Wrongful Death Accountability Act

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, I would like to comment on voluntary compliance. It has been mentioned here several times. Voluntary compliance programs are usually directed at large employers, not small. This is not where the deaths are occurring. In construction, half of all deaths occur among small firms in construction, many with fewer than 10 workers. Big corporations have understood for some time now that it is to their advantage to have a workplace that is safe, with maximum benefits and working conditions. And big corporations are seldom guilty of willful violations; it is the small employers. I must say that an attempt has been made here to make it appear that small employers have some special virtues, but small employers can be demons often.

I recall my father working in a mill where the straw boss, they called him, told the workers if they would go to the toilet, which was pretty much in the middle of the floor anyhow, a cubicle that you could see the feet and it was open at the top, if you go to the toilet and he does not smell anything, come on out.

I can recall working at a restaurant when I was in college where the employer, the owner of this small business, felt he had a right to pat any woman on the behind regularly, and they were too afraid to complain because they wanted to keep their jobs.

You might say that those were extreme conditions, that is all over; that happened when you were in college many years ago. But in New York we have sweatshops which are as bad as any sweatshops the city has ever known in the 1930s, the 1920s or any other time. It is just that the people in the sweatshops now happen to be Asians mostly, Asian workers who are being exploited.

There is no great virtue in small businesses automatically. Yes, the majority comply, but there are too many who still do not comply, too many who, as I said before, are interested only in squeezing the maximum profits from the situation; and their biggest cost is the labor cost, labor cost in terms of wages, labor cost in terms of conditions that must be established by law for workers.

We refuse to discuss the minimum wage on this floor. We refuse to discuss it in the context of a bill to increase the minimum wage. But today if we are going to talk about workers and worker safety, I think we ought to point out that it is the workers who are making the least amount of money whose safety is jeopardized most. They are the vulnerable ones in conditions that nobody else wants to work in, immigrant workers who take the lowest pay and working conditions where no one else will work.

This is the second quarter of a four-quarter marathon, as I said before. I have heard it called the More Injuries and More Death Marathon Act. It is a covert approach to what the majority Republicans tried when they first took power in 1995. This is covert. This is guerilla warfare, one might say, undermining OSHA from the back, undermining OSHA with sweet words.

Back on June 14, 1995, we had the first taste of what the majority Republicans really wanted to do about OSHA. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger) introduced H.R. 1834, and that was a massive overhaul of OSHA to weaken the law and favor law-breaking employers. If you were to go back and retrieve that bill, you could see that most of it was put there in one bill, and it was a frontal assault. It had the same objectives that today's assault has.

There have been 14 of these significant bills introduced since the 104th Congress, I think half of which have been introduced by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger) which are significant in terms of looking at the record of how OSHA has been under attack. Since this House went under the leadership of the Republicans, OSHA has been the target, it has been an obsession, and none of these bills are in favor of increasing any measures to protect workers.

We cannot review and view these bills today in the context of just one bill at a time or even the four bills. The four bills have to be reviewed in the context of the overall policy of the Republican majority toward working families, the overall assault against working families.

We have to have this in context. We have to look at the figure of the 6,000 Americans per year. That figure has been there for some time, averaging about 6,000 per year who die every year on the job.

The little display up front is an example of a centerpiece for a quilt we want to make as a memorial to these workers. We do not want either party to forget what is happening to working

families in this country. In many respects, the failure to increase the minimum wage is one of them, but certainly with respect to health and safety, we must do more to make it known and to put it on the front burner in the minds of Americans as evidence of what is happening in the workplace.

This is not unrelated to other developments like outsourcing, a major development which goes after workers at higher levels, technicians, computer people, scientists, engineers. Their salaries and their working conditions are such that they are found to be offensive and not producing ample profits, so their jobs are going to be taken away completely and contracted out to other nations.

There are a large number of businesses that cannot be contracted out and most of them are small businesses. Construction is one. We can never take construction overseas; that has to happen here. The construction industry, in particular, needs the protection of people who want to weaken OSHA. The construction industry, in particular, is a culprit in employing and exploiting workers at the very bottom.

We must keep this package in context. We must understand that the covert warfare taking place here, what I call the poisoning of OSHA, the slow draining of power from OSHA, is accelerated by these seemingly harmless four bills. The Labor Secretary in this administration is openly hostile to labor and to working families. We have a situation where traditionally the Department of Labor has always been considered the advocate for working families and for workers, but this particular Department of Labor, this Secretary, is just the opposite and this administration has no place for labor to have their grievances aired. So we bring them here today at this time and take advantage of the fact that there is at least time to discuss conditions under which people work.

The policy of denigration, intimidation and oppression of the workforce is a policy which yields high productivity. That high productivity has already been achieved, but they want to go beyond that and get higher levels of exploitation and squeeze more from workers to increase the profits. As I said before, all small business owners are not model Americans. They do not seek to protect and take care of their workers in the best possible way.

We are going to have a monument. This is going to be part of an overall quilt which gives you the number of workers per State, gives you the number each year, since 1993 to the present. Like the Vietnam Wall memorial, it dramatically brings home in an individual way the fact that life is sacred. The lives of workers are as sacred as the lives of anyone else.

