[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3265-3275]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




DISAPPROVING THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR RELATING TO 
    ``CLARIFICATION OF EMPLOYER'S CONTINUING OBLIGATION TO MAKE AND 
  MAINTAIN AN ACCURATE RECORD OF EACH RECORDABLE INJURY AND ILLNESS''

  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 150, I call up 
the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 83) disapproving the rule submitted by 
the Department of Labor relating to ``Clarification of Employer's 
Continuing Obligation to Make and Maintain an Accurate Record of Each 
Recordable Injury and Illness'', and ask for its immediate 
consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 150, the joint 
resolution is considered read.
  The text of the joint resolution is as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 83

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 
     disapproves the rule submitted by the Department of Labor 
     relating to ``Clarification of

[[Page 3266]]

     Employer's Continuing Obligation to Make and Maintain an 
     Accurate Record of Each Recordable Injury and Illness'' 
     (published at 81 Fed. Reg. 91792 (December 19, 2016)), and 
     such rule shall have no force or effect.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne) and 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous materials on H.J. Res. 83.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Alabama?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.J. Res. 
83, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, America's workers deserve responsible, commonsense, 
regulatory policies to ensure safe and healthy working conditions. Let 
me say that again. America's workers deserve responsible, commonsense 
regulatory policies to ensure safe and healthy working conditions.
  They deserve a Federal Government that holds bad actors accountable, 
and a government that takes proactive steps to help employers improve 
safety protections and prevent injuries and illnesses before they 
occur. Just as importantly, they deserve to know that Federal agencies 
are following the law.
  For years, Republicans have called on OSHA to reject a top-down 
approach to worker protections and, instead, collaborate with employers 
to identify gaps in safety and address the unique challenges facing 
workplaces.
  Unfortunately, under the Obama administration, our concerns usually 
fell on deaf ears. In fact, one of the administration's parting gifts 
to workers and small businesses was a regulatory scheme that reflects 
not only a backwards, punitive approach to workplace safety, but one 
that is completely unlawful.
  Here's why. Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, employers 
have long been required to record injuries and illnesses and retain 
those records for 5 years. The law explicitly provides a 6-month window 
under which OSHA can issue citations to employers who fail to maintain 
proper records; 6 months. It is written in the law. This approach helps 
ensure workplace hazards are addressed in a timely manner.
  However, in 2006, OSHA took action against Volks Constructors for 
recordkeeping errors that occurred well beyond what the law allows, 
well beyond 6 months. The errors were from nearly 5 years earlier. That 
is why a Federal appeals court unanimously rejected OSHA's overreach. 
The opinion for the Court stated: ``We do not believe Congress 
expressly established a statute of limitations only to implicitly 
encourage the Secretary to ignore it.'' Even President Obama's Supreme 
Court nominee, Judge Garland, agreed OSHA's action was ``not 
reasonable.''
  What came next was an outright power grab. OSHA decided to take its 
unlawful action one step further. This time it would not only ignore 
the law, but rewrite it. The agency finalized the ``Volks'' rule, 
unilaterally extending the statute of limitations from 6 months to 5 
years. OSHA undertook for itself the power that only this Congress has 
to write laws.
  The agency created significant regulatory confusion for small 
businesses. Many would likely face unwarranted litigation because of 
unlawful regulatory policies. Of course, further judicial scrutiny also 
means hardworking taxpayers will foot the bill when OSHA is forced to 
defend its lawless power grab once again.
  Simply put, OSHA had no authority to do this. We have a Constitution 
that grants Congress, not Federal agencies, the power to write the law. 
But that is not the only reason we are here today. We are also here 
because this rule does nothing to improve workplace safety.
  Maintaining injury and illness records is vitally important and can 
help enhance worker protections. But that is not the goal of this rule. 
This rule only serves to punish employers. As we have said repeatedly, 
OSHA should, instead, collaborate with employers to help them 
understand their legal responsibilities and ensure safe measures are in 
place to prevent workplace hazards in the future.
  Fortunately, Congress has the authority to reject this failed 
approach to workplace safety and block an abuse of executive power that 
began under the Obama administration.
  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I hope we can 
all work together to encourage a more proactive approach that prevents 
injuries and illnesses from happening in the first place.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 83, the Congressional 
Review Act resolution of disapproval that will undermine workplace 
safety and health. It does so by overturning a clarifying rule issued 
by OSHA on December 9, 2016, to ensure accurate occupational injury and 
illness reporting.
  Now, first of all, it is strange that we are reversing a rule through 
the Congressional Review Act that creates no new compliance or 
reporting obligation, imposes no new costs. It simply gives OSHA the 
tools to enforce an employer's continuing obligation to record injuries 
and illnesses.
  Spurred by the court of appeals decision, which blocked OSHA from 
citing continuing violations outside the 6-month statute of 
limitations, OSHA updated its recordkeeping rule. This new rule makes 
it clear that employers have a continuing obligation to record serious 
injuries and illnesses on an OSHA Log if they failed to comply with the 
requirement to record the injury at the time the injury or illness 
occurred.
  Since the enactment of OSHA in 1970, accurate data on workplace 
injuries and illnesses has been recognized as an important tool for 
protecting worker safety and health.
  Since 1972, employers in higher hazard industries have been required 
to record the occurrence of each serious occupational injury or illness 
within 7 days on a ``Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses.''

                              {time}  1530

  An annual summary of this law must be posted for 3 months starting in 
February of each year in a conspicuous place where employees' frequent 
records must be kept for 5 years.
  While most employers faithfully comply with OSHA's rules, there are a 
number of well-documented incentives for employers to underreport 
workplace injuries. These incentives include lower workers' 
compensation rates, more favorable treatment in public contracting, and 
a lower chance of having a future OSHA inspection.
  Underreporting means that workplace hazards are masked, making it 
less likely that employers or employees become aware of patterns that 
would indicate the need to take corrective actions to prevent future 
injuries. If injuries and illnesses are not on the log, OSHA may 
overlook hazards at a worksite during an inspection and consequently 
leaving workers exposed to correctable dangers.
  Mr. Speaker, because of underfunding, OSHA only has sufficient 
resources to inspect a workplace once every 140 years on average. So 
the likelihood that they might show up in the next 6 months is 
obviously remote. To be effective, OSHA must have reliable injury and 
illness data to target its scarce resources towards work sites where 
employees are facing the greatest dangers. Understated injury rates may 
mean that OSHA will bypass work sites that need to be inspected.
  Without reliable recordable injury rates, private contractors and 
public sector officials will not be able to make sufficiently informed 
decisions when assessing the safety records of prospective contractors 
and subcontractors.
  Mr. Speaker, OSHA's practice for the last 40 years and the decisions 
of the bipartisan and independent OSHA Review Commission have upheld 
the principle that every day an employer fails

[[Page 3267]]

