questions OSHA needs to answer is whether existing 
safety guidelines were followed at the Imperial refinery. This question 
is fundamental. It will tell us whether the cause of this accident was 
a lack of sufficient safety standards or a failure to follow the 
standards that exist.
  The bill before us today presumes that current safety standards were 
insufficient. But the truth is we don't yet know whether that is the 
case. Less than 3 months after the accident, OSHA has not even had an 
opportunity to complete its investigation. We cannot possibly provide 
effective new safety standards when we don't know which standards, if 
any, we're lacking.
  I understand why we're here today. Like Chairman Miller; 
Representatives Barrow and Kingston, who represent the refinery and 
surrounding areas; and all Members of this body, I grieve for the 
workers who lost their lives. But making an end run around a proven 
process for establishing workplace safety guidelines is the wrong 
answer at the wrong time.
  The bill before us proposes a highly proscriptive regulatory mandate 
in an excruciatingly compressed time frame. More concerning still, 
OSHA, the agency that would be responsible for implementing these new 
requirements, does not believe this bill will produce the most 
effective safety measures.

                              {time}  1700

  Of course, this is not to say that we should do nothing in the face 
of such an accident. To the contrary. I believe OSHA has a 
responsibility to complete a thorough, aggressive investigation of the 
accident at the Imperial Sugar refinery to determine its causes and 
consider whether additional regulatory guidance is needed. If it 
becomes clear that existing standards are ineffective, OSHA should move 
forward with a robust regulatory process that provides clearer, more 
effective guidance on combustible dust.
  I want to be clear on this point. This bill at this time, and in this 
form, is not the only opportunity to strengthen safety standards for 
combustible dust. OSHA itself has not ruled out additional regulations 
if it becomes clear that the 17 existing standards that apply to 
workplaces with combustible dust hazards are not effective or clear 
enough to protect workers.
  The danger of combustible dust in the workplace is a serious concern, 
and I am committed to appropriate and effective safety measures. That 
is why we plan to offer an alternative proposal today that calls for a 
more comprehensive approach that would include stakeholder input and 
expertise in any regulatory action that may be needed.
  We had hoped to see another amendment made in order, as proposed by 
Representative Kingston. Because of the compressed timetable in the 
bill, OSHA will not have to take into account economic feasibility of 
the standard. Mr. Kingston's amendment would have simply asked that a 
study on the job losses resulting from the standard be reported to 
Congress. Surely it would not have been too much to ask whether 
Congress was exacerbating job losses in an already weakening economy. 
But, unfortunately, that amendment was not made in order.
  Still, I continue to believe we can work together in good faith to 
protect worker safety without undermining the proven road to developing 
effective, enforceable safety protections.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Woolsey), the Chair of the subcommittee.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. This past Monday was Workers Memorial Day. Workers 
Memorial Day is the day when we remember those who have lost their 
lives or have been injured as a result of unsafe health and safety 
conditions in the workplace. On Workers Memorial Day we also recommit 
to the fight for safe working conditions for every single worker in 
America.
  So, Madam Chairwoman, it's fitting that today we are considering H.R. 
5522, the Worker Protection Against Combustible Dust Explosions and 
Fires Act, which was introduced by Chairman Miller and Representative 
Barrow, a bill that requires OSHA to develop a standard for combustible 
dust. I am proud to be a cosponsor of that

[[Page 7333]]

bill, and I want to commend Chairman Miller and Representative Barrow 
because they introduced it.
  Like other Members of Congress, I was absolutely shocked and saddened 
by the combustible dust explosion at the Imperial Sugar Company in Port 
Wentworth, Georgia, which resulted in 13 deaths and 60 injuries. My 
heart goes out to the families of those who died, and my hopes and 
prayers, all of our hopes and prayers are with those workers who were 
seriously injured. The survivors have a tough road ahead of them.
  Unfortunately, Madam Chairwoman, this explosion, like so many other 
workplace incidents that have occurred lately, could have been 
prevented. That is the most important part of it. It didn't need to 
happen. Lives were senselessly lost, and more workers remain in 
critical condition.
  That is why immediately after the explosion, Chairman Miller and I 
sent a letter to OSHA demanding that the agency begin work on a 
standard for combustible dust. Such a standard was recommended not last 
year, but longer than that ago, a year and a half ago, at least, by the 
Chemical Safety Board. That is an independent Federal agency charged 
with investigating chemical accidents. But OSHA has failed to act on 
this recommendation, and unfortunately, but not surprisingly, OSHA has 
failed to respond to our letter in a timely manner.
  So that is why we in Congress need to act, and we need to act now. We 
must act just as we did when we passed H.R. 2693, the Popcorn Lung 
Disease Prevention Act. That was legislation that requires OSHA to 
issue an emergency temporary standard to regulate workers' exposure to 
diacetyl, a chemical used in butter flavoring for microwave popcorn and 
other food products, a chemical that was killing and injuring workers.
  I wish that we could trust OSHA under this administration to do the 
job that was laid out for them. But we cannot. So that is why I urge my 
colleagues to pass H.R. 5522. Take care of our workers.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I yield to the subcommittee ranking 
member that has jurisdiction over this issue, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Kline), such time as he may consume.
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in support of workplace safety, but in 
opposition to H.R. 5522, the Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire 
Prevention Act. We all share, I believe, the common goal of working to 
protect employees from hazards in the workplace. The accident at the 
Imperial Sugar refinery in Georgia is a tragedy. It must be fully 
investigated. The Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration has undertaken the investigation that, by law, must be 
completed within 6 months. The results of this investigation will help 
identify the cause of the Imperial Sugar accident.
  I appreciate the concern about workers' safety, but as lawmakers, we 
have the responsibility to debate and enact laws that are reasonable. 
The bill before us today is an impulsive attempt to rush into action 
before OSHA can complete the investigation.
  Under this bill, OSHA will be required to adopt an interim rule 
within 90 days of enactment and a final rule within 18 months. This 
accelerated time frame is not only unrealistic, but would also deny 
stakeholder input ranging from industry, to academia, to organized 
labor, and other groups who could provide important and insightful 
contributions. By undermining the process, this legislation could have 
negative consequences and actually undercut workers' safety.
  In a letter to the committee dated April 8, 2008, the Department of 
Labor's Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health, Edwin 
Foulke, states: ``The time constraints of this legislation would give 
OSHA no choice but to ignore other statutory and regulatory 
requirements for rulemaking under the Occupational Safety and Health 
Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, 
numerous executive orders, and Office of Management and Budget 
bulletins and guidelines.''
  H.R. 5522 also disregards the preventive efforts that have been under 
way well before the tragic accident in Georgia. Last year, based on the 
recommendations by the Chemical Safety Board, OSHA initiated a National 
Emphasis Program that aims to identify any gaps that may exist among 
the standards that currently apply to workplaces with combustible dust. 
While OSHA's opinion has been dismissed by the other side, yesterday 
the President issued a veto threat, reiterating serious concerns with 
this hasty regulatory proposal.
  Again, we should not rush to legislative action. Rather, we should 
take the time to thoroughly and thoughtfully review all the facts. I 
urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow), the cosponsor of this 
legislation.
  Mr. BARROW. I thank Chairman Miller.
  Madam Chairman, what we have learned in my community since the 
Imperial disaster hit us is the experts have known about this problems 
for decades. There have been voluntary standards that effectively deal 
with this problem, but not enough people even know about the problem, 
much less the solutions, and those who do know about the solutions, 
aren't required to adopt them.
  We have also learned that the only standards that are mandatory 
really aren't designed with this problem in mind in the first place, 
and they aren't working. So we have good standards that are not 
mandatory and inadequate standards that are mandatory.
  Up until now, the argument has been between those who say we wouldn't 
go too fast in developing a national standard and those who argue we 
are going too slow. There are those who argue the costs of a 
comprehensive solution outweigh the benefits. I disagree. I say that if 
we can prevent just one of these disasters from happening, if we can 
prevent just one family from having to go through what families at 
Imperial Sugar are still going through, it would all be worth it.
  But don't take my word for it. The Savannah Morning News reported 
this morning that the chairman and chief executive officer of the 
National Safety Board believes this bill will, and I quote, ``would 
save lives.'' He believes that the measure ``is good for business and 
the corporate world should support it.''
  He told the editorial board back home, ``I wish I could take 50 
business people at a time to the refinery and have them take a look at 
the destruction. This is what your facility could look like if you 
don't take care of the dust.'' Mr. Bresland ought to know what he's 
talking about. He's not a bureaucrat, he's a ``hard-headed businessman 
from the corporate world'' who worked for many years at Honeywell 
International. He is right. This bill isn't just good government, it's 
also good business.
  I commend Chairman Miller and Ms. Woolsey for their hard work in 
support of this bill, and I urge my colleagues to join us and vote in 
favor of it.
  Mr. McKEON. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), who 
represents constituents that work in this sugar factory, and has been 
dealing with this problem now for 3 months. I am happy to yield him 4 
minutes.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the ranking member and I thank the chairman of 
the committee, and my colleagues, Mr. Barrow and Ms. Woolsey, for their 
work on this. While I support many of the points of the ranking member, 
I believe that this bill is a step in the right direction and something 
that we are just going to have to push OSHA on.
  The Imperial Sugar explosion, of course, was a very tragic accident, 
of which Mr. Barrow and I were involved in it. I actually was there the 
night that it happened and he and I went there for several days 
afterwards to look at the damage. I met with many of the families. It's 
a very sad thing. Sometimes in a situation like that it's hard to be 
objective in terms of what to support and what not to support, or