I said before, we are losing more workers per day than we are losing on the battlefields of Iraq. I do not want the Iraq battlefield casualties to increase. We would like the casualties in both places to decrease. But the life of a worker who is killed in a situation which has willful violations and the death is totally unnecessary, that life must be given more concern by both parties here in this House.

Workers and their families are under attack. We must come to their defense. One way to defend them is to recognize these four bills for what they are worth. They are the very destructive poisoning of the effectiveness of OSHA.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for printing in the Congressional Record the opinions and the statements by four groups: The AFL-CIO, the UAW, the Teamsters and the National COSH Network. These groups oppose this bill. I submit for the Record their statements in opposition.

American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial

Organizations,

Washington, DC, May 14, 2004.

Dear Representative: I am writing to express the strong

opposition of the AFL-CIO to H.R. 2728, H.R. 2729, H.R. 2730

and H.R. 2731, four bills that would erode worker protections

under the Occupational Safety and Health Act. These bills,

which are scheduled for a floor vote the week of May 17,

2004, would change established law and procedures to benefit

employers and stifle OSHA enforcement. They would do nothing

to enhance workers' safety and health protection, while

weakening the OSH Act.

H.R. 2731, Occupational Safety and Health Small Employer

Access to Justice Act--This bill requires taxpayers to pay

the legal costs of small employers (defined as employers with

100 or fewer employees and up to $7 million net worth) who

prevail in any administrative or enforcement case brought by

OSHA or any challenge to an OSHA standard brought by the

small employer against OSHA, regardless of whether the action

was substantially justified.

Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, small businesses are

already able to recover litigation costs where the government

position was not substantially justified. There is no reason

to expand these provisions and create new and broader rules

for purposes of the OSH Act. The bill will drain resources

away from an agency that has perpetually struggled to do its

job with the limited resources available to it. If enacted

into law, H.R. 2731 would have a chilling effect on both OSHA

enforcement and OSHA standard setting, because attorneys'

fees would be available to prevailing employers in both types

of actions. OSHA would be hesitant to cite small employers

for violations of the OSH Act unless there is absolute

certainty that the enforcement action will be upheld in its

entirety. No rational public policy would be furthered by

discouraging OSHA from issuing citations that are

substantially justified, but as to which the government

ultimately is unable to carry its burden of proof of every

issue. Rather, the inevitable result of such a rule, which

would penalize the government every time it loses, would be

to chill the issuance of meritorious citations in close cases

on behalf of employees exposed to unsafe working conditions.

Similarly, unless OSHA is certain that a standard will not be

challenged (which they are routinely for any number of

reasons), it would be very reluctant to development and issue

rules any hazard no matter how grave the threat of the hazard

to workers. This bill would further weaken OSHA enforcement

efforts and standard setting to the detriment of American

workers.

Establishments with fewer than 100 employees make up 97.7

percent of all private sector establishments. These

businesses have a higher rate of fatal occupational injury

than do establishments with 100 or more workers. Hampering

OSHA's enforcement ability in these small establishments

would be devastating to workers, resulting in even higher

rates of worker fatalities, injury and illness.

Also significant is the fact that under H.R. 2731,

employers will be able to recover partial attorneys fees if

they partially prevail in an OSHA proceeding. So, for

example, the notorious Eric Ho, who exposed his employees to

asbestos and made them work at night behind locked gates

without providing them any sort of respirators or training,

would be able to recover attorneys fees under this bill,

because the OSHA Review Commission dismissed two of Ho's

corporations as defendants and dismissed 10 of 11 willful

violations of OSHA's respirator and training standards.

Secretary of Labor v. Ho, Nos. 98-1645 & 98-1646 (OSHRC,

Sept. 29, 2003).

OSHA needs more, not fewer, resources available to deal

with employers like Eric Ho and to enforce the OSH Act's

protections. H.R. 2731 should be rejected.

H.R. 2730. Occupational Safety and Health Independent

Review of OSHA Citations Act--This bill would work a radical

change in the implementation and enforcement of the OSH Act,

and would undermine the Secretary of Labor's authority to

interpret and enforce the law. The bill would overturn a 1991

Supreme Court decision and say that deference should be given

to the OSHA Review Commission, and not the Secretary of

Labor, in interpreting OSHA standards. The AFL-CIO vigorously

opposes this bill and urges its defeat.

In Martin v. OSHRC (CF & I Steel Corp.), 499 U.S. 144

(1991), the Supreme Court made clear that the Secretary of

Labor, and not the Review Commission, should be given

deference when interpreting OSHA standards and regulations.

In the Court's view, the Secretary of Labor should receive

deference because Congress, when enacting the OSH Act,

designated the Secretary as the policymaking official, and

gave the Secretary the authority and responsibility to

implement and enforce the law. Thus, because the Secretary of

Labor is the person who adopts standards and brings

enforcement actions against employers, she has a much broader

and deeper understanding of OSHA's rules as compared to the

Review Commission, which sees only a small fraction of OSHA's

enforcement cases.