to record an injury was a continuing violation for the purpose of 
calculating time limits under OSHA's statute of limitations. That is 
not totally open-ended but limited to the 5-year requirement that 
employers are required to maintain these injury records.
  In spite of this 40-year precedent, a 2012 D.C. Court of Appeals 
decision known as Volks Constructors upended the 40-year precedent when 
it held that OSHA did not have the authority to issue a citation for an 
occurrence of a violation that extended beyond the 6-month statute of 
limitations as set forth in OSHA. The court noted that OSHA's previous 
regulation provided for no specific articulated continuing obligation 
to record injuries beyond 7 days.
  There was a concurrent opinion in the Volks decision which made it 
clear that a regulation, which expressly provides for an employer's 
continuing obligation, would be lawful.
  Now, when you talk about what the court decided and what Mr. Garland 
wrote, that was on the previous regulation, not on this one.
  Informed by the guidance of the court, OSHA has issued a new rule 
which does make it clear that an employer's duty to maintain an 
accurate record of workplace injuries and illnesses is, in fact, an 
ongoing obligation.
  So let's be clear, eliminating this rule means that employers who 
want to underreport injuries will face no sanctions if the injuries go 
back more than 6 months. Rolling back this rule essentially creates a 
vast safe harbor for noncompliance and creates the perverse incentive 
for underreporting.
  The premise behind the resolution today is that it is unlawful. If 
that is the case, Congress should repeal the regulation. But no court 
has reviewed this new rule, only the predecessor. There has been no 
appeal of the new rule that has been lodged since the new rule was 
issued in December.
  The proper course of action is to have the courts decide the legal 
question since arguably they are in the best position to interpret the 
laws and evaluate the precedents. This especially makes sense since one 
of the concurring opinions in the Volks case identified abundant legal 
precedent for tolling the statute of limitations when there are 
continuing violations in other laws that are nearly identical to the 
reporting requirements in OSHA. These include the Consumer Credit 
Reporting Act and the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act.
  On the other hand, if the purpose of passing this resolution is just 
to eliminate the possibility of OSHA's clarifying rule could ever be 
found lawful, then it is obvious that H.J. Res. 83 is an ideological 
attack without any regard for consequences to worker safety.
  On the other hand, if there is a bona fide view that OSHA lacks the 
adequate legal basis for the rule, then the constructive solution would 
be to amend OSHA and provide for the clarifying statutory authority. We 
should not be repealing the rule because we know what happens when this 
deterrent is eliminated. After OSHA lost its authority to enforce the 
violations outside the 6-month window under the Volks decision, there 
was a 75 percent reduction in the number of citations issued for 
underreporting, and that is according to OSHA data.
  So, Mr. Speaker, there has been no hearing held on this final rule or 
this resolution. There has been no assessment of the consequences of 
underreporting of injuries which will occur if this resolution is 
adopted, and there has been no evaluation of any alternative way to 
ensure accountability for employers who flout the law. There has just 
been a headlong rush to push this resolution to the floor just a few 
days after its filing.
  So given the complete lack of deliberation regarding this new rule, 
this Congressional Review Act resolution is premature, at best, but it 
will definitely have regrettable consequences to the health and safety 
of the people that we are charged to protect.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to read very briefly a quote from the 
court's decision: ``We find this statute to be clear and the agency's 
interpretation unreasonable in any event''--in any event.
  There is no way to rewrite this regulation to comply with the law 
that is clear. There is no way for the agency's interpretation to 
become reasonable. It is unreasonable according to the court in any 
event.
  My friend from Virginia talked about the fact that OSHA just updated 
the regulation to impose a continuing obligation. OSHA does not have 
that authority. Only this Congress has that authority. No agency can 
unilaterally decide to change a statutory provision that the court has 
said is clear. He said this applies to only a few categories of 
employers. It applies to nearly every category of employers that has 10 
employees or more. So you could have an employer with 50 employees, and 
they are subject to this regulation. This applies to virtually any 
employer.
  OSHA has 6 months to enforce this law--6 months--from any violation. 
Now, why 6 months? Because it is important to investigate these things 
quickly and determine whether there has been a violation because things 
get lost and people leave their employment. Congress made the decision 
for 6 months because that was a period of time in which OSHA could 
perform its duties reasonably, and we could get justice the way it 
ought to be done.
  We can amend OSHA, but we have not chosen to do so. Until this 
Congress chooses to change OSHA, the agency has to comply with the 
clear wording of the statute as it has been passed by this Congress. 
The agency does not have the right to do this. It would be a waste of 
taxpayer money and time to force an employer to go challenge this in 
court when we already know what the result is going to be. It is not up 
to the committee or to the Congress to go back and review an agency 
interpretation we know, as a matter of law, is wrong.
  So this is a responsible act to take, and I would suggest to the 
agency and to my fellow Members of Congress that if we want to 
reconsider a statute of limitations we do it on this floor and not in 
that agency.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) who is the chairwoman of our committee.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Alabama for 
his able testimony in regard to this resolution.
  I rise today in support of this resolution because it will reverse an 
unlawful power grab and restore responsible worker health and safety 
policies.
  Article I of the Constitution is clear. It is the Members of this 
body--the legislative branch--who write the law. Why? Because we are 
closest to the people and, therefore, more responsive to the needs and 
demands of those we serve.
  It is the responsibility of the executive branch to enforce the 
laws--not write them. Unfortunately, the previous administration failed 
to abide by this founding principle. President Obama boasted about his 
days teaching constitutional law, yet his administration tried time and 
time again to rewrite the law unilaterally through executive fiat.
  The Volks rule is just one example of this unprecedented overreach. 
Under Occupational Safety and Health Act regulations, employers are 
required to record injuries and illnesses and retain those records for 
5 years. This information has long been used by safety inspectors and 
employers to identify gaps in safety and enhance protections for 
workers.
  To ensure hazards are addressed in a timely manner, the law 
explicitly provides a 6-month window under which an employer can be 
cited for failing to keep proper records--6 months. But never one to 
let the law stand in the way of its partisan agenda, the Obama 
administration decided to unfairly target a Louisiana construction 
company for recordkeeping errors from nearly 5 years earlier.
  That's right, 5 years. Not even remotely close to what the law passed 
by Congress permits. The consequences of this unlawful power grab were 
predictable. Employers large and small faced

[[Page 3268]]

significant regulatory confusion and legal uncertainty. Fortunately, a 
Federal appeals court unanimously struck down this power grab as my 
colleague from Alabama has cited. Even President Obama's nominee for 
the Supreme Court, Judge Merrick Garland, referred to OSHA's action as 
unreasonable.
  How did the Obama administration respond to this judicial rebuke? It 
completely ignored the court's ruling. The agency doubled down on its 
abuse of power and tried to rewrite the law extending the threat of 
penalty from 6 months to 5 years.
  Again, it is Congress that writes laws, not government agencies. That 
is precisely why we must support this resolution. By supporting H.J. 
Res. 83, we will provide more certainty for small businesses and uphold 
the rule of law. Just as importantly, we must demand a better approach 
to worker health and safety. To be clear, this rule does nothing--I 
repeat nothing--to improve the health and safety of America's workers.
  Instead of shaming employers, OSHA should collaborate with employers 
and develop a proactive approach that will keep workers safe. That is 
exactly what Republicans have demanded for years, and we will continue 
to demand so in the years ahead no matter which party has the 
Presidency.
  As my colleague from Alabama has said, this is exactly the 
appropriate way to block this unlawful rule, not only because the 
agency has no authority to do what it did, but because it is why we 
have the CRA.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to block an unlawful rule by voting 
in favor of H.J. Res. 83. I wish to thank the chairman of the Workforce 
Protections Subcommittee, Representative Byrne, for his leadership on 
this important issue.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, prior to yielding, I just want to make a comment that 
the court struck down the previous rule, not the rule which is the 
subject of this resolution. The previous rule did not have a specific 
citation about a continuing obligation. This rule does. The excerpts 
from the Garland concurring decision says:

       None of this is to say, as the petitioner suggests in its 
     opening brief, that a statute of limitations like OSHA's 
     statute of limitations can never admit to a continuing 
     violation for a failure to act. To the contrary, where a 
     regulation or statute imposes a continuing obligation to act, 
     a party can continue to violate it until that obligation is 
     satisfied.

  This regulation specifically cites the obligation as a continuing 
obligation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).

                              {time}  1545

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the gentleman for his very astute 
argument and his leadership on the committee.
  I am going to narrow my argument to, I think, very realistic 
questions about whether or not we are procedurally in the context of 
overruling the OSHA decision out of the Federal courts or whether or 
not this is really a question of do we want to protect the rights of 
American workers and protect them from the years of injuries that 
preceded the establishment of OSHA. I want to fall on the side of the 
American worker.
  Let me be very clear what we are talking about today. The ruling that 
we are speaking about went against 40 years of precedence in reporting 
workplace safety violations. Since 1972, every administration has 
maintained that the 5-year retention period for recording work-related 
injuries, illnesses, or death is standard practice. This DOL rule was 
simply put in place to codify and create some consistency that will 
benefit both employers and employees.
  Thank you, President Obama, who recognized that it is not the Member 
of Congress who may slip on a rug in their privileged manner of coming 
to this august body and voting, but it is, in fact, the workers who 
come every day and pick up your garbage, the sanitation workers, the 
same workers that Dr. King went to Memphis to stand up for and the 
individuals who, because of their work, are susceptible to injuries 
more often than not.
  Individuals who work in construction, who help build our houses and 
hospitals and tall skyscrapers, what excuse can we give for not 
maintaining the standards of keeping and reporting those injuries for a 
period of 5 years and the retention of such? Or those who work, for 
example, in the area of railroads, railroad beds and railroad sites--
hard labor. Or those who work at our ports--hard labor.
  So I rise to oppose disapproving the rule submitted by the Department 
of Labor regarding OSHA, and I do so for the men and women who do the 
heavy lifting.
  I include in the Record a letter from AFSCME, which represents 
municipal and county workers across America, establishing why we should 
vote ``no'' on this.