[[Page 7334]]

what to change, especially since we don't know the exact cause of the 
accident; if any of the existing standards, for example, were violated, 
if a new standard would have prevented it, or if this is going to boil 
down to housekeeping, in which there would already be a violation and 
something a new standard or an old standard cannot address because the 
employer did not do what the employer is supposed to do, which would be 
to keep the workplace clean.
  I share the goal of comprehensive worker safety, but sometimes the 
history of legislating it shows that if we move too quickly, then you 
might not get the goal that you want to do. Throughout its history, 
OSHA standards set in process has been governed by the Administrative 
Procedures Act. This generally requires a Federal agency to develop and 
draft proposed regulations, issue proposed rules and regulations in a 
transparent process that allows for comment and input from the 
stakeholders and incorporate any appropriate stakeholders' comments in 
the publication of the final rule.
  The bill was improved greatly with the Woolsey substitute. That 
substitute moved more of the capital and equipment-intensive mandates 
to the final rule rather than the interim rule, including engineering, 
administration, workplace practices. It also moved the reference to the 
NFPA, the National Fire Protection Act, from the interim to the final 
rule, and making the language more flexible. Those were very good 
improvements. Lastly, it required that the 18-month final rule be made 
under the normal rule making process.
  Now I understand that the chairman may offer further improvements 
during the floor debate tonight that may include making engineering 
controls required under the interim standard effective 6 months after 
the issuance of the interim rather than 30 days under the base bill in 
clarifying that the standard must be promulgated in accordance with 
normal OSHA rulemaking procedure including that that provides for the 
review of small businesses.
  I think that that might a good step because the more input you get 
from the business community, the labor community, and the users, I 
think the better. That's why I offered an amendment that would have 
said that we should consider if there will be any job loss because of 
these rules or because of the interim rules. I was very disappointed 
that the Rules Committee did not allow my amendment to be considered on 
the floor because I think it would have been very helpful and something 
that certainly would have given bipartisan support to it.

                              {time}  1715

  One thing I also want to point out, OSHA can actually make rules 
themselves. The Assistant Secretary, Mr. Foulke, has stated, ``We have 
not ruled out the possibility of doing rulemaking, and that is an 
option for us still. But we are just trying to collect the data through 
the National Emphasis Program where we look at sites and determine do 
our standards actually cover what we need to cover? Or are there some 
holes in the coverage that we may need to address, and would a 
comprehensive standard address that.''
  So we need to remember that if this bill gets bogged down somewhere 
along the line, that OSHA itself probably will come out with some sort 
of rule modification which could be helpful.
  We have talked about the grain standard being a good standard.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia's time has expired.
  Mr. McKEON. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. KINGSTON. The leadership of the committee has said that the grain 
standard works fairly well. But I want to point out that this took 7 
years, so maybe the reason the grain standard is working so well is 
that it took a long time and lots of input to pass. I would hope that 
we could take the lessons of the grain standard and not have to wait 
anywhere near 7 years, but say, hey, that will has already been 
invented. Let's apply what we found on the grain standard to this. I am 
hoping that the chairman's amendment addresses some of those things, 
but I am also confident that the Senate is going to do it as well.
  Let me close by saying I believe under these circumstances that the 
committee has done a good job. I think there has been some solid input 
from the minority, and the majority has been listening. I do plan to 
support the bill, but I do think we have a lot more that we could do to 
improve it.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of 
H.R. 5522, the Worker Protection Against Combustible Dust Explosion and 
Fire Act of 2008. This bill would require the U.S. Occupational Safety 
and Health Administration, OSHA, to issue rules regulating combustible 
industrial dusts, like sugar dust, that can build up to hazardous 
levels and explode.
  Opponents of this bill claim that OSHA has enough existing standard 
and education materials to protect workers. However, I would strongly 
argue that the absence of clear OSHA standards puts thousands of 
American workers and innocent bystanders at risk from workplace 
hazards. Unfortunately, I have an example to back up my statement.
  On December 19, 2007 there was a chemical explosion at the T2 
Laboratories in Jacksonville, Florida. According to the U.S. Chemical 
Safety Board, CSB, this explosion was one of the worse chemical 
accidents in their 10-year history. Unfortunately, this isn't an 
isolated incident. A year earlier, there was another explosion in 
Daytona Beach at the Bethune Point Wastewater Plant. These two 
incidents demonstrate a critical need for stronger OSHA regulations.
  In 2002, following a series of fatal explosions and a large number of 
deaths and injuries caused by runaway chemical reactions, the CSB 
issued a report concluding that reactive incidents are ``a significant 
chemical safety problem'' and that OSHA's Process Safety Management 
Standard, PSM standard, has ``significant gaps in coverage of reactive 
hazards.'' The study identified 167 serious reactive chemical accidents 
resulting in 108 fatalities in the U.S. over a 20 year period. The CSB 
therefore recommended that OSHA amend the PSM standard to better 
control reactive chemical hazards.
  Reactive hazards rulemaking had been on OSHA's agenda during the 
Clinton administration as a result of a number of fatalities and a 
labor union petition, but the Bush administration removed it from the 
regulatory agenda.
  OSHA's mission is to ensure employee safety and health and as OSHA is 
watching the progress of H.R. 5522, I ask that they review the 2002 
recommendations by the Chemical Safety Board and revise the Process 
Safety Management standards to prevent further workplace accidents.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
this bill to improve worker protections.
  The Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Prevention Act would force 
the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration to issue rules 
regulating combustible industrial dusts, like sugar dust, that can 
build up to hazardous levels and explode.
  While OSHA already has the authority to issue such a rule without 
Congress passing new legislation, the agency has failed to act despite 
the fact that the dangers of combustible dust have been well known for 
years.
  In 2006, following a series of fatal combustible dust explosions, the 
U.S. Chemical Safety Board conducted a major study of combustible dust 
hazards.
  It identified 281 combustible dust incidents between 1980 and 2005 
that killed 119 workers, injured 718 others, and extensively damaged 
industrial facilities.
  Time and time again we have seen this administration fail to take 
necessary actions to protect workers, and without action by Congress, 
it appears OSHA has no plans to act on combustible dust regulation.
  As recently as February of this year, we saw the tragedy that can be 
caused by combustible dust explosions. The combustible dust explosion 
at the Imperial Sugar Company in Port Wentworth, Georgia, was a 
senseless tragedy that, like similar incidents, could have been 
prevented with OSHA regulation and oversight.
  The bill has three main components. First, it directs OSHA to issue 
interim rules on combustible dust within 90 days. Second, it directs 
OSHA to issue final rules within 18 months. The rules would be based on 
effective voluntary standards devised by the National Fire Protection 
Association, a nonprofit organization, and in addition to items 
required in the interim rules, would include requirements for building 
design and explosion protection. Lastly, it directs OSHA to revise the 
Hazard Communication Standard to include combustible dusts.
  Madam Chairman, I urge my colleague to join me in supporting this 
resolution to make