Policymaking, and interpretation of OSHA policies, should

stay with the Secretary. The Commission should not be able to

undo by fiat the Secretary's reasonable interpretations of

her rules. H.R. 2730 should be rejected.

H.R. 2729. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

Efficiency Act--H.R. 2729 expands the number of members on

the OSHA Review Commission from three to five, and mandates

that all members have legal training. Another provision,

removed during the Committee markup on May 5, 2004,

authorized the Chairman of the Commission to delegate to any

panel of three or more members any or all powers of the

Commission and allowed two members to constitute a quorum on

such sub-panels.

The Review Commission has operated with three Commissioners

since it was first formed in 1970. There is no need to expand

the Commission beyond its current membership, and no need to

exclude individuals with relevant training, but not legal

training, from eligibility for these positions. Moreover, it

is no coincidence that Republican members are pushing to

expand the number

of seats on the Commission at a time when a Republican

president would fill the seats.

Proponents say the bill is needed to address the problem of

the Commission at times lacking a quorum to do business. But

with the removal of the provision on sub-panels during the

Committee markup, it is difficult to see how H.R. 2729 would

solve the quorum problem. Three Commissioners would still be

required to have a working quorum. There is no reason to

think that the Commission will be able to retain three active

Commissioners any better than it has been able to retain two.

H.R. 2729 is a solution in search of a problem. It should

be defeated.

H.R. 2728, Occupational Safety and Health Small Business

Day in Court Act--This bill would excuse employers from the

fifteen-day deadline for contesting OSHA citations and

``failure to abate'' notices if they can show ``mistake,

inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect'' as the reason.

The bill's practical effect would be to make numerous excuses

into legal reasons for missing the fifteen-day deadline by

which employers currently must respond to OSHA citations.

This action will only encourage more litigation. The idea of

the fifteen-day requirement is to give all parties a

reasonable timeframe in which to take action, and to ensure

that the case is moved along as quickly as possible so the

cited hazards will be corrected in as timely a manner as

possible.

It is also important to note that the bill excuses

employers from missing their 15-day deadline but does not

extent these same provisions to employees or their

representatives who challenge the period for abatement in a

citation. The one-sided nature of this legislation shows that

it is about benefiting employers, not protecting employees.

Proponents of the bill have pointed to one court case as

justification for this legislation. In fact, the Commission

has a longstanding practice of reviewing any missed deadlines

on a case-by-case basis. H.R. 2728 is another solution in

search of a problem, and it should be defeated.

As demonstrated above, these bills undermine the intent of

the Congress when it enacted the OSHAct more than 30 years

ago. Generally speaking, these policies and procedures have

been serving workers well for over 30 years. American workers

deserve a safe and healthy workplace and the full protection

the OSHAct can offer. These bills would surely diminish the

protections provided to workers by the OSHAct. For these

reasons, the AFL-CIO opposes these four bills, and we

strongly urge you to vote against each of them.

Sincerely,

William Samuel,

Director,

Department of Legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), my colleague on the Workforce Protections Subcommittee, be allowed to control the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to close for the opposition on H.R. 2729.

As I stated at the outset, neither H.R. 2729 nor any other of these four bills before us addresses the important health and safety concerns of American working men and women. In essence, H.R. 2729 gives us the worst of both worlds, a bigger government bureaucracy designed to accomplish less on behalf of the American worker. Moreover, this bill would mandate legal training as a qualification for appointment to the commission. This diminishes what ought to be a primary qualification as a commissioner and that is expertise in the field of occupational safety and health.

Having stated these clear reasons for opposition to this bill, which I urge my colleagues to follow, I would like to turn my attention once more to the urgent concern about the safety of American workers. That concern is over the protection of workers' lives on the job. At present, OSHA does little more than slap the wrists of employers that are egregious safety offenders. As the New York Times noted in its compelling series on worker deaths, OSHA has a 20-year track record of failing to seek criminal prosecution in a staggering 93 percent of cases they investigated where willful and flagrant safety violations by employers killed workers.

And after you institute this proposal for H.R. 2729, it is just one more little reason why they would have less vigor in prosecuting anybody.

Congress has an important role to play in holding both OSHA and unscrupulous employers accountable. One problem is that under the current statute, OSHA can only issue a misdemeanor penalty for an employer who has willfully caused the death of a worker. A misdemeanor has no deterrent value whatsoever. If you harass a wild burro on Federal lands, you face a stiffer penalty than if you kill an American worker. What signal does this send to a small number of unscrupulous employers who actually build up a history of willfully causing worker deaths? Are we saying to these wrongdoers, do not worry about protecting the lives of your workers because Congress cares more about wild burros than about the men and women in your employ? Pestering a wild burro in a national park can send you to prison for an entire year, but killing a worker only lands you there for 6 months.

More importantly, what signal does that send to grieving family members who are left behind? You cannot receive any justice because Congress does not have a fundamental respect for the lives of your loved ones.