         American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
           Employees, AFL-CIO,
                                Washington, DC, February 28, 2017.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.6 million members 
     of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
     Employees (AFSCME), I'm writing to urge you to oppose H.J. 
     Res. 83, which would abolish an Occupational Safety and 
     Health Administration (OSHA) rule that clarifies an 
     employer's responsibility to maintain accurate records of 
     serious work-related injuries and illnesses.
       The new OSHA rule creates NO new compliance or reporting 
     obligations and imposes no new costs on employers.
       The 1970 law creating OSHA explicitly directed the agency 
     to ``prescribe regulations requiring employers to maintain 
     accurate records of and to make periodic reports on, work-
     related deaths, injuries and illnesses other than minor 
     injuries . . . .'' Since the first recordkeeping regulations 
     issued in 1972, OSHA has required employers to record 
     workplace injuries on an ``OSHA log'' within seven days of 
     the injury and to maintain the records of the log and annual 
     summary of the log for five years. Every Republican and 
     Democratic administration since 1972 has interpreted this 
     employer obligation to make and maintain accurate records to 
     be ongoing from the date of the injury or illness until the 
     five-year retention period expires. OSHA issued this 
     clarifying regulation in December 2016 in response to a court 
     decision that dramatically limited OSHA's enforcement of 
     injury recordkeeping regulation to a six-month period. OSHA's 
     clarifying rule simply restores the standard to one employers 
     have known and complied with for 45 years.
       H.J. Res. 83 would strip OSHA of its enforcement authority 
     and harm workplace safety.
       Passage of this Congressional Review Act Resolution of 
     Disapproval would enable employers who deliberately and 
     recklessly break the law to avoid any penalties for 
     systemically failing to report or underreporting injuries 
     over many years. They would be able to cover up or mask 
     longstanding workplace hazards that need correcting. OSHA has 
     limited resources and, on average, can inspect a workplace 
     once every 140 years. OSHA relies upon reliable injury and 
     illness data to prioritize its resources to those workplaces 
     that present the greatest hazards to workers. H.J. Res. 83 
     would remove OSHA's enforcement ability to protect workers 
     from the most dangerous and significant hazards.
       Workplace injuries are real. Last year, a GAO report found 
     workplace violence is a serious concern for the approximately 
     15 million health care workers in the United States, but the 
     full extent of injuries that are the result of workplace 
     violence is unknown because of underreporting. Accurate 
     reporting would help OSHA, employers, workers and their 
     representatives respond more effectively to this prevalent 
     workplace hazard. H.J. Res. 83 would jeopardize the progress 
     that could be made on workplace violence and other workplace 
     injuries by blocking this basic reporting and recordkeeping 
     rule or a similar rule in the future.
       We oppose H.R. Res. 83 and urge you to stand with workers 
     by rejecting this resolution.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Scott Frey,
                           Director of Federal Government Affairs.

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. H.J. Res. 83 is wrong. It is wrong because it goes 
against the hardworking people.
  I also include in the Record, Mr. Speaker, a letter from the 
International Brotherhood of Teamsters disapproving of H.J. Res. 83.

                                         International Brotherhood


                                                 of Teamsters,

                                Washington, DC, February 27, 2017.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.4 million members 
     of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, I urge you to 
     oppose

[[Page 3269]]

     H.J. Res. 83, disapproving the rule submitted by the 
     Department of Labor relating to ``Clarification of Employer's 
     Continuing Obligation to Make and Maintain an Accurate Record 
     of Each Recordable Injury and Illness.'' Disapproving this 
     rule would undermine safety in some of the nation's most 
     dangerous industries, many of which employ Teamsters.
       The rule does not impose new costs on employers and simply 
     reaffirms OSHA's ability to enforce injury and illness 
     recordkeeping. This rule became necessary when a 2012 court 
     decision overturned policy that had been in place for 40 
     years by limiting enforcement of OSHA's injury recordkeeping 
     regulations to a six month period. OSHA publishes the data 
     that it collects from employers on worksite injury and 
     illness which is then utilized by employers, unions, and 
     workers to identify and fix workplace hazards. With limited 
     resources, OSHA also utilizes the data to target its 
     enforcement and compliance activities to the most dangerous 
     workplaces thus making it essential that OSHA have accurate 
     information. With under-reporting of injury and illness data 
     already a major issue, it makes no sense to effectively strip 
     OSHA of its ability to enforce reporting requirements as this 
     ultimately impacts workplace safety. Congress should be 
     working to improve work place safety not undermine it, and 
     voting for H.J. Res 83 will ultimately harm working men and 
     women.
       I urge you to oppose H.J. Res. 83 to protect OSHA's ability 
     to enforce accurate injury and illness reporting and to 
     ensure workers have a safe and healthy workplace.
           Sincerely,
                                                   James P. Hoffa,
                                                General President.

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I stand with the workers.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 83, a 
resolution ``Disapproving Department of Labor Rule Relating to 
Clarification of Employer's Continuing Obligation to Make And Maintain 
an Accurate Record of Each Recordable Injury And Illness.''
  I oppose this bill because it will harm workers who depend on the 
Occupation Health and Safety Administration to ensure that their 
workplaces are safe. H.J. Res. 83 will undermine workplace health and 
safety and make it impossible for OSHA to ensure that injury and 
illness records are complete and accurate.
  Accurate records are needed to ensure OSHA focuses its limited 
resources on the nation's most dangerous workplaces, instead of wasting 
time in workplaces with low risk.
  The Department of Labor rule at issue here does not create any new 
obligations.
  OSHA has enforced injury recordkeeping requirements by reviewing the 
last five years of an employer's records throughout its entire history, 
under every administration.
  In 2012, a court decision limited enforcement of OSHA's injury 
recordkeeping regulations to a six month period--a dramatic departure 
from the last OSHA's 40 year policy and practice.
  The 2016 rule simply allows OSHA to continue this practice.
  Mr. Speaker, complete and accurate information on work-related 
injuries and illnesses is important.
  The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 directs the Secretary 
of Labor to ``prescribe regulations requiring employers to maintain 
accurate records of, and make periodic reports on, work-related deaths, 
injuries and illnesses other than minor injuries.''
  Since the early 1970's, OSHA has required construction employers to 
keep these records.
  The records are used by employers, workers, and unions at the 
workplace to identify hazardous conditions, and take corrective action 
to prevent future injuries and exposures.
  Both positive and negative injury trends are tracked on a national 
scale, allowing limited prevention resources to be targeted 
effectively.
  Most importantly, OSHA relies on the records to target its 
enforcement and compliance assistance activities to dangerous 
workplaces.
  No employer, union, or individual could possibly want OSHA inspecting 
safe workplaces rather than hazardous ones, but without accurate 
information, this will happen.
  Disapproval of the new rule puts construction workers lives in 
danger.
  Without the new rule, it will be impossible for OSHA to effectively 
enforce recordkeeping requirements and assure that injury and illness 
records are complete and accurate.
  Underreporting of injuries and illnesses is already a huge problem, 
and without enforcement, this will get much worse.
  It will undermine safety and health and put workers in danger.
  I strongly oppose H.J. Res. 83 and urge all Members to vote against 
this ill-conceived and unwise legislation.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Virginia referred to continuing 
violations. There is no provision in this law for continuing 
violations.
  Looking again at the court's decision. They said this: the statute of 
limitation provides that ``no citation may be issued . . . after the 
expiration of six months following the occurrence of any violation.''
  They go on to say this: ``Like the Supreme Court, we think the word 
`occurrence' clearly refers to a discrete antecedent event--something 
that `happened' or `came to pass' `in the past.'''
  By any common definition, there was no occurrence; i.e., no discrete 
action, event, or incident, no coming about, and no process of 
happening within the requisite 6 months. You can't take that wording 
and slip into it a continuing violation requirement unless you change 
the statute. The agency can't change the statute.
  The court, in its decision on the Volks rule, also looked at 
something very important, and that is: Why do we require this agency to 
do its work in a good period of time?
  It says: ``Nothing in this statute suggests Congress sought to endow 
this bureaucracy with the power to hold a discrete record-making 
violation over employers for years, and then cite the employer long 
after the opportunity to actually improve the workplace has passed.''
  In other words, we gave the agency 6 months to do its job, and it 
should do its job.
  Now, other people have looked at this, people who are experts in 
workplace safety. I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to a letter that was 
written on October 27, 2015, by the American Society of Safety 
Engineers, which I include in the Record.

                                               American Society of


                                             Safety Engineers,

                                 Park Ridge, IL, October 27, 2015.
     Re ASSE Comments on OSHA Notice of Proposed Rule 
         Clarification of Employer's Continuing Obligation to Make 
         and Maintain an Accurate Record of Each Recordable Injury 
         and Illness [Docket No: OSHA-2015-0006].

     Hon. David Michaels,
     Assistant Secretary, Occupational Safety and Health 
         Administration, OSHA Docket Office, U.S. Department of 
         Labor, Washington, DC.
       Dear Assistant Secretary Michaels: As you well know, the 
     more than 37,000 member safety, health and environmental 
     (SH&E) professionals of the American Society of Safety 
     Engineers (ASSE) intimately know the details of collecting 
     workplace injury and illness data, recording that data for 
     employers, and the careful work needed to report that data to 
     the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 
     Perhaps more than any stakeholders, our members understand 
     the value of this data in managing workplace safety and 
     health risks as well as its appropriate use by OSHA in 
     developing better means to focus the agency's resources on 
     the most difficult risks facing American workers. Our members 
     use injury and illness data to help them protect workers. 
     They expect no less of an effective OSHA.
       That being said, ASSE cannot support the requirement that 
     employers have a duty to record an injury or illness 
     continues for the full duration of the record-retention-and-
     access period--five years after the end of the calendar year 
     in which the injury or illness became recordable--that OSHA 
     proposes in its July 29, 2015 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
     (NPR) Clarification of Employer's Continuing Obligation to 
     Make and Maintain an Accurate Record of Each Recordable 
     Injury and Illness [Docket No: OSHA-2015-0006]. ASSE 
     respectfully opposes the adoption of a Final Rule as proposed 
     in this rulemaking for the reasons that follow.