[[Page 7335]]

sure OSHA takes necessary actions to protect workers.
  Mr. BACA. Madam Chairman, I rise today to speak in support of H.R. 
5522, the Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Prevention Act of 2008.
  H.R. 5522 would direct OSHA to improve engineering controls, and 
worker training.
  OSHA would be directed to issue a final standard to include 
requirements for building design and explosion protection within 18 
months; and to include combustible dusts in the Hazardous Communication 
Standard.
  This bill reduces workplace hazards; Workers have a right to work in 
a safe environment with trustworthy safety standards;
  Workers should not have to fear dust explosions or resultant fires;
  In February, 6 people died and 42 were injured when sugar dust 
exploded in a silo at Imperial Sugar Company's largest refinery in 
Savannah, Georgia.
  Families should not have to worry that their loved one will not 
return home due to a dust explosion.
  OSHA must immediately protect workers in these plants.
  I urge your support of H.R. 5522.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong 
support of H.R. 5522, requiring the Secretary of Labor to issue interim 
and final occupational safety and health standards regarding worker 
exposure to combustible dust, and for other purposes. I would like to 
thank my distinguished colleague from California, Chairman of the 
Committee on Education and Labor, Representative George Miller for his 
leadership on this important issue.
  The Worker Protection Against Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Act 
requires the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, 
to issue rules regulating combustible industrial dusts, like sugar 
dust, that can build up to hazardous levels and explode. There are 
numerous occasions in recent history where combustible dust levels have 
resulted in explosions, killing and injuring numerous workers. On 
February 7, 2008, the Imperial Sugar refinery in Port Wentworth, 
Georgia, exploded, killing 13 workers and seriously injuring more than 
60 others in a combustible dust explosion. The tragedy at Imperial 
Sugar shows that the threat of dust explosions is very real at 
industrial worksites across America and needs to be addressed 
immediately.
  In 2003, there were a total of 3 catastrophic dust explosions that 
resulted in the death of 14 workers. These explosions prompted the 
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, CSB, to issue a report 
in November 2006, identifying 281 conbustible dust incidents between 
1980 and 2005 that resulted in the death of 119 workers and injured 
718. The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board concluded their 
report finding, ``combustible dust explosions are a serious hazard in 
American industry.'' Since 2001, in case after case and industry after 
industry,
  Since 2001, in case after case and industry after industry, OSHA has 
chosen to emphasize voluntary compliance over setting strong rules and 
enforcing them. Effective voluntary guidelines to control combustible 
dust hazards and prevent dust explosions already exist. But in order to 
truly protect workers, OSHA needs an enforceable standard in order to 
ensure industry compliance and to protect workers. Without an OSHA 
standard, many employers are unaware of the hazards of combustible 
dusts, while others have chosen not to adopt voluntary standards.
  This important act directs OSHA to issue an interim final Combustible 
Dust standard within 90 days. The standard would include measures to 
minimize hazards associated with combustible dust through improved 
housekeeping, engineering controls, worker training and a written 
combustible dust safety program. This legislation also directs OSHA to 
issue a final standard within 18 months and fulfill all administrative 
rulemaking requirements including full public hearings, feasibility 
analysis and small business review. Lastly, H.R. 5522 directs OSHA to 
include combustible dusts in the Hazard Communication Standard which 
requires workers to receive information and training about the hazards 
they face on their jobs daily.
  In addition, I would like to have seen companies submit 
certifications showing that they are in compliance of these sets of 
standards. This recommendation would ensure that companies follow the 
criteria outlined within this bill by certifying compliance. Also, the 
Secretary of Labor should do continuous inspections during the initial 
months of enactment, to ensure companies are in compliance.
  Madam Chairman, this important legislation requiring the Secretary of 
Labor to issue interim and final occupational safety and health 
standards regarding worker exposure to combustible dust, and for other 
purposes, is necessary in order to protect Americans across the Nation. 
This important Act will help to prevent further accidents from 
occurring within the workplace. For these reasons, I strongly support 
H.R. 5522 and urge all members to do the same.
  Mr. HARE. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
5522, the Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Prevention Act and 
commend Chairman George Miller for his tireless efforts on behalf of 
America's workers.
  Our Nation was horrified by news of the February 7 explosion at the 
Imperial Sugar Refinery in Port Wentworth, GA. I think we were even 
more stunned by the fact that it was caused by ``combustible dust.'' 
Although, combustible dust explosions are well documented by the 
Chemical Safety Board, most employers, workers and the general public 
are not aware that accumulated dust can cause such destruction. 
Therefore, it comes as no surprise that not enough is being done to 
keep workplaces clean and safe from this hazard.
  During a March 12, 2008, hearing in the Education and Labor 
Committee, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, 
Assistant Secretary, Edwin Foulke testified that OSHA has established a 
housekeeping and ventilation standard, as well as developed programs to 
address combustible dust hazards. While I appreciate these efforts, 
frankly they are not enough.
  For one, the housekeeping standard is too vague to be useful, and 
secondly, these measures are ``voluntary.'' When regulations are 
voluntary, people do not follow them. In my experience as the former 
President of UNITE HERE Local 617, most employers do not address 
hazards if doing so interferes with their bottom line or costs time and 
money.
  At this same hearing, witnesses also testified that absent a 
comprehensive OSHA standard for combustible dust, no one can be 
confident that dust hazards will be cited and corrected prior to the 
occurrence of additional accidents.
  In fact, the Chemical Safety Board ruled that in addition to the 
Imperial Sugar incident, several other recent refinery explosions in 
North Carolina, Kentucky and Indiana could have been prevented if the 
facilities had complied with the safety and engineering practices 
contained in National Fire Protection Association standard 484 and 654.
  I have often said in this House how frustrated I am that we wait for 
an emergency to occur before reacting, rather than working to prevent 
it in the first place. We tend to pass laws, establish regulations and 
mitigate hazards after disasters and fatalities have occurred.
  Today, by passing the Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Prevention 
Act, we take a proactive step to protect workers rather than waiting 
for even one more injury.
  Specifically, this bill directs OSHA to issue an interim final 
combustible dust standard within 90 days. The standard would include 
measures to minimize hazards associated with combustible dust through 
improved housekeeping, engineering controls, worker training and a 
written combustible dust safety program. OSHA would then be required to 
issue a final standard within eighteen months. In addition to items 
required in the interim standard, the final standard would include 
requirements for building design and explosion protection. Finally, 
OSHA would have to include combustible dusts in the Hazard 
Communication Standard which requires workers to receive information 
and training about the hazards they face.
  Again, I thank Chairman Miller and the committee staff for their hard 
work on this legislation and urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on 
final passage.
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong 
support of H.R. 5522, the Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire 
Prevention Act. This legislation would require the U.S. Occupational 
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to issue rules regulating 
combustible industrial dusts, like sugar dust, that can build up to 
hazardous levels and explode.
  Working families are the backbone of Minnesota and our Nation, and it 
is critical that all Americans to have a safe and healthy workplace. 
Unfortunately, due to the Bush Administration's failure in leaving 
worker safety in the hands of industry, OSHA has issued only one major 
safety standard, the fewest in its history, and killed and delayed 
dozens of existing and proposed regulations since President Bush took 
office. In 2005, over 5,700 workers were killed on the job and another 
4.2 million workers were injured. It is clear that there is still a 
need for greater workplace protections.
  A tragic example of this need occurred in early February when the 
Imperial Sugar refinery in Savannah, Georgia, exploded, killing 
thirteen people and injuring many others.

[[Page 7336]]

When dust builds up to dangerous levels in industrial worksites, it can 
become fuel for fires and explosions. Combustible dust can come from 
many sources, such as sugar, wood, furniture, textiles, and metals, and 
therefore poses a risk across a number of different industries 
throughout the United States. There have been 281 combustible dust 
incidents between 1980 and 2005 that killed 119 workers and injured 
several others. Despite this, OSHA has failed to act to provide the 
necessary safety regulations.
  The Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Prevention Act (H.R. 5522) 
recognizes the serious hazard presented by combustible dust in American 
industry, and requires OSHA to issue rules regulating combustible 
industrial dusts. This bill sets a timeline for OSHA to respond, and 
requires workers to receive information and training about the hazards 
of combustible dusts. OSHA has known about these dangers for years, but 
has failed to act. Since 2001, in case after case and industry after 
industry, OSHA has chosen to emphasize voluntary compliance over 
setting strong rules and enforcing them.
  Workers cannot be asked to wait any longer for these basic worker 
protections. The tragedy at Imperial Sugar shows that the threat of 
dust explosions is very real at industrial worksites across America and 
needs to be addressed immediately. Methods to control combustible dust 
hazards are well known. However, as we have tragically seen, voluntary 
standards are not enough. Without an OSHA standard, many employers are 
unaware of the hazards of combustible dusts, while others have chosen 
not to adopt voluntary standards.
  It is time for Congress to take action to protect American workers, 
because OSHA did not. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the 
Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Prevention Act to save American 
workers from harm.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered 
read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 5522