Along with Senator Jon Corzine, I have introduced a bill to make killing a worker a felony offense. I tried to get this bill included in one of these four bills because it is germane, in my opinion; but it was ruled out of order. Rather than a radical departure from current law, this bill is just a moderate adjustment that is long overdue. H.R. 4270 and S. 1272 correct a glaring oversight in Federal policy, and I will describe it in more detail later on.

I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Kentucky and I be allowed to engage in a dialog.

Senator McConnell, I thank you and Senator Feinstein for your leadership on this issue. What you have done last year is important. It is very important again this year.

Senator McConnell, you put your finger on one of the real tough aspects of this. People all over Burma, including the members of the National League for Democracy, the party that was overwhelmingly elected to take power and run the country of Burma, are grateful to us. It is very tough for opposition within a country to support sanctions which hurt that country economically. Yet this organization, which she leads, supports sanctions because of the terrible things this group of gangsters have done to their country.

Senator McConnell, you point out very importantly, apartheid was overthrown in South Africa because of a united front which the United States led, an issue in which you were heavily involved. Now the Europeans seem to be dragging their feet.

We have quite often heard--sometimes justified, sometimes unjustified--criticism from our European friends about our lack of attention to human rights, too much attention to politics, et cetera. This is an opportunity for our European friends to join us and bring about the freedom of the Burmese people--I refuse to call it Myanmar-- the Burmese people, free this great Nobel Peace Prize winner and spread democracy and freedom through the world.

I thank again Senator McConnell for his leadership. This legislation would not have been passed without the leadership of you and Senator Feinstein. I am very grateful.

I think we need to make this a very high priority both in the United Nations and with the European Union and with others. I know Senator McConnell is very familiar with this brave woman and her followers. A lot of Americans, unfortunately, are not.

Three Burmese citizens were recently sentenced to death for contacting representatives of the International Labor Organization. They were sentenced to death for contacting members of the International Labor Organization. This woman has been kept under house arrest. Her followers have been beaten and killed. The cruelties, the unspeakable cruelties that have been inflicted on the Burmese people by these thugs are incredible.

Senator McConnell, recently we were talking about Iraq and freeing the people of Iraq. We celebrated the 10-year anniversary of Rwanda and we said never again. Eight hundred thousand people were killed in Rwanda and we said never again. After the Holocaust, we said never again. Are we going to look back on Burma and say never again after thousands of people have been tortured and murdered and imprisoned and mistreated?

Security forces, according to national organizations, continue to commit extrajudicial killings, rape, forcibly relocate persons, and the use of forced labor. It is going on. Are we some years from now going to say never again? Are we internationally going to exert the pressures of which we are capable--by the way, including our friends in ASEAN who took Burma into ASEAN with the announced intention of reforming this gang of thugs?

Remarkable in itself. What kind of an organization can call itself an advocate of freedom and democracy and have a meeting in the center of a repressive outrageous gang of thugs?

That is an excellent point. One of the reasons, perhaps, we do not pay as much attention to them is because they do not have weapons of mass destruction. The only difference between them and Pyongyang is that they do not and the North Koreans do. That is a heck of a comment on the attention of us.

I don't want to take too much time, but I will relate a story with which Senator McConnell is familiar. Aung San Suu Kyi was married while in England to a wonderful man and has two sons. A few years ago, a very short time ago, her husband was dying in England. This gang of thugs said that she could, of course, go with her husband--he was not allowed to come to Burma--to be with her husband while he was dying but she could not come back. So these unspeakable characters would not allow her to go be with her husband as he died.

This is a remarkable statement of her courage and dedication and also remarkable commentary on the kind of people with whom we are dealing. The next time the delegate from the U.N., the special delegate--they call it Myanmar--come to see us, our European friends come to see us and talk about powers of persuasion, remind them of that story. I think it would be very difficult to argue that these people are rational or willing to listen to reason.

Again, I thank Senator McConnell for all of his hard work.

Americans are great people. We are providing a service today with your and Senator Feinstein's legislation to bring attention to the plight of the people halfway around the world and their noble and courageous leader who has been a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

Every once in a while we do something very worthwhile around here and I thank the Senator for his leadership.

Mr. President, I would like to commend Senators McConnell and Feinstein for introducing legislation that will renew sanctions contained in last year's Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this resolution.

The world's democracies have a common moral obligation to promote human rights. In few places is the lack of freedom and justice more appalling than in Burma, a country in which a band of thugs, led by General Than Shwe, controls the population through

violence and terror. The Burmese regime has a record of unchecked repression. It has murdered political opponents, used child soldiers and forced labor, and employed rape as a weapon of war. Nearly one year ago the Burmese military junta launched an orchestrated, violent attack against democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi and hundreds of her supporters. Since then the regime has kept more than 1,000 political activists imprisoned, including elected members of parliament. It also recently sentenced three Burmese citizens to death for contacting representatives of the International Labor Organization.