                          nature of violations

       ASSE members do not look at the issues raised in this 
     rulemaking with the same viewpoint of the occupational safety 
     and health bar that, no doubt, will provide substantive legal 
     arguments against the case OSHA makes for addressing the 
     Volks II decision through this rulemaking. Rather, our 
     members' view is a practical one that comes from years of 
     experience on the job as the professionals charged with 
     meeting OSHA's recordkeeping requirements.
       Our members know the inadvertent mistakes they themselves 
     can make in recordkeeping and reporting. They also know what 
     they typically find when they are hired by a company to help 
     improve workplace safety and health. As they assess the 
     workplace's risks and past safety performance to help them 
     develop safety and health management plans, the reporting 
     mistakes our members typically find are not very often the 
     worst cases that, unfortunately, seem to be creating this 
     rulemaking. The errors in reporting they see are, by far, 
     minor, isolated, and, if continuing, it is only in the sense 
     that a typo can be repeated day after day.

[[Page 3270]]

       They also see mistakes that come from a widespread lack of 
     understanding of OSHA's detailed reporting requirements. When 
     seasoned safety and health professionals consistently use 
     ASSE's educational conferences, our social media, and 
     opportunities to meet with OSHA staff through the ASSE-OSHA 
     Alliance to get the best and latest information about OSHA 
     recordkeeping requirements, we know that, even for them, the 
     task of meeting those requirements can be too often 
     confusing. Given that the vast majority of employers report 
     to OSHA without the help of a safety and health professional, 
     it is not difficult to see that the significant increase in 
     records retention that OSHA is attempting to require of 
     employers here will not succeed in a significant impact on 
     safety and health among American workers.


                        unintended consequences

       No reporting error is excusable. But a company's errors to 
     which OSHA is determined to have access to for a period that 
     can be up to six years through this rulemaking will not very 
     often correlate to the risks facing workers, especially the 
     risks a safety and health professional is trying to address 
     for the company in the present. The statements OSHA makes 
     about the value of data collected through current injury and 
     illness recordkeeping are merely conclusory and are counter 
     to our members' experience.
       Measured against our members' belief that the additional 
     data will provide little help to them or OSHA, they are 
     particularly concerned that this rulemaking can only succeed 
     in driving more employers towards greater expectations that 
     safety and health professionals will focus energy and 
     resources on collecting and reporting the lagging indicators 
     that OSHA requires, taking them away from risk assessment and 
     management tasks and their efforts to move their employers 
     towards performance measurements based on leading indicators 
     that we know can better measure a company's safety and health 
     performance.
       Many of our members, especially those who work in or for 
     mid-sized and small companies, face a difficult uphill climb 
     in selling their employers risk management and moving from 
     lagging to leading indicates. We know OSHA values these 
     approaches also. But when OSHA uses its limited resources to 
     focus on measures that do not reflect cutting-edge safety 
     principles and push our members' efforts backwards, OSHA is 
     making their job more difficult. Our members value OSHA but 
     want an OSHA that works with them to advance the best ideas 
     for advancing workplace safety and health. Requiring this 
     data to be available for OSHA's use for nearly six years does 
     not meet our members' hope for an effective OSHA.


                             direct burden

       ASSE is also concerned that the OSHA's estimates of the 
     direct burden this rulemaking will place on employers are 
     inadequate. The economic analysis states that there will not 
     be a new cost burden. This was based on a 2001 analysis that 
     it takes 0.38 hour to record an injury or illness, with a 
     total cost per case of $17.75. From an informal survey of 
     involved ASSE members, a more realistic estimate is that an 
     hour is needed for each case over the five-year period, 
     taking into account the variety of tasks involved, including 
     determining if there was medical treatment beyond first aid, 
     verifying lost and restricted day counts, and adjusting for 
     changes in the status of a case. An updated economic analysis 
     is needed, which we urge OSHA to conduct before a Final Rule 
     is proposed.


                        a measure of the problem

       Related to our members' concern over the rulemaking's 
     direct burdens on employers is OSHA's failure to discuss in 
     the NPR why OSHA faces such difficulty in obtaining adequate 
     data from employers. No doubt, employers are responsible for 
     meeting OSHA's reporting requirements. Our members suspect 
     that OSHA's reporting rules and. deadlines are not effective 
     and cost employers unnecessarily.
       Before requiring more extensive reporting, it would be 
     helpful both to OSHA and the safety and health community to 
     know more about why employers do not report. How many 
     employers blatantly disregard the requirements and how many 
     are simply making errors? What do employers and their workers 
     not understand about the requirements? What training or level 
     of expertise would help fill the gaps in reporting that OSHA 
     believes exist? We urge OSHA to examine these issues as an. 
     extension of its economic analysis. With more knowledge, 
     there may be better ways to address recordkeeping that can 
     support better employer reporting.


                               conclusion

       As we say above, our members want a strong and effective 
     OSHA, But their view of an effective OSHA is an OSHA that can 
     embrace the best our members already understand about how to 
     achieve safe and healthy workplaces. An OSHA injury and 
     illness prevention plan standard that is truly risk-based 
     would help make OSHA more effective. Greater reliance on 
     control banding to achieve better protection limits, as we 
     have recently suggested to OSHA, would. Establishing 
     professional competencies to define ``competent person'' in 
     OSHA standards would. Finding a better way to update 
     consensus standards in OSHA's standards would. Rethinking 
     OSHA's reporting requirements to help move employers towards 
     leading indicators and more advanced ways to measure safety 
     performance certainly would. The areas where OSHA and our 
     members agree on making OSHA more effective are many. Adding 
     lengthier reporting burdens that will do little to help OSHA, 
     employers or occupational safety and health professionals 
     better manage workplace safety and health will not.
       As always, ASSE is more than willing to discuss these 
     concerns further. Thank you for listening to our members' 
     views.
           Sincerely,
                                             Michael Belcher, CSP,
                                                        President.

  Mr. BYRNE. What it says is that this regulation does nothing to 
enhance workplace safety. That is from the American Society of Safety 
Engineers.
  Also opposing this regulation is the Coalition for Workplace Safety. 
I include in the Record a letter from them dated February 17 of this 
year.

                               Coalition for Workplace Safety,

                                                February 17, 2017.
     Hon. Paul Ryan
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
     Majority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Steve Scalise,
     Majority Whip, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Virginia Foxx
     Chairwoman, Committee on Education & the Workforce, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Bradley Byrne,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Speaker Ryan, Majority Leader McCarthy, Majority Whip 
     Scalise, Chairwoman Foxx, and Chairman Byrne: The undersigned 
     groups strongly urge you to introduce and move a 
     Congressional Review Act (CRA) joint resolution of 
     disapproval to invalidate the Obama Administration's OSHA 
     regulation overturning the decision in Volks regarding the 
     statute of limitations for recordkeeping violations.
       At its core, the Volks Rule is an extreme abuse of 
     authority by a federal agency that will subject millions of 
     American businesses to citations for paperwork violations, 
     while doing nothing to improve worker health and safety. 
     Finalized on December 19, 2016, the rule attempts to extend 
     to five years the explicit six month statute of limitations 
     on recordkeeping violations in the Occupational Safety and 
     Health (OSH) Act of 1970. This regulation simultaneously 
     represents one of the most egregious end runs around 
     Congress' power to write the laws and a clear challenge to 
     the judicial branch's authority to prevent an agency from 
     exceeding its authority to interpret the law.
       In 2012, citing the unambiguous language in the OSH Act, 
     the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held 
     that OSHA could not sustain citations against an employer for 
     alleged recordkeeping violations that occurred more than six 
     months before the issuance of the citation because, as the 
     employer asserted, they were outside the six month statute of 
     limitations set forth in the OSH Act. The court was 
     unequivocal in its rebuke of OSHA. Judge Janice Rogers Brown 
     expressed particular concern on the issue of the agency's 
     overstepping its authority: ``we were rightly troubled by the 
     notion of being asked by an agency to expand that agency's 
     enforcement authority when Congress had evidently not seen 
     fit to do so.'' Judge Merrick Garland, in his concurrence, 
     plainly rejected OSHA's rationale for issuing the fines, 
     ``the Secretary's contention--that the regulations that Volks 
     was cited for violating support a `continuing violation' 
     theory--is not reasonable.'' The Volks decision has since 
     been endorsed by the Fifth Circuit in the Delek decision, 
     issued in December 2016, where the court found ``its 
     reasoning persuasive.''
       In response to the Court of Appeals ruling, OSHA 
     promulgated this regulation specifically to negate the Volks 
     case ruling and extend liability for paperwork violations 
     beyond the six month window permitted under the Act. OSHA 
     issued the final rule in the waning days of President Obama's 
     Administration with an effective date of January 19, 2017. 
     Although the regulation was issued in December, it was not 
     submitted to Congress until January 4, meaning that the 
     window for CRA consideration is for a regulation that has 
     just been issued, and is therefore shorter than if it was 
     being considered under the ``reset'' provisions of the CRA.