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Combustible Dust Explosion 
     and Fire Prevention Act of 2008''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) An emergency exists concerning worker exposure to 
     combustible dust explosions and fires.
       (2) 13 workers were killed and more than 60 seriously 
     injured in a catastrophic combustible dust explosion at 
     Imperial Sugar in Port Wentworth, Georgia on February 7, 
     2008.
       (3) Following 3 catastrophic dust explosions that killed 14 
     workers in 2003, the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation 
     Board (CSB) issued a report in November 2006, which 
     identified 281 combustible dust incidents between 1980 and 
     2005 that killed 119 workers and injured 718. The CSB 
     concluded that ``combustible dust explosions are a serious 
     hazard in American industry''.
       (4) A quarter of the explosions occurred at food industry 
     facilities, including sugar plants. Seventy additional 
     combustible dust explosions have occurred since 2005.
       (5) Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) often do not 
     adequately address the hazards of combustible dusts, and the 
     OSHA Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) inadequately 
     addresses dust explosion hazards and fails to ensure that 
     safe work practices and guidance documents are included in 
     MSDSs.
       (6) The CSB recommended that OSHA issue a standard designed 
     to prevent combustible dust fires and explosions in general 
     industry, based on current National Fire Protection 
     Association (NFPA) dust explosion standards.
       (7) The CSB also recommended that OSHA revise the Hazard 
     Communication Standard (HCS) (1910.1200) to clarify that 
     combustible dusts are covered and that Material Safety Data 
     Sheets contain information about the hazards and physical 
     properties of combustible dusts.
       (8) OSHA has not initiated rulemaking in response to the 
     CSB's recommendation.
       (9) OSHA issued a grain handling facilities standard (29 
     C.F.R. 1910.272), in 1987 that has proven highly effective in 
     reducing the risk of combustible grain dust explosions, 
     according to an OSHA evaluation.
       (10) No Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
     standard comprehensively addresses combustible dust explosion 
     hazards in general industry.
       (11) Voluntary National Fire Protection Association 
     standards exist which, when implemented, effectively reduce 
     the likelihood and impact of combustible dust explosions.

     SEC. 3. ISSUANCE OF STANDARD ON COMBUSTIBLE DUST.

       (a) Interim Standard.--
       (1) Application and rulemaking.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall 
     promulgate an interim final standard regulating combustible 
     dusts. The interim final standard shall, at a minimum, apply 
     to manufacturing, processing, blending, conveying, 
     repackaging, and handling of combustible particulate solids 
     and their dusts, including organic dusts (such as sugar, 
     candy, paper, soap, and dried blood), plastics, sulfur, wood, 
     rubber, furniture, textiles, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, 
     fibers, dyes, coal, metals (such as aluminum, chromium, iron, 
     magnesium, and zinc), fossil fuels, and others determined by 
     the Secretary, but shall not apply to processes already 
     covered by OSHA's standard on grain facilities (29 C.F.R. 
     1910.272).
       (2) Requirements.--The interim final standard required 
     under this subsection shall include the following:
       (A) Requirements for hazard assessment to identify, 
     evaluate, and control combustible dust hazards.
       (B) Requirements for a written program that includes 
     provisions for hazardous dust inspection, testing, hot work, 
     ignition control, and housekeeping, including the frequency 
     and method or methods used to minimize accumulations of 
     combustible dust on ledges, floors, equipment, and other 
     exposed surfaces.
       (C) Requirements for engineering, administrative controls, 
     and operating procedures, such as means to control fugitive 
     dust emissions and ignition sources, the safe use and 
     maintenance of dust producing and dust collection systems and 
     filters, minimizing horizontal surfaces where dust can 
     accumulate, and sealing of areas inaccessible to 
     housekeeping.
       (D) Requirements for housekeeping to prevent accumulation 
     of combustible dust in places of employment in such depths 
     that it can present explosion, deflagration, or other fire 
     hazards, including safe methods of dust removal.
       (E) Requirements for employee participation in hazard 
     assessment, development of and compliance with the written 
     program, and other elements of hazard management.
       (F) Requirements to provide written safety and health 
     information and annual training to employees, including 
     housekeeping procedures, hot work procedures, preventive 
     maintenance procedures, common ignition sources, and lock-
     out, tag-out procedures.
       (3) Procedure.--The requirements in this subsection shall 
     take effect without regard to the procedural requirements 
     applicable to regulations promulgated under section 6(b) of 
     the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 
     655(b)) or the procedural requirements of chapter 5 of title 
     5, United States Code.
       (4) Effective date of interim standard.--The interim final 
     standard shall take effect 30 days after issuance. The 
     interim final standard shall have the legal effect of an 
     occupational safety and health standard, and shall apply 
     until a final standard becomes effective under section 6 of 
     the Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 U.S.C. 655).
       (b) Final Standard.--
       (1) Rulemaking.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall, pursuant 
     to section 6 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 
     U.S.C. 655), promulgate a final standard regulating 
     combustible dust explosions.
       (2) Requirements.--The final standard required under this 
     subsection shall include the following:
       (A) The scope described in subsection (a)(1).
       (B) The worker protection provisions in subsection (a)(2).
       (C) Requirements for managing change of dust producing 
     materials, technology, equipment, staffing, and procedures.
       (D) Requirements for building design such as explosion 
     venting, ducting, and sprinklers.
       (E) Requirements for explosion protection, including 
     separation and segregation of the hazard.
       (F) Relevant and appropriate provisions of National Fire 
     Protection Association combustible dust standards, including 
     the ``Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions 
     from the Manufacturing, Processing, and Handling of 
     Combustible Particulate Solids'' (NFPA 654), ``Standard for 
     Combustible Metals'' (NFPA 484), and ``Standard for the 
     Prevention of Fires and Dust Explosions in Agricultural and 
     Food Processing Facilities'' (NFPA 61).

     SEC. 4. REVISION OF THE HAZARD COMMUNICATION STANDARD.

       (a) Revision Required.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, not later than 6 months after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall revise the hazard 
     communication standard in section 1910.1200 of title 29, Code 
     of Federal Regulations, by amending the definition of 
     ``physical hazard'' in subsection (c) of such section to 
     include ``a combustible dust'' as an additional example of 
     such a hazard.
       (b) Effect of Modifications.--The modification under this 
     section shall be in force until superseded in whole or in 
     part by regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Labor 
     under section 6(b) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 
     of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655(b)) and shall be enforced in the same 
     manner and to the same extent as any rule or regulation 
     promulgated under section 6(b).

[[Page 7337]]

       (c) Effective Date.--The modification to the hazard 
     communication standard required shall take effect within 30 
     days after the publication of the revised rule.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature 
of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in House Report 
110-613. Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered read, 
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally 
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent of the 
amendment, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
to a demand for division of the question.


       Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. George Miller of California

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed 
in House Report 110-613.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I offer an 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. George Miller of California:
       Page 2, beginning on line 4, strike ``Combustible Dust'' 
     and all that follows through ``Act'' on line 5, and insert 
     ``Worker Protection Against Combustible Dust Explosions and 
     Fires Act''.
       Page 5, line 22, insert ``controls (which requirements 
     shall be effective 6 months after the date on which the 
     interim standard is issued)'' after ``engineering''.
       Page 7, line 4, strike ``The'' and insert ``Except as 
     specified in paragraph (2)(C) with regards to engineering 
     controls, the''.
       Page 8, beginning on line 8, strike ``, including'' and all 
     that follows through line 15 and insert a period.
       Page 8, after line 15, insert the following:
       (3) Procedure.--The final standard required by this 
     subsection shall be promulgated in accordance with the 
     procedural requirements for rulemaking under section 6(b) of 
     the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 
     655(b)) and under title 5, United States Code, including the 
     requirements relating to small businesses in chapter 6 of 
     such title.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1157, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 4 
minutes.
  This manager's amendment is offered because during the drafting and 
the refining of this bill we have had numerous extensive conversations 
with OSHA, with its technical staff and with affected industry 
associations about problematic issues. Our goal is to save workers 
lives, but also make these OSHA standards workable for businesses who 
need to implement them. To that end, the manager's amendment makes four 
adjustments to the bill:
  One, several industry associations were concerned that the short 1-
month effective date on the interim standards was too short to make 
some of the capital improvements that may be needed for engineering 
controls. The manager's amendment therefore provides for engineering 
controls required by the interim standards shall be effective 6 months 
after the issuance of the standard, rather than 30 days.
  Because emphasizing specific National Fire Protection Association 
standards was seen as putting more emphasis on some than on others that 
were not mentioned, the manager's amendment maintains the provisions 
that OSHA shall include appropriate and relevant National Fire 
Protection Association standards in its final standards, but eliminates 
reference to specific National Fire Protection Association standards.
  Then, because we want to make perfectly clear that OSHA is expected 
to conduct a full review of small business impacts of this standard, 
the manager's amendment clarifies that the final standard shall be 
conducted in accordance with the usual rulemaking procedural 
requirements, including those that provide for a small business review.
  Finally, it changes the title to ``The Worker Protection Against 
Combustible Dust Explosions and Fires Act.''
  I would encourage all of my colleagues to support the manager's 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
bill, although I do not expect to oppose it.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, although the changes in this amendment 
are modest, they are a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, they 
simply do not go far enough.
  Specifically, this amendment includes a cosmetic change to the 
requirement that OSHA include National Fire Protection Association 
standards among its new mandates. As Chairman Miller knows, the NFPA 
standards are voluntary guidelines that offer a far more complex, 
stringent protocol that may be adopted in whole or in part by industry 
participants. These guidelines play an important role as voluntary 
practices that can enhance safety efforts, but they are entirely 
inappropriate as a replacement for effective OSHA rulemaking.
  So while I appreciate that this amendment removes a direct mandate 
for a specific NFPA standard, I remain deeply concerned that the 
amendment retains the requirement that OSHA include relevant and 
appropriate NFPA standards in the final rule. I fear that this may be a 
distinction without a difference.
  The amendment includes other modest improvements, including a more 
reasonable time frame for implementation of the engineering controls in 
the interim standard. It also clarifies that the final rule would be 
developed under more normal and inclusive procedures. Both of these 
steps improve the underlying bill, but because they fail to fully 
address concerns about the bill's abbreviated timeline, they are half 
measures at best.
  However, I do appreciate the gentleman's efforts, and I will support 
the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded 
vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California will be 
postponed.


        Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Wilson of South Carolina

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed 
in House Report 110-613.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment 
made in order under the rule.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Wilson of South Carolina:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. INVESTIGATION ON COMBUSTIBLE DUST AND 
                   DETERMINATION OF ADDITIONAL ACTION.

       (a) Determination by the Secretary.--Upon completion of the 
     Department of Labor's investigation of the accident that 
     occurred at Imperial Sugar in Port Wentworth, Georgia on 
     February 7, 2008, and based on the data gathered from the 
     Combustible Dust National Emphasis Program, the Secretary of 
     Labor shall determine--
       (1) if the safety standards that are in effect as of the 
     date of enactment of this Act do not adequately address the 
     issue of combustible dust; and
       (2) whether an occupational safety and health standard 
     regarding combustible dust is necessary.
       (b) Rulemaking or Report to Congress.--If the Secretary 
     determines that an occupational safety and health standard 
     regarding combustible dust is necessary, the Secretary shall 
     promulgate a rule pursuant to section 6(b) of the 
     Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 U.S.C. 655(b)) not 
     later than 36

[[Page 7338]]

     months after the completion of the investigation described in 
     subsection (a). If the Secretary determines that such a 
     standard is not necessary, the Secretary, not later than 6 
     months after making such a determination, shall transmit a 
     report to Congress that specifically addresses the 
     Secretary's reasons for determining that a combustible dust 
     standard is unnecessary.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1157, the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) and a Member opposed each will control 15 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  While I share the majority's commitment to ensuring workplace safety, 
I believe the underlying bill fails to provide for the most effective 
means to ensure that safety.
  Currently, there are several initiatives concerning dust under way at 
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA. Since October, 
the agency has implemented a combustible dust National Emphasis 
Program. This agency has sent high hazard alert letters to over 30,000 
businesses emphasizing the need to prevent dust from accumulating.
  Most importantly, OSHA is in the midst of the investigation of the 
February disaster at the Imperial Sugar refinery. The Imperial Sugar 
refinery in Georgia is located in a community adjacent to the Second 
Congressional District of South Carolina, which I have the honor to 
represent.
  Instead of undermining the progress of existing combustible dust 
safety efforts, this substitute requires the Department of Labor to 
gather all necessary information about the Imperial refinery explosion 
specifically, as well as the broader dust hazard being examined through 
the National Emphasis Program. Once that information has been gathered 
and analyzed, the Secretary of Labor will be able to determine whether 
and what type of combustible dust standard is necessary.
  Should the Secretary determine that existing safety requirements can 
effectively protect against the combustible dust hazard, the Secretary 
will be required to report to Congress as to why no new regulatory 
framework is necessary. But if the National Emphasis Program and the 
results of the Imperial refinery investigation show that additional 
guidance and regulation are needed, this substitute requires OSHA to 
complete a rigorous regulatory process that includes all relevant 
stakeholders within a fixed time frame.
  Our amendment will allow for the regulation to be completed 
expeditiously and thoroughly without circumventing the Occupational 
Safety and Health Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the 
Administrative Procedures Act and other laws and regulations that 
ensure effective Federal regulations.
  We have heard concerns from OSHA that the underlying bill will be 
difficult to comply with and difficult to enforce. This leaves workers 
at risk. I have trust in my constituent, Monty Felix of Sandy Run, 
South Carolina, who is the National President of the American 
Composites Manufacturers Association, to promote safety. We need the 
expertise of successful manufacturers.
  Our goal today should be to move forward with the most effective 
strategy to ensure a safe workplace. I believe this substitute achieves 
that goal, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this 
substitute.
  I yield at this time to the ranking member from California (Mr. 
McKeon).
  Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman for yielding and I am pleased to 
lend my support to this amendment.
  As Representative Wilson has made clear, this amendment will ensure 
OSHA takes the necessary steps to protect workers against the hazards 
of combustible dust. It demands an aggressive investigation into the 
Imperial Sugar refinery, it requires that OSHA utilize the findings of 
its National Emphasis Program on dust hazards, and it calls for a 
comprehensive, inclusive and effective standard to be established if it 
becomes clear that existing safeguards are not protecting workers.
  The amendment fulfills our shared commitment to workplace safety, and 
it does so without undermining the credibility of the rulemaking 
process. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition 
to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, this amendment is an attempt to gut this legislation. 
This amendment would have OSHA not only wait for the outcome of the 
Imperial Sugar investigation, but also from findings from the 
combustible dust National Emphasis Program before deciding on whether 
or not to move forward. The National Emphasis Program could go on for 
years before there are findings. In fact, at the end of the day, OSHA 
could decide to do nothing.
  To do nothing has turned out to be very expensive for the American 
workers in those workplaces where there is combustible dust. The track 
record is horrible with respect to OSHA preventing these dust 
explosions from taking place. That is the reason that prior to the most 
recent explosion that Mr. Barrow and I are trying to address, prior to 
that, the Chemical Safety Board made a recommendation to OSHA that they 
should promulgate these enforceable regulations, because there are no 
enforceable regulations with respect to dust currently in effect, 
except for what we did years ago in the grain industry.

                              {time}  1730

  Except for what we did years ago in the grain industry, and that 
dramatically reduced the number of incidents that took place. So to 
adopt the Wilson amendment is to adopt a position to do nothing, and to 
take an agency that has chosen time and again to do nothing in this 
field that any way provides for enforceable regulations of this most 
dangerous material when the workplace is not properly maintained and 
preventible actions are taken. That is just not acceptable. That is not 
acceptable in the name of the workers who died in the Port Wentworth 
plant. It is unacceptable to the workers who died earlier from the 
explosions.
  OSHA has refused to act. They have not acted on a single standard in 
the entire last 8 years unless they were prodded by the Congress or the 
courts. So to now say that you are going to take the lives of American 
workers and you are going to give those lives again back to OSHA, where 
they have not seen any hazard, they have not seen any danger in spite 
of the explosions is just the height of irresponsibility by this 
Congress. And I would hope that the Congress would overwhelmingly 
reject this amendment that allows OSHA to continue the status quo that 
allows OSHA to continue its irresponsible position.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Chairman, I submit for the Record 
a letter dated April 29, 2008, from the OSHA Fairness Coalition, which 
is two dozen industry associations, relative to this issue.


                                      OSHA Fairness Coalition,

                                                   April 29, 2008.


             TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

       We write to express our strong opposition to the 
     Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Prevention Act of 2008, 
     H.R. 5522 which will be considered on the House floor this 
     week. While we were saddened to see the accounts of the 
     explosion at the Imperial Sugar plant near Savannah, Georgia 
     we do not believe this bill, as it was approved by the 
     Education and Labor Committee, is an appropriate response to 
     that tragedy or the hazards of combustible dust and urge you 
     to oppose this bill.
       While H.R. 5522 was improved in committee, we are still 
     troubled by its mandate that OSHA promulgate an interim final 
     regulation (IFR) within 90 days without any of the normal 
     rulemaking procedures associated with OSHA rulemaking. The 
     IFR would therefore be issued without any opportunity for 
     comments by those subject to it, nor would OSHA perform any 
     analyses such as those for significant risk, economic and 
     technological feasibility, and small business impact, among 
     others. The bill would then

[[Page 7339]]

     require that within 18 months OSHA promulgate a final 
     standard that would carry forward all of the requirements of 
     the IFR and add others mandating engineering, administrative, 
     and work practice controls. The final standard would also 
     have to incorporate provisions from various voluntary 
     consensus standards issued by the National Fire Protection 
     Association (NFPA). Further refinements from the Chairman 
     that may be accepted on the floor do not alter the 
     requirement for an IFR with none of the normal OSHA 
     rulemaking protections.
       We object to the short circuiting of the normal rulemaking 
     process that this bill would impose. Normal OSHA rulemaking 
     allows the agency to produce the most feasible, narrowly 
     tailored regulation, which in turn maximizes the chances for 
     implementation and compliance. Abandoning these procedures is 
     a prescription for an ineffective regulation which will not 
     produce safer workplaces. Indeed, even the Chemical Safety 
     Board report referenced in this bill recommends that OSHA 
     conduct a full rulemaking, and makes no mention of an IFR.
       Additionally, instructing OSHA to incorporate provisions 
     from voluntary consensus standards issued by the NFPA may 
     sound like a good way to expedite rulemaking on this issue, 
     but doing so is inappropriate. The process for producing 
     these consensus standards is not at all like the process 
     which OSHA undertakes to produce a regulation. There is no 
     opportunity for the general public to examine and comment on 
     these consensus standards. Nor are these standards subject to 
     any of the critical reviews regarding quality of data, 
     feasibility, and impact that OSHA regulations must undergo. 
     The consensus process, which produces these standards, leaves 
     significant terms and requirements intentionally vague and 
     ambiguous so that different groups and interests will endorse 
     these standards. But this also makes these standards 
     unsuitable for becoming a mandatory OSHA regulation. 
     Furthermore, none of the NFPA standards are fully available 
     to the public without charge. While the NFPA has put them on 
     their website for reading access, to print them, and 
     therefore have them available for use, requires paying NFPA a 
     fee. We object to giving NFPA such a windfall revenue stream.
       The hazard of combustible dust is an issue which is already 
     covered by numerous OSHA regulations, in addition to a wide 
     array of private sector information. OSHA has responded in 
     the wake of the Imperial Sugar explosion in various ways that 
     will help employers become more knowledgeable about this 
     hazard including reissuing a Safety and Health Information 
     Bulletin, and reissuing a National Emphasis Program and 
     targeting companies that may have combustible dust hazards in 
     a way that will combine greater information with greater 
     inspection and enforcement activity. The investigation of the 
     tragedy at the Imperial Sugar plant has yet to determine that 
     a lack of regulatory guidance contributed to the explosion 
     and there is no evidence that a new OSHA standard would have 
     prevented that tragedy, particularly if that regulation is 
     produced in the manner specified in H.R. 5522. Providing 
     employers with useful, practical information on how to avoid 
     a hazard will always be more effective in preventing such 
     disasters than issuing a new regulation which will only serve 
     as a means for enforcement after the fact.
       H.R. 5522 would produce a flawed regulation by discarding 
     normal OSHA rulemaking procedures and because of this, we 
     urge you to oppose the Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire 
     Prevention Act of 2008, H.R. 5522.
           Sincerely,
       American Bakers Association.
       American Composites Manufacturers Association.
       American Forest & Paper Association.
       American Foundry Society.
       Associated Builders and Contractors.
       Associated General Contractors.
       Building Owners and Managers Association International.
       Independent Electrical Contractors, Inc.
       Mason Contractors Association.
       National Association of Home Builders.
       National Association of Manufacturers.
       National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors.
       National Automobile Dealers Association.
       National Federation of Independent Business.
       National Marine Manufacturers Association.
       National Mining Association.
       National Paint and Coatings Association.
       National Roofing Contractors Association.
       Plumbing Heating Cooling Contractors National Association.
       Printing Industries of America.
       Retail Industry Leaders Association.
       Textile Rental Services Association of America.
       The Industrial Minerals Association--North America.
       The National Industrial Sand Association.
       The National Oilseed Processors Association.
       The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc.
       U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

  Additionally, I would like to bring the attention of our Members to 
the first and last paragraphs of that letter:
  This coalition writes to express their strong opposition to the 
Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Prevention Act of 2008, H.R. 5522, 
which will be considered on the House floor this week. While we were 
saddened to see the accounts of the explosion at the Imperial Sugar 
plant near Savannah, Georgia, we do not believe this bill, as was 
approved by the Education and Labor Committee, is an appropriate 
response to that tragedy or the hazards of combustible dust, and urge 
you to oppose the bill.
  It concludes with the statement:
  H.R. 5522 would produce a flawed regulation by discarding normal OSHA 
rulemaking procedures. And, because of this, we urge you to oppose the 
Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Prevention Act of 2008, which is 
H.R. 5522.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Barrow).
  Mr. BARROW. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I understand the appeal that the amendment has. I can appreciate its 
superficial appeal and what I think it is getting at. But the notion 
that we have to finish everything before we do anything is a formula to 
do nothing.
  With the National Emphasis Program and everything that is going on 
right now at OSHA, it is perfectly obvious that the current folks who 
have got OSHA under their control can cram more activity into less 
action than anybody I know or any agency I know.
  The time for us to take into consideration and to follow all leads 
and to learn as much as we can will always be with us, but the time to 
act is now. This is the time to take the actions and begin the process 
of fixing what's broke with the regulatory system at OSHA.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman. I think the 
gentleman has the right to close on his amendment.
  Could the Chair advise me of the time I have remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California has 12\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would just note that a significant number of the signatories to the 
letter that was referred to by my colleague on the other side of the 
aisle really have little or nothing to do with these standards or are 
impacted by them. And this is the same coalition that continues to call 
for no action with respect to actions by OSHA, and it is that approach 
to the protection of American workers and to the safety of those 
workers that has led to the tragedy that we witnessed at the Imperial 
Sugar facility. And, clearly, these are accidents that we know are 
preventable, that we know we can dramatically reduce because we have 
the experience from the grain dust standards.
  This legislation is designed to be workable. It was worked, as I 
pointed out, with numerous conversations with the technical staff of 
OSHA, with the affected industries and the trade associations that are 
involved with this.
  I would note that the National Fire Protection Association, when we 
tell OSHA that they should select the ones that are relevant to the 
standards and the ones that are meaningful to this effort, we are 
talking about standards in which a consensus has been arrived at within 
the industries. These are consensus regulations that are put out there, 
but they are not required. And we think that in our discussions again 
with the OSHA staff and with the associations this is a good place to 
start because of the consensus. There may have to be additions and 
subtractions, and that is within the discretion of OSHA during the 
process that is anticipated under this legislation.
  So I would hope that we would reject this amendment by Mr. Wilson and 
that we would pass the underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Chairman, indeed, I would like to 
commend Chairman Miller and Congressman Barrow. I know that the intent 
is very positive to address a terrible tragedy that occurred in 
February at Port Wentworth with the Imperial refinery explosion.

[[Page 7340]]

  I do want to point out that it has been stated that we do not have 
sufficient regulations relative to combustible dust, but that there are 
17 standards addressing combustible dust which do apply, and would 
submit these for the Record.

           Appendix A. Standards Addressing Combustible Dust

       1910.272  Grain Handling.
       1910.94  Ventilation Standard.
       1910.22  Housekeeping.
       1910.176  Housekeeping violations in storage areas.
       1910.269  Housekeeping violations at coal-handling 
     operations.
       1910.132  Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).
       1910.119  Process Safety Management.
       1910.307(b)  Electrical Violations
       1910.178  Powered Industrial Trucks.
       1910.252  Welding, cutting, and brazing.
       1910.145  Warning Sign.
       1910.1200  Hazard communication violations.
       Subpart E--Means of Egress 1910.33-37
       1910-156-157  Fire protection violations.
       F1910.263  Bakery equipment violations.
       1910. 265  Sawmill violations.
       1928  Agriculture. The only provisions discussed in this 
     NEP which may be cited in connection with agricultural 
     operations are the hazard communication standard (see 29 CFR 
     1928.21) and the general duty clause. Industries in SIC 0723, 
     Crop Preparation Services for Market, Except Cotton Ginning, 
     listed in Appendix D, are engaged in agricultural operations.