And Aung San Suu Kyi remains a captive. Because she stands for democracy, this heroic woman has endured attacks, arrest, captivity, and untold sufferings at the hands of the regime. The junta fears Aung San Suu Kyi because of what she represents--peace, freedom and justice for all Burmese people. The thugs who run Burma have tried to stifle her voice, but they will never extinguish her moral courage. Her leadership and example shines brightly for the millions of Burmese who hunger for freedom, and for those of us outside Burma who seek justice for its people. The work of Aung San Suu Kyi and the members of the National League for Democracy must be the world's work.

In recognition of this, last year the Congress overwhelmingly passed the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. In doing so, we took active steps to pressure the military junta, and we sent a signal to the Burmese people that they are not forgotten--that the American people care about their freedom and will stand up for justice in their country.

The State Department released just this week a new report on U.S. trade sanctions against Burma. This report notes that the Freedom and Democracy Act encouraged ASEAN nations to take a critical stance on Burma, and that these pressures were likely a factor behind the junta's August announcement of a ``roadmap'' toward democratic transition. While this roadmap is sorely lacking, it does point to the tangible effect that our efforts are having inside the country.

Yet since we passed our bill last year, the ruling State Peace and Development Council has failed to make substantial progress toward implementing a democratic government in Burma. The new State Department report indicates that Burma's ``extremely poor human rights record has worsened over the past year, and it continued to commit serious abuses.'' Pro-democracy activists remain in detention, the National League for Democracy offices remain closed, and citizens do not have the right to change their government. Security forces continue to commit extrajudicial killings and rape, forcibly relocate persons, and use forced labor. The military junta refuses to tolerate any form of political opposition. On top of this, the dismal economic polices implemented by Burma's rulers have led to widespread poverty and the flight of most foreign investors.

Sadly, the picture is clear. So long as this band of thugs rules Burma, its people will be never be free. They will remain mired in poverty and suffering, cut off from the world, with only their indomitable spirit to keep them moving forward.

For this reason I stand in support of the joint resolution that will renew the import restrictions contained in last year's legislation-- sanctions that are supported by the National League for Democracy. These restrictions must remain until Burma embarks on a true path of reconciliation--a process that must include the NLD and Burmese ethnic minorities. I note, however, that while the American people have spoken with one voice in support of freedom in Burma, it is past time that the leaders of other nations do the same. No other country has yet implemented U.S.-style economic sanctions. The Europeans should reject half measures and join the United States in targeted sanctions against the military regime. China, Thailand, India and other Asian nations uncomfortable with a tougher response to the junta's crimes must understand that diplomatic obfuscation and obstruction on Burma will profoundly affect their broader bilateral relationships with the Western democracies.

Mr. President, this week I co-authored with former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright an editorial on Burma for the Washington Post. This article enumerates several of the points that I have made here, and illustrates the bipartisan consensus that we must act to promote democracy and human rights in Burma. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of our editorial be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

In this article, we quote Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a man who knows quite a bit about life under tyranny and oppression. The Archbishop said that ``Apathy in the face of systematic human rights abuses is immoral. One either supports justice and freedom or one supports injustice and bondage.'' Mr. President, today we support justice and freedom.

Exhibit 1

[From the Washington Post, April 27, 2004]

A Need To Act on Burma

``Apathy in the face of systematic human rights abuses is

immoral. One either supports justice and freedom or one

supports injustice and bondage.'' So said Archbishop Desmond

Tutu, the South African Nobel laureate and anti-apartheid

leader, who knows something about the struggle for human

freedom in the face of tyranny.

The world's democracies have a common moral obligation to

promote justice and freedom. In few places is this obligation

more acute than in Burma, a country in which a band of thugs,

led by Gen. Than Shwe, controls the population through

violence and terror. The regime has a record of unchecked

repression. It has murdered political opponents, used child

soldiers and forced labor, and employed rape as a weapon of

war. Nearly one year ago the Burmese military junta launched

an orchestrated, violent attack against democracy leader Aung

San Suu Kyi and hundreds of her supporters. Since then the

regime has kept more than 1,000 political activists

imprisoned, including elected members of parliament. It

recently sentenced three Burmese citizens to death for

contacting representatives of the International Labor

Organization.

The Burmese junta, with the cynical support of neighboring

governments, has announced a ``road map to democracy,''

beginning with a constitutional convention in May. The

convention is expected to be stage-managed by the junta,

which has offered no meaningful participation to Suu Kyi's

National League for Democracy, no timetable for progress

toward a political transition, no release of political

prisoners and no guarantee that the military will cede

control to democratically elected leaders. Instead, the

junta's proposals seem designed to institutionalize military

control by creating a veneer of civilian authority, while

meeting only the minimum expectations of Western democracies

in order to avoid further sanctions.

The Burmese regime's recent actions demonstrate that years

of international engagement and patience have not made the

dictatorship more humane, reasonable or open to accommodation

with its political opponents. On the contrary, it is only in

response to international pressure that the regime has made

even the smallest moves toward a political settlement with

the democratic opposition. The lesson is clear: The world's

democracies and Burma's neighbors must press the junta until

it is willing to negotiate an irreversible transition to

democratic rule.

The legitimacy, authority and commitment of Burma's

democratic leaders to govern their country is not in doubt.