[[Page 3271]]

       We urge you to help put a stop to OSHA's abuse of its 
     authority and support swift passage of a joint resolution of 
     disapproval for this burdensome, unlawful rule. Because the 
     final rule directly contradicts both clear statutory language 
     and two U.S. Courts of Appeals rulings, it must not be 
     allowed to stand.
       Thank you for your consideration of this request and for 
     your continued efforts to rein in agency overreach and reduce 
     the regulatory burden on America's job creators.
           Sincerely,
       Air Conditioning Contractors of America; American Bakers 
     Association; American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute; 
     American Composites Manufacturers Association; American Farm 
     Bureau Federation; American Feed Industry Association; 
     American Foundry Society; American Fuel and Petrochemical 
     Manufacturers; American Health Care Association; American 
     Iron and Steel Institute; American Road and Transportation 
     Builders Association; American Society of Concrete 
     Contractors; American Subcontractors Association, Inc.; 
     American Supply Association; American Trucking Associations.
       Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association; Associated 
     Builders and Contractors; Associated General Contractors; 
     Associated Wire Rope Fabricators; Copper & Brass Fabricators 
     Council, Inc.; Corn Refiners Association; Distribution 
     Contractors Association; Flexible Packaging Association; 
     Global Cold Chain Alliance; Independent Electrical 
     Contractors; Industrial Minerals Association--North America; 
     Institute of Makers of Explosives; International Dairy Foods 
     Association; International Foodservice Distributors 
     Association; International Franchise Association.
       International Warehouse Logistics Association; IPC-
     Association Connecting Electronics Industries; Leading 
     Builders of America; Mason Contractors Association of 
     America; Mechanical Contractors Association of America; Mike 
     Ray; Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association; National 
     Association for Surface Finishing; National Association of 
     Home Builders; National Association of Manufacturers; 
     National Association of Professional Employer Organizations; 
     National Association of the Remodeling Industry; National 
     Association of Wholesaler-Distributors; National Automobile 
     Dealers Association; National Center for Assisted Living; 
     National Chicken Council.
       National Cotton Ginners' Association; National Demolition 
     Association; National Electrical Contractors Association; 
     National Federation of Independent Business; National Grain 
     and Feed Association; National Lumber and Building Material 
     Dealers Association; National Oilseed Processors Association; 
     National Restaurant Association; National Retail Federation; 
     National Roofing Contractors Association; National School 
     Transportation Association; National Tooling and Machining 
     Association; National Turkey Federation; National Utility 
     Contractors Association; Non-Ferrous Founders' Society; North 
     American Die Casting Association; North American Meat 
     Institute.
       Plastics Industry Association (PLASTICS); Power and 
     Communication Contractors Association; Precision Machined 
     Products Association; Precision Metalforming Association; 
     Printing Industries of America; Retail Industry Leaders 
     Association; Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors 
     National Association; Shipbuilders Council of America; 
     Southeastern Cotton Ginners Association, Inc.; Texas Cotton 
     Ginners' Association; The Association of Union Constructors 
     (TAUC); Thomas W. Lawrence, Jr.--Safety and Compliance 
     Management; Tile Roofing Institute; Tree Care Industry 
     Association; TRSA--The Linen, Uniform and Facility Services 
     Association; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; U.S. Poultry & Egg 
     Association.

  Mr. BYRNE. To the point, there is nothing in this statute that allows 
for continuing violations, and there is nothing in this regulation that 
provides for workplace safety. This is a power grab by an agency in 
violation of its authorizing statute and by a clear decision of this 
circuit court of appeals.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume before I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  The law requires the keeping the records for 5 years. If there are 
bogus records, you ought to have an obligation to keep them correct. 
That has been the interpretation for 40 years, up until this decision.
  We need the money to do their job. If they do their job, if we 
provide them with some funding, they can show up more than once every 
140-some years.
  We keep talking about a court decision that affected another 
resolution, not this one.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Soto).
  Mr. SOTO. Mr. Speaker, this is a simple issue: Do we want to make 
workplaces safer? Do we want to keep workers from getting hurt on the 
job? Of course, we do.
  In order to protect workers, we need good data on where injuries are 
happening so we can work with employers to stop them.
  Sometimes the other side says commonsense protections like this are 
too expensive or they kill jobs or they stifle innovation. None of 
those is even remotely true here.
  The protections this resolution would take away cost nothing. 
Responsible employers are already keeping these records. That is why 
the coalition opposing this resolution includes workers rights 
advocates and a whole lot of other folks like public health 
practitioners. These are not political people. These are just people 
who work every day to help Americans lead safe, healthy lives.
  This is not about President Obama or power grabs. It is about 
protecting the American worker.
  The 6-month period is a setup which will lead to less enforcement. 
Rather than eliminating the rule, let's codify it and use the 
information we collect to continue to evolve our laws to protect 
workers.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman that the experts on this, 
the American Society of Safety Engineers, have said that this 
regulation does not enhance workplace safety. So if we are about 
workplace safety, this regulation isn't it. Let's talk about something 
that will help with workplace safety, not something that is a lawless 
power grab by a Federal agency.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), a hardworking member of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to rolling back workplace 
safety protections for American workers. This use of the Congressional 
Review Act would endanger employees and throw away four decades of 
precedent for the sole purpose of protecting companies that repeatedly 
violate safety standards.
  The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, commonly known as 
OSHA, is among the best tools we have to ensure that companies adhere 
to basic safety standards. Because the agency's budget is so small 
compared to its critical task, OSHA relies on accurate data to focus on 
the companies that pose the greatest danger to employees.
  The previous administration sought to clarify and codify the 
responsibility companies have to maintain an honest record of their 
employees' injuries and illnesses. This resolution would undermine 
OSHA's ability to target serial offenders by removing companies' 
obligation to keep reliable data about safety issues in the workplace. 
If passed into law, the resolution would essentially grant amnesty to 
companies with years of workplace safety violations, while sending a 
clear message to employers that the Federal Government is no longer 
committed to worker safety.
  Mr. Speaker, I have asked the question many times since the President 
took office, and I will ask it again today: How does this give power 
back to the people? How does undermining workplace safety regulations 
support middle class Americans? How does protecting companies that 
repeatedly violate safety standards improve the life of workers? The 
answer is that it doesn't.
  I call on my colleagues to stand with working Americans who deserve a 
safe workplace and vote ``no'' on this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the UAW opposing 
the repeal of this rule and also a letter from National Nurses United 
in opposition to H.J. Res. 83.

                                                          UAW,

                                                February 28, 2017.
       Dear Representatives: On behalf of the more than one 
     million active and retired

[[Page 3272]]

     members of the International Union, United Automobile, 
     Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, 
     we strongly urge you to oppose H.J. Res 83. This misguided 
     resolution undermines workplace health and safety standards 
     in the most dangerous industries. The proposed legislation 
     will make it much harder for the Occupation Safety and Health 
     Administration (OSHA) to ensure the safety and health of 
     America's workers.
       Since the early 1970s, OSHA has required employers to 
     maintain a safety record for five years and make reports to 
     the Department of Labor (DOL). These records are used by 
     workers and employers to identify hazards, fix them, and most 
     importantly, keep accidents from happening in the future. DOL 
     utilizes these records to publish statistics on workplace 
     injury and illness rates and OSHA relies on them to allocate 
     scarce resources.
       OSHA issued the recordkeeping rule to clarify an employer's 
     responsibility to maintain a safe workplace. The rule does 
     not impose any new costs or obligations on employers and only 
     covers larger businesses with the most high risk occupations.
       Accurate injury and illness records are critically 
     important for workers and their families. Having the 
     necessary tools to collect complete and accurate data on 
     work-related injuries and illnesses is a key component in 
     reducing, mitigating, and eliminating hazards and deaths in 
     the workplace.
       Historically, OSHA has assessed and enforced injury 
     recordkeeping requirements under every administration. In 
     turn, workers in America have enjoyed a much safer work 
     environment. We must not take away or reduce OSHA's role in 
     improving health and safety conditions for workers and we 
     must ensure the accuracy of the reporting requirements. 
     Tremendous gains have been made in workplace hazard 
     reporting. We cannot go backwards.
       The UAW members have a long and storied history of securing 
     workplace protections for all of America's workers. This bill 
     undermines those gains and more than 40 years of solid 
     science and practice.
       We urge you to resoundingly reject H.J. Res 83 and vote No 
     when it comes to the floor.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Josh Nassar,
     Legislative Director.
                                  ____



                                       National Nurses United,

                                                February 27, 2017.
     Re Letter in Opposition to H.J. Res. 83, Congressional Review 
         Act Resolution to Block OSHA Injury and Illness 
         Recordkeeping Clarification Rule.