  Additionally, it has been stated that combustible dust maybe doesn't 
apply to some of the associations that are referenced in the letter 
that I previously handed in. I would like to point out that in fact it 
may appear that way, but just a few minutes ago I just met with members 
of the National Association of Home Builders. I am still a dues-paying 
member of the Greater Columbia Home Builders Association. And as we 
were discussing this bill with members who were visiting in my office, 
they expressed concern that they felt like that this could be negative 
toward the home building industry. So, indeed, it doesn't appear 
sometimes that things apply, but they do even where you wouldn't expect 
it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I would just say that the problem 
with home building is not explosions, it is implosions.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. I would like to introduce appendix D, 
which are industries which may have combustible dust. And, indeed, 
Chairman Miller and myself are learning that there is a broad array of 
industries, dozens of them, that could be impacted by combustible dust 
and I believe that we are actually helping by bringing this to the 
attention of the American people.

         APPENDIX D--INDUSTRIES THAT MAY HAVE COMBUSTIBLE DUSTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               SICS                      Industry             NAICS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0723.............................  Crop Preparation       115114, 115111
                                    Services for
                                    Market, Except
                                    Cotton Ginning.
2052.............................  Fresh cookies.                 311821
                                    crackers,
                                    pretzels, and
                                    similar ``dry''
                                    bakery products.
2062.............................  Refining purchased             311312
                                    raw cane sugar and
                                    sugar syrup.
2087.............................  Flavoring extracts,            311930
                                    syrups, powders,
                                    and related
                                    products, not
                                    elsewhere
                                    classified.
2099.............................  Prepared foods and             311212
                                    miscellaneous food
                                    specialties, not
                                    elsewhere
                                    classified..
2221.............................  Broadwoven Fabric              313210
                                    Mills, Manmade
                                    Fiber and Silk.
2262.............................  Finishers of                   313311
                                    Broadwoven Fabrics
                                    of Manmade Fiber
                                    and Silk.
2299.............................  Textile Goods, Not              31311
                                    Elsewhere
                                    Classified.
2421.............................  Sawmills and                   321113
                                    Planning Mills,
                                    General.
2431.............................  Millwork...........            321911
2434.............................  Wood Kitchen                    33711
                                    Cabinets.
2439.............................  Structural Wood        321213, 321214
                                    Members, Not
                                    Elsewhere
                                    Classified.
2452.............................  Prefabricated Wood             321992
                                    Buildings and
                                    Components.
2493.............................  Reconstituted Wood             321219
                                    Products.
2499.............................  Wood Products, Not     321920, 321219
                                    Elsewhere
                                    Classified.
2511.............................  Wood Household                 337122
                                    Furniture, Except
                                    Upholstered.
2591.............................  Drapery Hardware               337920
                                    and Window Blinds
                                    and Shades.
2819.............................  Industrial            325188, 325998,
                                    Inorganic                     331311
                                    Chemicals, Not
                                    Elsewhere
                                    Classified.
2821.............................  Plastic Materials,             325211
                                    Synthetic Resins,
                                    and
                                    Nonvulcanizable
                                    Elastomers.
2823.............................  Cellulosic Manmade             325221
                                    Fibers.
2834.............................  Pharmaceutical                 325412
                                    Preparations.
2841.............................  Soap and Other                 325611
                                    Detergents, Except
                                    Specialty Cleaners.
2851.............................  Paints, Varnishes,              32551
                                    Lacquers, Enamels,
                                    and Allied
                                    Products.
2861.............................  Gum and Wood                   325191
                                    Chemicals.
2899.............................  Chemicals and          325510, 325998
                                    Chemical
                                    Preparations, Not
                                    Elsewhere
                                    Classified.
3011.............................  Tires And Inner                326211
                                    Tubes.
3061.............................  Molded, Extruded,              326291
                                    and Lathe-Cut
                                    Mechanical Rubber
                                    Goods.
3069.............................  Fabricated Rubber              326299
                                    Products, Not
                                    Elsewhere
                                    Classified.
3081.............................  Unsupported                    326113
                                    Plastics Film and
                                    Sheet.
3082.............................  Unsupported                    326121
                                    Plastics Profile
                                    Shapes.
3086.............................  Plastics Foam          326140, 326150
                                    Products.
3087.............................  Custom Compounding             325991
                                    of Purchased
                                    Plastics Resins.
3089.............................  Plastics Products,             326199
                                    Not Elsewhere
                                    Classified.
3291.............................  Abrasive Products..            327910
3313.............................  Alumina and                    331312
                                    Aluminum
                                    Production and
                                    Processing.
3334.............................  Primary Production             331312
                                    of Aluminum.
3341.............................  Secondary Smelting             331314
                                    and Refining of
                                    Nonferrous Metals.
3354.............................  Aluminum Extruded              331316
                                    Products.
3363.............................  Aluminum Die-                  331521
                                    Castings.
3365.............................  Aluminum Foundries.            331524
3369.............................  Nonferrous                     331528
                                    Foundries, Except
                                    Aluminum and
                                    Copper.
3398.............................  Metal Heat Treating            332811
3441.............................  Metal Cans.........            332431
3469.............................  Metal Stampings,               332116
                                    Not Elsewhere
                                    Classified.
3471.............................  Electroplating,                332813
                                    Plating,
                                    Polishing,
                                    Anodizing, and
                                    Coloring.
3479.............................  Coating, Engraving,            332812
                                    and Allied
                                    Services, Not
                                    Elsewhere
                                    Classified.
3496.............................  Miscellaneous                  332618
                                    Fabricated Wire
                                    Products.
3499.............................  Fabricated Metal               332999
                                    Products, Not
                                    Elsewhere
                                    Classified.
3548.............................  Lighting Equipment,            335129
                                    Not Elsewhere
                                    Classified.
3644.............................  Noncurrent-Carrying            335932
                                    Wiring Devices.
3714.............................  Motor Vehicle Parts            336322
                                    and Accessories.
3761.............................  Guided Missiles and            336414
                                    Space Vehicles.
3799.............................  Transportation                 333924
                                    Equipment, Not
                                    Elsewhere
                                    Classified.
3995.............................  Burial Caskets.....            339995
3999.............................  Manufacturing         321999, 325998,
                                    Industries, Not               326199
                                    Elsewhere
                                    Classified.
4221.............................  Farm product                   493130
                                    warehousing and
                                    storage.
4911.............................  Electric Services              221112
                                    Establishments
                                    engaged in the
                                    generation,
                                    transmission, and/
                                    or distribution of
                                    electric energy
                                    for sale.
4952.............................  Sanitary treatment             221320
                                    facilities.
4953.............................  Refuse Systems.....            562920
5093.............................  Scrap and waste                423930
                                    materials.
5162.............................  Plastics materials             424610
                                    and basic forms
                                    and shapes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I would hope that people would vote 
against the Wilson amendment. The people who are truly impacted by 
combustible dust are the workers who have been killed in the past and 
the workers that will be killed and injured in the future if we do not 
have an enforceable standard. I appreciate you have 17 regulations and 
all these things that OSHA is yakking about now, after years of doing 
nothing. The fact of the matter is, according to the Chemical Safety 
Board, they are not enforceable standards with respect to dust.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Chairman, I do urge my colleagues 
to support the amendment. The amendment is really, I believe, quite 
simple. It provides for a sequence of investigation, development of 
regulations, and promoting safety in the workplace.
  I urge a positive vote on the amendment this evening.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded 
vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina will be 
postponed.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 110-613 on which 
further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Mr. George Miller of California.
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Wilson of South Carolina.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


       Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. George Miller of California

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
George Miller) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 412, 
noes 0, not voting 24, as follows:

[[Page 7341]]



                             [Roll No. 230]

                               AYES--412

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Faleomavaega
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Norton
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Andrews
     Barton (TX)
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Boustany
     Cole (OK)
     Davis, Tom
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Forbes
     Fortuno
     Goodlatte
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hoyer
     Issa
     Jones (OH)
     Lee
     Obey
     Payne
     Pence
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Wynn

                              {time}  1806

  Mr. SESSIONS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


        Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Wilson of South Carolina

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Wilson) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 178, 
noes 237, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 231]

                               AYES--178

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bean
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Conaway
     Costa
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--237

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bordallo
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman

[[Page 7342]]


     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kingston
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Johnson (IL)
      

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Andrews
     Barton (TX)
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Boustany
     Cole (OK)
     Davis, Tom
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Forbes
     Fortuno
     Goodlatte
     Higgins
     Hill
     Issa
     Jones (OH)
     Payne
     Pence
     Rush
     Wynn


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There are less than 2 minutes 
remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1815

  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California changed her vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms. 
Baldwin) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Christensen, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5522) to 
require the Secretary of Labor to issue interim and final occupational 
safety and health standards regarding worker exposure to combustible 
dust, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 1157, she 
reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the 
Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole? If not, the question is on 
the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


               Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Walberg

  Mr. WALBERG. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. WALBERG. Yes, I am, in its present form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

        Mr. Walberg moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 5522, to the 
     Committee on Education and Labor with instructions to report 
     the bill back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       At the end of the bill insert the following:

     SEC. 5. EXEMPTION FOR GRAIN PENDING DETERMINATION OF IMPACT 
                   ON PRICES.