But the international commitment to Burma's democratic

transformation remains uncertain. The Western democracies and

Burma's neighbors should immediately take three steps to

bolster Burma's legitimate democratic leaders.

First, Congress should promptly renew, and the president

sign into law, the ban on Burma's imports enacted into law

last July. These sanctions, which are set to expire after a

review period beginning Friday, are supported by Burma's

National League for Democracy. The restrictions have made it

more difficult for the Burmese military to tap financial

assets abroad, travel or accumulate revenue through trade.

The European Union, whose member democracies care deeply

about protecting human rights, and whose trade and

assistance programs give it critical leverage in Southeast

Asia, are set to announce a new Common Position on Burma

on Thursday. As part of this new policy, the EU should

also initiate target sanctions against the regime.

Second, the EU and the United States, with support from

Asian nations, should urge the junta to implement immediately

the provisions of the U.N. Commission for Human Rights and

the U.N. General Assembly resolutions--including democracy,

the rule of law and respect for human rights. The United

States and the EU should also formally place the issue on the

agenda of the U.N. Security Council, and work urgently toward

a resolution threatening credible sanctions against the

Burmese regime unless it initiates meaningful progress toward

democracy.

Third, China, Thailand, India and other Asian nations

uncomfortable with a tougher

response to the junta's crimes must understand that

diplomatic obfuscation and obstruction on Burma will

profoundly affect their broader bilateral relationships with

the Western democracies. Thailand in particular should

consider this point when it convenes its planned

international conference to discuss what it optimistically

calls ``Burma's progress toward democracy.''

Beyond these steps, the United States, Europe and Asian

countries must demand the unconditional release of Aung San

Suu Kyi and her fellow political prisoners, but make clear

that the releases, while necessary, are insufficient. In

addition, they should continue calls for a political

settlement that reflects the results of the free and fair

elections held in 1990. This settlement must include a

central, determinative role for the National League for

Democracy.

In another era, a dissident playwright named Vaclav Havel

wrote of the ``power of the powerless'' to overcome rule by

fear and force, at a time when such a revolution in human

freedom seemed impossible. The international community today

has the power to help the powerless inside Burma throw off

the shackles of tyranny. It is time to assume this moral

responsibility. It is time to act.

Mr. President, I, along with Senators Feinstein, McCain, Leahy, Brownback, Daschle, Dole, Mikulski, Burns, Clinton, Allen, Edwards, Nickles, Corzine, Biden, Feingold and Santorum, am introducing today a joint resolution renewing import sanctions against Burma. My colleagues may recall that these sanctions--along with several other restrictions against the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) in Rangoon--were included in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, which was signed into law by President Bush on July 28, 2003.

The act received broad support in the Senate. Sixty-one members cosponsored the bill which passed in record time by a vote of 97-1. Our quick action last year sent an unequivocal message to the SPDC that its ambush and attack on the National League for Democracy (NLD) and freedom in Burma would not go unpunished.

Today, we need to send the same strong message. America must continue to lead the world's democracies in supporting the struggle for freedom in Burma.

My colleagues will be dismayed to learn that since last year's horrific SPDC-orchestrated massacre there has been no progress toward reconciliation and democracy in Burma. Thirteen-hundred prisoners of conscience continue to suffer in squalid Burmese prisons for advocating freedoms that most of us take for granted--including thought, speech and association.

Burmese democracy leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and other NLD leaders continue to be under house arrest and surveillance by the SPDC, and the majority of NLD party offices remain

forcibly closed; United Nations and Thai efforts at engagement with the junta--through repeated visits to Rangoon and the so-called ``Bangkok Process''--have predictably failed; according to the White House, Burma ``failed demonstrably'' in counternarcotics efforts, allowing drug gangs to freely operate inside Burma and amphetamine-type stimulants to proliferate throughout the region, posing a ``major threat to national security and public health''; and, finally, the repressive and abhorrent SPDC policies of murder, rape, forced labor, forced relocation and child soldiers continue unabated.

Just yesterday, we learned from credible sources that 11 NLD supporters arrested in the wake of last year's premeditated attack were sentenced by the regime from 7 to 22 years in prison. This is in addition to the death sentences given to a Burmese sports writer who complained about soccer related corruption and to three Burmese men for having contact with the United Nations International Labor Organization.

Should my colleagues need a second opinion, let me quote Secretary of State Colin Powell in a March 10 Congressional hearing: ``I see no improvement in the situation. Aung San Suu Kyi remains unable to participate in public, political life in Burma and we will not ignore that.'' When I asked Secretary Powell in an April 8 Foreign Operations Subcommittee hearing whether he supported the continuation of sanctions against Burma, his answer was straightforward and clear: ``Yes.''

The Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act denies Burma 13 percent of its export market (according to CIA figures), visas for SPDC officials and their families, and, above all, legitimacy. In addition, $13 million worth of financial transactions to Burma have been blocked by the Treasury Department. While palpable impacts, these sanctions alone will not push the SPDC in the direction of meaningful reconciliation with the NLD and ethnic minorities.