     Hon. Virginia Foxx,
     Chair, Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Robert Scott,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Education and the Workforce, 
         House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member Scott: On behalf of 
     over 150,000 members across the country and as the largest 
     organization representing registered nurses in the United 
     States, National Nurses United (NNU) urges you to oppose H.J. 
     Res. 83, which would block the Occupational Safety and Health 
     Administration's (OSHA) final rule clarifying employers' 
     continuing obligations to record workplace injuries and 
     illnesses. By revoking OSHA's authority to enforce 
     recordkeeping requirements, this Congressional Review Act 
     (CRA) resolution denudes the agency of the tools necessary to 
     identify and target patterns of workplace hazards. These 
     recordkeeping requirements are fundamental to OSHA's ability 
     to protect workers from job-related health and safety 
     hazards. But H.J. Res. 83 would leave OSHA with no functional 
     mechanism to protect workers from longstanding workplace 
     hazards--health and safety dangers on the job would go 
     undisclosed and uncorrected. Congress must oppose this GRA 
     resolution lest it place the health and safety of workers in 
     serious jeopardy.
       The published final rule, known as the ``Volks Rule,'' is a 
     common-sense measure meant to align OSHA regulations with its 
     40-year-long practice of enforcing employer injury and 
     illness recordkeeping requirements as continuing violations 
     under of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH 
     Act). Under the OSH Act, Congress authorized OSHA to 
     promulgate rules requiring employers to maintain accurate 
     records of workplace injuries and illnesses. Since 1972, 
     under multiple Republican and Democratic Administrations, 
     OSHA has required most employers to make and maintain records 
     of workplace injuries and illnesses for five years from the 
     date of the injury or illness. Each OSHA Administration has 
     determined that the five-year record maintenance requirements 
     were continuing obligations of employers and that OSHA 
     citations could be issued if a violation were identified any 
     time within that five-year period. But a 2012 decision by the 
     D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in Volks Constructors v. 
     Secretary of Labor held that OSHA could not issue a 
     recordkeeping citation beyond a six-month period despite the 
     long-standing five-year recordkeeping requirements. There was 
     a gap in OSHA regulations, and the Volks Rule would fix it, 
     making agency recordkeeping rules consistent with its 
     decades-long enforcement practices.
       To fulfill its statutory duties to protect America's 
     workforce from workplace safety and health hazards, OSHA 
     depends on its ability to enforce injury and illness 
     recordkeeping requirements. For OSHA to identify workplace 
     hazards and to develop effective means to correct those 
     hazards, complete and accurate information about what, where, 
     when, and how injuries and illnesses occur in the workplace 
     is vital. OSHA uses this information to develop injury 
     prevention plans and to efficiently direct OSHA's scarce 
     resources to worksites that pose the most serious hazards for 
     workers. Reliable workplace injury data is also fundamental 
     to the development and maintenance of effective occupational 
     health and safety standards. Moreover, federal, state, and 
     local officials also need reliable injury and illness data 
     during procurement processes, ensuring that taxpayer dollars 
     to contractors and subcontractors are going to fair and safe 
     workplaces.
       The elimination of OSHA's ability to enforce rules on 
     workplace safety records allows--and even incentivizes--
     employers to obscure ongoing workplace hazards. It would be 
     nearly impossible for OSHA to identify a recordkeeping 
     violation and conduct a comprehensive investigation within 
     six months of the injury or illness, instead of the full 
     five-year recordkeeping period. Chronic underreporting--left 
     unchecked if the Volks Rule was halted--erodes OSHA 
     inspectors' ability to enforce the country's occupational 
     health and safety laws and allows patterns of serious health 
     and safety violations to persist. The CRA resolution would 
     gravely weaken workplace health and safety protections, 
     exposing workers to serious harm while on the job.
       Because workers deserve the full and effective enforcement 
     of the panoply of our worker protection laws, NNU urges you 
     to oppose H.J. Res. 83.
           Sincerely,
                                              Bonnie Castillo, RN,
                                    Director of Health and Safety.

  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from 
California. He said that, if we pass this resolution, we will be 
granting amnesty to bad actors. We are not granting amnesty to bad 
actors. They will have no amnesty if OSHA does its job in a timely 
fashion. Five years is not timely under anybody's commonsense 
definition. They need to do their job within the 6 months that we have 
allowed for them to do it, and they have the tools to do their job 
within 6 months.
  So there is no amnesty being granted here. We are expecting a Federal 
agency that has a lot of money and has a lot of power to simply do its 
job within 6 months, and they come forward and try to make a new 
statute of limitations because they don't do their job within 6 months.
  I say to this body, I would say to people outside this body, it is 
time for OSHA to get its job done in the time allotted by the United 
States Congress and not come running out with some unilateral change in 
the statute which they have no power to do because, for some reason, 
they don't think they can do it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, there are 2,000 inspectors at OSHA. There are 8 million 
work sites. We can't expect them to visit every 6 months when the 
funding only allows them to visit each workplace once every 140-some 
years. You would have to show up at each place every 6 months to catch 
these violations within that timeframe.
  Mr. Speaker, for 40 years, the obligation to record these injuries 
has been considered a continuing obligation. If the purpose is to 
overrule the regulation because it is inconsistent with the statute, 
then we should fix the statute. But this resolution just gives relief 
to those who fail to record injuries and illnesses in violation of 
their legal obligation to do so.
  As Americans discover the plan to repeal this OSHA rule through a 
resolution of disapproval, there are a lot of professional 
organizations, in addition to the ones that have already been 
introduced, that have been alarmed by this resolution.
  The American Public Health Association has written:

       Injury and illness records are invaluable for employers, 
     workers and OSHA to monitor the cause and trends of illnesses 
     and injuries. Such data is essential for determining 
     appropriate interventions to prevent other workers from 
     experiencing the same harm. . . .

[[Page 3273]]

     For decades, the public health community and government 
     agencies have identified a widespread undercount of work-
     related injuries and illnesses. This includes investigations 
     by the GAO, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and academic 
     researchers. H.J. Res. 83 will have dire consequences for 
     injury prevention and undermine 40 years of occupational 
     injury surveillance in the United States.

  The AFL-CIO has written:

       In the absence of enforcement, there is no question that 
     the underreporting of injuries, already a widespread problem, 
     will get much worse, undermining safety and health and 
     putting workers in danger.

                              {time}  1600

  A group of 66 professional workplace safety groups wrote:

       The OSHA clarifying rule on maintaining accurate records 
     imposes no new costs to business, but is critical to assuring 
     that workplace fatalities and injuries are prevented.

  Mr. Speaker, I include these letters in the Record.

                                                           AFL-CIO


                                            Legislative Alert,

                                                February 27, 2017.
       Dear Representative: The AFL-CIO urges you to oppose H.J. 
     Res 83, a Congressional Review Act Resolution of Disapproval 
     that would repeal an Occupational Safety and Health 
     Administration (OSHA) rule that clarifies an employer's 
     responsibility to maintain accurate records of serious work-
     related injuries and illnesses. This resolution will make it 
     impossible for OSHA to ensure that injury and illness records 
     are complete and accurate and undermine workplace health and 
     safety.
       The rule, issued in December 2016, is in response to a 
     court decision that limited enforcement of OSHA's injury 
     recordkeeping regulations to a six month period--a dramatic 
     departure from OSHA's 40 year policy and practice. The six 
     month restriction makes it impossible for OSHA to enforce the 
     Act's injury recordkeeping requirements, since OSHA does not 
     have the resources to conduct regular inspections of even the 
     most hazardous workplaces. Indeed, currently federal OSHA is 
     only able to inspect workplaces on average, only once every 
     140 years. The new rule creates no new obligations on 
     employers. It simply makes clear that employers have a 
     responsibility to maintain accurate injury and illness 
     records for 5 years and during this time can be held 
     accountable for violations if records are not complete and 
     accurate.
       The collection of complete and accurate information on 
     work-related injuries and illnesses is a cornerstone of the 
     Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. The Act directs 
     the Secretary of Labor to ``prescribe regulations requiring 
     employers to maintain accurate records of, and make periodic 
     reports on, work-related deaths, injuries and illnesses other 
     than minor injuries.'' Since the early 1970's, OSHA has 
     required employers in the more hazardous industries to keep 
     these records and make reports to the Department of Labor. 
     These records form the basis of the Bureau of Labor 
     Statistics' (BLS) work-related injury and illness statistics 
     which are used to identify high-risk industries and 
     occupations and emerging problems and to track progress. OSHA 
     relies on the records to target its enforcement and 
     compliance assistance activities to dangerous workplaces. And 
     the records are used by employers, workers and unions at the 
     workplace to identify hazardous conditions and take 
     corrective action to prevent future injuries and exposures.
       To ensure the accuracy of this critical information, 
     throughout its entire history, under every administration, 
     OSHA enforced injury recordkeeping requirements by reviewing 
     the last five years of an employer's records. This 
     comprehensive assessment allowed the agency to identify 
     widespread underreporting by some employers, which was 
     masking serious injuries and hazards. OSHA was able to take 
     strong enforcement action which brought about changes in 
     injury recordkeeping practices, but also led to significant 
     safety and health improvements to address hazards and prevent 
     future injuries.
       Without the new rule, it will be impossible for OSHA to 
     effectively enforce recordkeeping requirements and assure 
     that injury and illness records are complete and accurate. In 
     the absence of enforcement, there is no question that the 
     underreporting of injuries, already a widespread problem, 
     will get much worse, undermining safety and health and 
     putting workers in danger.
       The AFL-CIO asks you to stand up for the safety and health 
     of American workers and to reject H.J. Res. 83.
           Sincerely,
                                                   William Samuel,
     Director, Government Affairs Department.
                                  ____