       Neither the interim nor final standards required under this 
     Act shall apply to any organic dust which is a food grain 
     until the Secretary makes a determination that the 
     application of such standard or standards will not increase 
     the domestic price of such food grain.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
  This motion to recommit is simple and straightforward. It maintains 
our commitment to safety. And it does nothing--I repeat nothing--to 
prevent OSHA from developing a combustible dust safety standard.
  This motion is simply a way for us to tell our constituents, the 
hardworking families who are struggling with the rising cost of living 
and an uncertain economy, that we're sensitive to their concerns; that 
we recognize that rising food costs, in particular, are a difficult 
burden to bear for many families; and that we know that in these 
difficult times, the very last thing we should be doing is driving up 
the cost of food for our children and our families.
  The motion I have offered makes clear that the new mandates included 
in this bill will not be imposed on food grain production until we have 
determined that it will not cause an increase in prices at the grocery 
store.
  During today's debate, we heard numerous objections to this bill, 
including its impact on the grain and feed industry that is so integral 
to food production and distribution in this country. I know that 
Members on both sides of the aisle have heard directly from the grain 
industry on this measure, and many of us have wondered how we can 
enhance worker safety without unnecessarily driving up food costs.
  The answer, Madam Speaker, is to pass this motion to recommit.
  By voting ``yes'' on this motion, OSHA will still be required to 
begin immediate development of a combustible dust standard. By voting 
``yes'' on this motion, there will be no delay in implementation of 
these new rules for facilities that do not handle food grains. And lest 
anyone be concerned about the workers at facilities producing the 
grains we eat, if we pass this measure, these workers will continue to 
be protected as well under the same standard that has already produced 
a 60 percent reduction in grain facility explosions.
  Feed, corn, and flour mills are already covered by existing OSHA 
grain-handling regulations. As a member of both the House Education and 
Labor Committee and Agriculture Committee, I understand that the food 
manufacturing industry is affected by combustible dust as much as any 
other industry.
  Reregulating and duplicating existing Federal regulations on American 
family farmers and small rural businesses could seriously impact 
commodity prices and drive up the cost of everything from a loaf of 
bread to a gallon of gasoline.
  I find it ironic that at the same time the leaders within the 
majority party are advocating for up to $300 million in additional 
spending for international food aid in the supplemental, these same 
folks are simultaneously considering legislation that could further 
drive up the price of food here at home.
  My motion to recommit ensures we conduct a thorough economic analysis 
on the impact of H.R. 5522 on food prices. This MTR will ensure we do 
not unnecessarily cause irreparable harm to family farms, agricultural 
producers and American consumers by driving up the price of food 
because of another unintended consequence in the majority's continued 
rush to regulate first and ask questions later.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition 
to the motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker and Members of the

[[Page 7343]]

House, this is a very serious piece of legislation and a very important 
piece of legislation. The idea that we would delay this until some time 
that the Secretary of Labor could make some certification about its 
impact on food costs is really unacceptable.
  Let's look at the record of the Secretary of Labor. Since January 
1980 until 2006, there were 281 explosions in these kinds of facilities 
due to dust. Seven hundred eighteen people were injured and 119 died in 
those explosions. One hundred nineteen bread-winners were killed in 
those explosions. That's the result of a study from the Chemical Safety 
Board of whose members are all appointed by President George W. Bush, 
an independent agency that may be the gold standard in terms of 
independent review of accidents.
  They then recommended that OSHA adopt dust standards. OSHA did 
nothing. Did nothing. No enforceable standards were adopted by that 
point. No enforceable standards at all. And then in February 2008, the 
Imperial Sugar plant exploded.
  In the meantime, 67 explosions took place since the Chemical Safety 
Board recommended the standard. Five hundred seventy-five injuries and 
14 deaths took place before OSHA did anything. And the Chemical Safety 
Board recommendations continue to say there are no enforceable 
standards with respect to dust. Not only does it devastate the lives of 
these individuals and their families and the community, it devastates 
the facility, a facility here that is key to the commerce of that area. 
So talk about an impact on price in a tight market when these 
facilities start pumping up.
  The feed and grain people, they're under their own standards. And 
what is their analysis of that standard? That it drove technologies, it 
drove better design, and better productivity in their markets. That's 
their findings. They're not implicated in these standards. What 
happened there? Eight people were killed in the explosion, 20 were put 
into medically induced comas for a number of weeks, 5 of those died, 
and 3 are still in the hospital.
  Since the Chemical Safety Board made its recommendation, there have 
been 67 explosions, and OSHA never found the urgency to protect these 
workers. Now to come along and to be so cynical as to suggest that if 
we could just keep killing the workers, the price of food will stay 
down.
  You know, it's funny. I read the papers, read the business journal, 
read The Wall Street Journal, and they're talking about how the price 
of food has driven the profits of the grain companies; but when they 
talk about why it's gone up, it says, ``The crisis stems from a 
combination of heightened demand for food from fast-growing developing 
countries like China and India, low grain stockpiles caused by bad 
weather, rising fuel prices and the increasing amount of land used to 
grow crops for ethanol'' and others.
  Some people say it's because Zimbabwe has quit producing food under 
the corrupt regime of Mr. Mugabe, so Africa has a double problem. I see 
the Governor of Texas, Mr. Rick Perry, thinks we ought to cut back on 
ethanol production. He doesn't think we ought to keep killing American 
workers. Nowhere in this paper, The Wall Street Journal mind you, 
nowhere in this paper, when you read about food prices, do you see any 
mention that we ought to continue to subsidize food prices by blowing 
up processing plants and killing and injuring workers. Nowhere do you 
see that except, perhaps, in this amendment.

                              {time}  1830

  We ought not to accept this amendment. These workers and this 
critical industry are entitled to this protection. And the facts on the 
ground are: The last time we put in a standard was for the feed and 
grain industry, and it has turned out to be wildly successful. Why is 
it wildly successful? Because injuries went down 40 percent, fatalities 
went down 60 percent, explosions went down 60 percent.
  Don't you think we know enough now to think that these other workers 
in this industry are entitled to this protection? But OSHA has done 
nothing. OSHA has done nothing. And if OSHA is not going to act, we 
must. In this administration, OSHA has only acted when prodded by the 
courts or the Congress, never on their own. Never on their own have 
they suggested that they were going to go out and do this. Even after 
the recommendation of a presidentially appointed commission to look at 
these kinds of accidents, appointed by this President, they've chosen 
to do nothing. And it's important; it's important to these workers, 
it's important to the Congress.
  John Barrow and I have put together legislation that works for the 
industry. We've consulted with the industry. We've sat down with the 
industry. We've sat down with OSHA. And we ought to oppose this motion 
to recommit in the name of the workers, in the name of their families, 
in the name of our Nation, we owe it to protect these workers.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. WALBERG. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 187, 
noes 225, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 232]

                               AYES--187

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--225

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette

[[Page 7344]]


     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kingston
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Andrews
     Barton (TX)
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Boustany
     Cole (OK)
     Davis, Tom
     Doggett
     Forbes
     Goodlatte
     Hill
     Issa
     Payne
     Pence
     Rush
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Tierney
     Wynn


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members have 2 minutes 
remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1848

  Mr. KAGEN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 232, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded 
vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 247, 
noes 165, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 233]

                               AYES--247

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dingell
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kingston
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--165

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Andrews
     Barton (TX)
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Cole (OK)
     Davis, Tom
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Forbes
     Goodlatte
     Hill
     Hunter
     Issa
     Payne
     Pence
     Rush
     Wynn


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members have 2 minutes 
remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1856

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________