South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu--no stranger to the struggle for freedom and justice--said earlier this year: ``To dismantle apartheid [in South Africa] took not only commitment, faith and hard work, but also intense international pressure and sanctions. In Burma, the regime has ravaged the country, and the people, to fund its illegal rule. Governments and international institutions must move past symbolic gestures and cut the lifelines to Burma's military regime through well-implemented sanctions.''

Amerca already cut that lifeline; it is time for other democracies to do the same. For freedom's sake, our allies and the European Union must impose targeted sanction regimes on Burma. If they are unwilling to take such action in support of the courageous and determined people of Burma, they should act for the sake of the security and stability of the region. Burma's exports to its immediate neighbors include illicit narcotics, HIV/AIDS, refugees and trafficked women and children. Further, Rangoon's connections with Russia and North Korea, in particular, deserve closer scrutiny by foreign capitals and the United Nations.

If my colleagues haven't done so already, they should read Monday's Washington Post op-ed entitled ``A Need to Act on Burma'' by our colleague from Arizona and former-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. I agree with their assertion that we should not be duped by SPDC window dressing in the weeks leading up to the May 17 constitutional convention charade. Even if Suu Kyi is released before that date it is not sufficient, as there are no guarantees for her security, no assurances that she will be able to freely express her views to the nation or to meet with ethnic leaders, and no sure bet that the junta will grant visas to journalists to travel to Burma.

The op-ed also raises the question of repercussions for the continued perpetuation of the status quo in Burma by China, Thailand, India, and other Asian nations. I look forward to exploring with my colleagues the most appropriate and effective ways that we can encourage those countries to support the legitimately elected leaders of Burma. If no change is in the offing, Burma's chairmanship of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in 2006 will be a tremendous loss of face to that organization and each individual member state.

Let me close by saying that sanctions must remain in place until Burma embarks on an irreversible path toward reconciliation and democracy. I intend to work closely with my colleagues--particularly the chair and ranking member of the Finance Committee--to ensure that the Senate acts just as decisively and expeditiously as we did last year. To do anything less would be to betray Suu Kyi and all those struggling for freedom and justice in Burma.

I ask unanimous consent that the following items be printed in the Record: A copy of the referenced Washington Post op-ed; a copy of a Boston Globe editorial entitled ``No Compromise on Burma'' dated March 29, 2004; a copy of a Washington Post op-ed by the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee entitled ``Seeds of Trouble from Burma'' dated September 28, 2003; a copy of a tribute to Suu Kyi authored by rock star Bono in Time Magazine's recent special edition on the world's 100 most influential people; and a letter supporting the renewal of import sanctions by the President and CEO of the American Apparel and Footwear Association.

Mr. President, I want to take a moment to provide my colleagues with insights into how serious and dedicated those who support the struggle for freedom in Burma remain.

Since the enactment of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act in July 2003, numerous colleagues and I have written to the administration and the United Nations in support of democracy in Burma. The following is a list of those letters that I have initiated or signed--but it is by no means an exhaustive list as it does not include any letters individual members may have sent themselves:

August 1, 2003: a letter to President Bush signed by myself and Senators Feinstein, Brownback, and Leahy expressing concern with Thailand's lack of support for the struggle of freedom in Burma.

September 12, 2003: a letter to Secretary Powell signed by myself encouraging him to bring up the plight of Suu Kyi and other Burmese democracy activists with the United Nations and all Security Council members, particularly China.

September 30, 2003: a letter to President Bush signed by myself and Senators Feinstein, McCain, Hollings, Santorum, Graham, Allen, Dodd, Sessions, Mikulski, Campbell, Clinton, Smith, Murray, Collins, Feingold, Edwards, Bennett, Landrieu, Burns, Cantwell, Corzine, Wyden, Brownback, Lautenberg, Kohl, Murkowski, Bunning, Lieberman, Sarbanes, Harkins, Dayton, Voinovich, Leahy, and Durbin urging his support for Thailand to play a more constructive role within ASEAN to promote genuine national reconciliation in Burma.

November 24, 2004: a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan signed by myself and Senators Feinstein, McCain, and Brownback calling on the U.N. to assume a leadership role to enforce the will of the international community in recognizing the results of the 1990 elections.

March 1, 2004: a letter to President Bush signed by myself and Senators Feinstein, McCain and Representatives Lantos, King and Pitts urging continued sanctions against Burma and increased engagement with the EU.

March 29, 2004: a letter to Secretary Powell signed by myself urging him to use the Berlin donor conference on Afghanistan to work the Burma issue with the EU and Japan.

I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the support and leadership of Senators Feinstein and McCain. Both have stood steadfastly with the people of Burma. They are champions of freedom in that country, and I am pleased and proud to once again work with them on this issue.

The partnership between Congress and senior members of the Administration on Burma has been productive and commendable. I look forward to working with President Bush, Secretary Powell and others on this important issue throughout this calendar year.

This joint resolution will renew sanctions against Burma for an additional year.

Roughly a year ago, Senator McCain, Senator Feinstein, and I came to the Senate floor to talk about the arrest and reincarceration of Aung San Suu Kyi, the hero of the Burma democracy.