                                                   American Public


                                           Health Association,

                                Washington, DC, February 27, 2017.
     Hon. Virginia Foxx,
     Chair, Committee on Education and the Workforce, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Robert C. Scott,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Education and the Workforce, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member Scott: On behalf of 
     the American Public Health Association, a diverse community 
     of public health professionals who champion the health of all 
     people and communities, I write to oppose H.J. Res. 83, a 
     resolution that would use the Congressional Review Act to 
     void an important Department of Labor policy which clarifies 
     an employer's obligation to make and maintain accurate 
     records of work-related injuries and illnesses. The 
     Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued this 
     regulation in December 2016 in response to an opinion issued 
     by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
       Public health professionals understand the critical 
     importance of accurate information to help identify hazards 
     in order to develop and implement better health and safety 
     protections. One important source of that information is the 
     records some employers are required to keep on work-related 
     injuries and illnesses. These records are invaluable for 
     employers, workers and OSHA to monitor the cause and trends 
     of injuries and illnesses. Such data is essential for 
     determining appropriate interventions to prevent other 
     workers from experiencing the same harm.
       The regulation clarified for employers their ongoing 
     obligation to maintain an accurate and complete record of 
     workplace injuries and illnesses. It reiterated a long-
     standing policy that an employer's duty to record an injury 
     on an OSHA log does not expire. It explained to employers 
     that keeping a record of an injury is an ongoing requirement 
     even if an employer failed to record the injury or illness at 
     the time it occurred. OSHA requires employers to keep and 
     maintain accurate records of injuries until the five-year 
     records retention period expires.
       For decades, the public health community and government 
     agencies have identified a widespread undercount of work-
     related injuries and illnesses. This includes investigations 
     by the Government Accountability Office, the Bureau of Labor 
     Statistics and academic researchers. H.J. Res. 83 will have 
     dire consequences for injury prevention and undermine 40 
     years of occupational injury surveillance in the U.S.
       We urge you to stand up for workers and workplace safety 
     and oppose this resolution.
           Sincerely,
                                          Georges C. Benjamin, MD,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                                February 28, 2017.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker of the House,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Virginia Foxx,
     Chair, Committee on Education and the Workforce, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Robert Scott,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Education and the Workforce, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Ryan, Minority Leader Pelosi, Chairman Foxx, 
     and Ranking Member Scott: We the undersigned organizations 
     write in strong opposition to H.J. Res 83, a Congressional 
     Review Act Resolution of Disapproval that would repeal an 
     Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) rule 
     that clarifies an employer's responsibility to maintain 
     accurate records of serious work related injuries and 
     illnesses. This resolution will undermine workplace health 
     and safety in the most dangerous industries.
       This OSHA clarifying rule does not impose any new costs nor 
     any new obligations to covered employers, nor does it affect 
     small businesses. It simply clarifies OSHA's authority to 
     hold employers accountable for their longstanding obligation 
     to maintain accurate injury records, a requirement that has 
     been in effect since the Nixon Administration. Further, the 
     rule only covers larger employers in the most dangerous 
     industries.
       For over 40 years, only larger employers in high hazard 
     industries have been required to maintain records of serious 
     work related injuries and illnesses. OSHA regulations, issued 
     in the 1970's, require employers to maintain records for five 
     years. Since then, the Department's longstanding position has 
     been that an employer had an ongoing duty to assure that 
     those records were accurate. The Department of Labor uses 
     these records as the basis for published statistics on 
     workplace injury and illness rates and OSHA uses them to 
     allocate scarce agency resources for compliance assistance 
     and enforcement. Employers use these records as a guide to 
     identify and fix job dangers that injure and maim workers.
       This rule is needed because in 2012, a court decision 
     overturned 40 years of recordkeeping precedent and made it 
     impossible for OSHA to enforce against recordkeeping 
     violations in dangerous industries that are more than six 
     months old. One of the three judges indicated that OSHA could 
     enforce for continuing violations of its recordkeeping rule 
     if the agency clarified its regulation. The rule that is the 
     subject of H.J. Res 83 remedies the problem and clarifies 
     that OSHA may enforce for continuing violations for the 
     failure to record serious work related injuries and 
     illnesses.

[[Page 3274]]

       Accurate injury and illness records are vitally important 
     to the protection of workers. They are the most important 
     tool that employers and government use to identify and 
     eliminate job hazards that kill over 4,800 workers a year and 
     seriously injure almost 3 million more. OSHA can only inspect 
     every workplace under its jurisdiction once every 140 years. 
     If employers have no obligation to maintain accurate records 
     during the five year retention period, worker health and 
     safety will be seriously jeopardized.
       We are organizations that strongly support ensuring safer 
     workplaces and protecting workers from serious workplace 
     hazards. We ask you to stand with American workers and oppose 
     H.J. Res 83. The OSHA clarifying rule on maintaining accurate 
     records imposes no new costs to business, but is critical to 
     assuring that workplace fatalities and injuries are 
     prevented.
           Sincerely,
       9to5, National Association of Working Women; American 
     Federation of Government Employees; American Federation of 
     Labor--Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO); 
     American Federation of Teachers (AFT); Asbestos Disease 
     Awareness Organization; Blue Green Alliance; Connecticut 
     Council on Occupational Safety and Health; Communication 
     Workers of America; Council of State and Territorial 
     Epidemiologists; District 1199C Training & Upgrading Fund; 
     Earthjustice; Economic Policy Institute Policy Center; Fair 
     World Project; Family Values @ Work; Farmworker Justice.
       Fe y Justicia Worker Center; Food & Water Watch; Futures 
     Without Violence; Health Professional and Allied Employees 
     AFT/AFL-CIO; Institute for Science and Human Values, Inc.; 
     Interfaith Worker Justice; International Brotherhood of 
     Teamsters; International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace 
     & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW; Jobs with 
     Justice; Kentucky Equal Justice Center; Knox Area Workers' 
     Memorial Day Committee of Knoxville, Tennessee; Labor & 
     Employment Committee of the National Lawyers Guild; Labor 
     Project for Working Families.
       Legal Aid at Work; Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy 
     (LAANE); Massachusetts Law Reform Institute; NAACP; National 
     Center for Law and Economic Justice; National Employment 
     Lawyers Association; National Employment Law Project; 
     National Guestworker Alliance; National LGBTQ Task Force 
     Action Fund; National Organization for Women; National 
     Partnership for Women and Families; Natural Resources Defense 
     Council.
       Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public Interest; 
     New Labor; New Rules for Global Finance; Occupational Health 
     Clinical Centers; Oxfam; Policy Matters Ohio; Progressive 
     Congress Action Fund; Public Citizen; Resisting Injustice and 
     Standing for Equality (RISE); Restaurant Opportunities 
     Centers United; Rhode Island Center for Justice; Santa Clara 
     County Wage Theft Coalition; Sargent Shriver National Center 
     on Poverty Law.
       SafeWork Washington; Service Employees International Union 
     (SEIU); Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC); Union of 
     Concerned Scientists; United Food and Commercial Workers 
     International Union (UFCW); UNITE HERE International Union; 
     United Support and Memorial for Workplace Fatalities (USMWF); 
     Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO; Western North 
     Carolina Workers' Center; Workers' Center of Central New 
     York; Workplace Fairness; Worksafe; WNYCOSH--Western New York 
     Council on Occupational Safety and Health.

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask for a ``no'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter dated February 28, 
2017, from the Associated General Contractors of America; a letter 
dated February 28, 2017, from Associated Builders and Contractors; a 
letter dated February 27, 2017, from the National Association of Home 
Builders; and a letter dated February 28, 2017, from the United States 
Chamber of Commerce.

                                            The Associated General


                                       Contractors of America,

                                 Arlington, VA, February 28, 2017.
     Re AGC Key Vote--Support Joint Resolution Disapproving of 
         ``Volks Rule.''

     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Ryan: On behalf of the Associated General 
     Contractors of America (AGC) and its 26,000 commercial 
     construction company members, I strongly urge you to support 
     the Congressional Review Act (CRA) joint resolution of 
     disapproval to stop the Occupational Safety and Health 
     Administration's (OSHA) expansion of the statute of 
     limitations for recordkeeping violations in the ``Volks 
     Rule.'' AGC will score this vote as a key vote for the 
     education of its members on its congressional candidate 
     scorecards.
       This resolution repeals a rule that was issued by OSHA as a 
     challenge to the judicial branch and congressional authority. 
     Section 9 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 
     subsection (c) says ``No citation may be issued under this 
     section after the expiration of six months following the 
     occurrence of any violation.'' That seems pretty clear and 
     the courts agreed. In 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
     District of Columbia Circuit held in AKM LLC dba Volks 
     Constructors v. Secretary of Labor that section 8(c) of the 
     OSH Act (the section that requires accurate recordkeeping) 
     does not supersede 9(c) and therefore does not permit a 
     continuing violation for paperwork errors and that the agency 
     is overstepping its authority. Additionally, in 2016 the 
     Fifth Circuit endorsed the Volks decision in Delek Ref. Ltd. 
     v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission. When OSHA 
     issued its rule, it deliberately and specifically designed 
     the rule to counter the ruling in the Volks case. Because the 
     final rule directly contradicts both clear statutory language 
     and two U.S. Courts of Appeals rulings, it must not be 
     allowed to stand.
       The rule is designed to be punitive. It is a regulatory 
     attempt to expand opportunities to cite companies for 
     paperwork violations. It was issued in the waning days of the 
     Obama Administration as an attempt to get around the existing 
     statute of limitations for recordkeeping violations and 
     expand that limitation to sixty-six months. It creates no new 
     recordkeeping requirements. It does not change the data 
     required under recordkeeping requirements. It does not exempt 
     smaller companies from this regulation or these 
     investigations. It does not create any new, safer work 
     practices. The rule tells OSHA inspectors and company 
     employees to fix typos from years ago rather than walking the 
     jobsite, providing safety training or otherwise preventing 
     tomorrow's accidents. We take worker safety very seriously 
     and, unfortunately, OSHA's rule would require a colossal 
     misallocation of resources. That is why we urge you to 
     support the Congressional Review Act resolution.
       Thank you for your consideration of this request.
           Sincerely,

                                             Jeffrey D. Shoaf,

                                        Senior Executive Director,
     Government Affairs.
                                  ____

                                           Associated Builders and


                                            Contractors, Inc.,

                                Washington, DC, February 28, 2017.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of Associated Builders and 
     Contractors (ABC), a national construction industry trade 
     association with 70 chapters representing nearly 21,000 
     chapter members, I am writing to express our strong support 
     for H.J. Res. 83, introduced by Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-Ala.), 
     which would block implementation of the Occupational Safety 
     and Health Administration's (OSHA) ``Volks'' final rule. Also 
     known as Clarification of an Employer's Continuing Obligation 
     to Make and Maintain an Accurate Record of Each Recordable 
     Injury and Illness, the final rule extends the time period in 
     which an employer may be cited by OSHA for recordkeeping 
     violations from six months to up to five years. ABC urges you 
     to vote ``yes'' on H.J. Res. 83 and will consider this a KEY 
     VOTE for our 115th Congressional Scorecard.
       Currently, the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act 
     clearly states the statute of limitations for recordkeeping 
     violations is six months. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals 
     also unanimously issued a decision holding OSHA could not 
     issue a citation for a recordkeeping violation beyond the 
     six-month statute of limitations, and it was later endorsed 
     by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in the Delek case. The 
     Obama administration's final rule not only contradicts the 
     clear statutory language of the OSH Act, but also two federal 
     appeals courts.
       Nullifying the ``Volks'' rule does not remove an employer's 
     obligation to record injuries or illnesses. OSHA still has 
     the right to cite employers for a recordkeeping violation 
     under the OSH Act. ABC members understand that safety and 
     health practices are inherently good for business; however, 
     this rulemaking does nothing to improve workplace safety and 
     is simply a paperwork burden. OSHA's promulgation of this 
     rulemaking is a clear overstepping of its authority and a 
     contradiction of the OSH Act and U.S. Court of Appeals 
     decisions.
       We urge you to SUPPORT H.J. Res. 83 and we thank Rep. Byrne 
     for introducing this important resolution and look forward to 
     working with Congress to restore the rule of law.
           Sincerely,

                                           Kristen Swearingen,

                                   Vice President of Legislative &
     Political Affairs.
                                  ____

                                      National Association of Home


                                                     Builders,

                                Washington, DC, February 27, 2017.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Ryan:  On behalf of the more than 140,000 
     members of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), 
     I write in strong support of H.J. Res 83. This important 
     legislation will disapprove OSHA's Volks Rule, which is 
     nothing more than a regulatory end run around Congress and 
     the

[[Page 3275]]

     courts. If this rule is not disapproved, small businesses 
     will be subject to recordkeeping paperwork violations that do 
     nothing to improve worker safety. NAHB is designating support 
     for passage of H.J. Res 83 as a KEY VOTE.
       Finalized on December 19, 2016, the rule attempts to extend 
     to five years the explicit six-month statute of limitations 
     on recordkeeping paperwork violations in the Occupational 
     Safety and Health (OSH) Act of 1970. Subsequent court rulings 
     have affirmed applicability of the six-month statute of 
     limitations; nonetheless, the Agency proceeded with its 
     rulemaking. This regulation is an egregious end run around 
     Congress' power to write the laws and a clear challenge to 
     the judicial branch's authority to prevent an agency from 
     exceeding its authority to interpret the law.
       Given the vast overstep the Volks Rule represents, one 
     might expect significant gains in worker health and safety as 
     the result. Unfortunately, that is simply not the case. The 
     Volks regulation only changes the window during which OSHA 
     can issue a citation for recordkeeping paperwork violations. 
     Employers will have the exact same obligation to record 
     injuries as they always had, and OSHA will have the exact 
     same opportunity to issue a citation as the statute has 
     always permitted. The regulation is about paperwork 
     violations and does nothing to improve worker health and 
     safety.
       NAHB urges you to support H.J. Res 83, and designates a 
     vote in support of H.J. Res 83 as a KEY VOTE.
           Sincerely,
     James W. Tobin III.
                                  ____



                                     U.S. Chamber of Commerce,

                                Washington, DC, February 28, 2017.
     Re Key Vote Alert!

       To the Members of the United States Congress: The U.S. 
     Chamber of Commerce supports H.J. Res. 83, which would 
     invalidate the regulation issued by the Occupational Safety 
     and Health Administration (OSHA) entitled ``Clarification of 
     an Employer's Continuing Obligation to Make and Maintain an 
     Accurate Record of Each Recordable Injury and Illness,'' and 
     will consider including votes related to it in our 2017 How 
     They Voted scorecard.
       The rule would have the effect of extending to five years 
     the statute of limitations on recordkeeping violations that 
     the Occupational Safety and Health Act sets at six months. It 
     was OSHA's attempt to negate a 2012 decision from the D.C. 
     Circuit Court of Appeals involving a construction company 
     known as Volks Constructors. The decision blocked OSHA from 
     sustaining citations for recordkeeping violations that 
     occurred beyond the six month statute of limitations 
     specified in the Occupational Safety and Health Act. The 
     court's unanimous 3-0 ruling included Judge Merrick Garland.
       The court unequivocally rebuked OSHA, expressing particular 
     concern on the agency's overstepping its authority: ``We do 
     not believe Congress expressly established a statute of 
     limitations only to implicitly encourage the Secretary to 
     ignore it . . . The Act clearly renders the citations 
     untimely, and the Secretary's argument to the contrary relies 
     on an interpretation that is neither natural nor consistent 
     with our precedents.'' The Volks decision has since been 
     endorsed by the Fifth Circuit in the Delek decision, issued 
     in December 2016, where the court found ``its reasoning 
     persuasive.''
       OSHA's Volks Rule will improperly subject millions of 
     American businesses to citations for paperwork violations, 
     while doing nothing to improve worker health and safety. It 
     simultaneously represents a usurpation of Congress' power to 
     write the laws and a direct rejection of the judicial 
     branch's authority to rein in an agency when it exceeds its 
     authority.
       The Chamber urges you to vote in favor of H.J. Res. 83, to 
     invalidate OSHA's Volks regulation and restore the statute of 
     limitations for citations enacted by Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Jack Howard.

  Mr. BYRNE. All of those groups I just mentioned support the repeal of 
this regulation that would come about by virtue of the bill that is 
before us. Why? Because we have a right to expect in this country that 
these regulatory agencies that Congress sets up will do their job with 
the significant sums of taxpayer money that they are provided by this 
Congress, the money that comes from the people of America to do their 
job in a timely fashion. And this agency comes forth and tries to act 
like it doesn't have the money or the authority to investigate 
violations and enforce the law within 6 months of a violation. That is 
balderdash. The American people have a right to expect more from these 
agencies than that.
  But more to the point, the reason we are here today is really simple. 
We are here today to overturn a rule that is blatantly unlawful. We are 
here to put a stop to a rule that does nothing--I repeat nothing--to 
improve workplace safety. We are here to put a check on the very top of 
executive overreach the Congressional Review Act sought to address.
  By blocking this punitive and overreaching rule, we will affirm 
Congress' commitment to proactive health and safety policies that help 
prevent injuries and illnesses before they occur. If we wait until the 
illness or injury has occurred, we have waited too late. OSHA has 
waited too late. It is time for OSHA to work with these employers, work 
with these people in the workplace to make the workplace safe, not show 
up 5 years after the fact when they don't have the authority and say: 
now we are going to issue a violation.
  Mr. Speaker, the approach that we have demanded of OSHA for years is 
to proactively work in the workplace to ensure that it is safe, and we 
will continue to do that under this new administration. I urge my 
colleagues to overturn OSHA's unlawful power grab.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the previous question is ordered on the joint 
resolution.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________