To refresh everyone's memory, she and her party won an overwhelming landslide election back in 1990 when the military thugs who run the country--mistakenly, from there point of view--allowed an election. The NLD and Suu Kyi won virtually 80 percent of the vote and were never allowed to take over. She was then essentially put under house arrest and has been mostly under house arrest all these years. Here we are some 14 years later.

During that time, her husband passed away while living in England. She didn't get to visit him because she knew if she went to England, she would never be allowed back into the country. She is the symbol of Burmese freedom and democracy and has been under house arrest all these years.

A little over roughly this month last year, she was allowed to go out and go around the country. Her motorcade was attacked and a number of people were killed. She was injured and was sent into confinement once again--raising the issue again in the public mind, which, unfortunately, has not been in the forefront as often as it should have been over the years. Burma for many people has been sort of out of sight and out of mind. It has not enjoyed the kind of international attention that repression deserves.

What Senator McCain, Senator Feinstein, and I have been trying to do is lead the United States to have a more proactive interest in this. That is what the Burma sanctions bill is about. It passed last June and was signed by the President Last July. Secretary Powell was before the Foreign Operations Subcommittee a few weeks ago, and he indicated that the administration supports renewal of these sanctions for an additional year. That is what the joint resolution I just introduced on behalf of Senator Feinstein, Senator McCain, and others will do.

Sanctions have had some impact. We all know sanctions have mixed results in bringing down regimes. Frequently, they do not work, but there is one really classic example of a place where international sanctions made a difference, and that was changing the regime in South Africa. In that particular instance, the United States led and the rest of the world followed, and the sanctions became so widespread and the pressure so intense that it actually brought about a change in the regime in South Africa, and the majority there was allowed to take power.

We have had a difficult time getting the kind of international cooperation

on sanctions on Burma we would like to see, but we have started down that path.

This bill, which was signed last year, this Burma sanctions bill, spurred other nations to toughen their stance against Burma, denied the military regime 13 percent of its export market, and blocked $13 million in financial transactions to Burma. That is not a huge amount of money but it is a start. If the other countries in that area of the world, the ASEAN countries, and the Europeans, would give the attention to this that it deserves, we could have meaningful international sanctions that really bite.

The European Union and the U.N. will, frankly, have to be much more supportive of freedom in Burma. Both need to be much more proactive than they have been if this is going to work.

Bishop Tutu, with whom we are all familiar, the South African bishop, believes if we had the kind of international pressure and cooperation on Burma sanctions that we had on South African sanctions, it could, indeed, bring about a change in the regime in Burma.

My friend Senator McCain and I have had an opportunity to discuss this issue off and on over the years. He had a unique opportunity, which I have never experienced. I have gotten notes from Aung San Suu Kyi but never actually had a chance to meet her. I know Senator McCain had that opportunity. He and I both have been inspired by the example she has set. I believe, am I not correct, Senator McCain, you dealt with her in your most recent book as an example of the kind of courage that should be widely applauded?

Thank you very much, I say to my friend from Arizona.

He was mentioning the fact that we, this country, is frequently criticized because it does not take a multilateral approach to difficult issues. What we have been advocating as aggressively as we can is a widespread multilateral, multinational approach to dealing with this Myanmar regime, which no one defends but seems to be allowed to continue to operate because they are out of sight and out of mind. Here we are advocating a multilateral approach. As the Senator from Arizona points out, where are the Europeans?

And the ASEAN meeting is scheduled to be in Burma in a few years.

It was a stunning decision to schedule the meeting there. And now, if they stick with the schedule, I wonder how ASEAN can explain their tolerance of this regime? Give this regime nuclear weapons and it would look very much like North Korea, would it not, I ask my friend?

If I could say to my friend from Arizona, staff reminds me, Burma takes the chairmanship of ASEAN in 2006. They actually take the chairmanship. That is a completely absurd and unacceptable result.

Mr. President, today I am proud to be introducing a bill, along with Senator Collins and Senator Lautenberg, to grant a Federal Charter to the Irish American Cultural Institute, an organization that promotes appreciation and recognition of the important contributions Irish-Americans have played throughout the history of the United States. A longstanding goal of the Irish American Cultural Institute has been to establish a museum of Irish American history and culture in Washington, DC, and I am pleased to introduce legislation that could represent a positive step towards achieving that goal.

The Irish American Cultural Institute is a national organization founded in 1962, with local chapters in 17 States. The Institute has spent the last 40 years fighting to promote, preserve and interpret Irish and Irish-American culture. Those involved with the Institute do this, in part, by fostering strong cultural and educational ties between the United States and Ireland: sending American high school students to Ireland, and bringing Irish scholars, musicians, craftsmen, actors, and artists to the Untied States. They also fund academic research projects that provide insights into Irish-American history, and provide fellowships for American professors to spend a year as a visiting scholar at the National University of Ireland. In short, the Irish American Cultural Institute serves as an important educational, informational, and financial resource for key initiatives important to the Irish and the Irish-American community in the United States.

Irish-Americans comprise more than 17 percent of the population of the United States, and have made enormous contributions to our Nation in countless ways. A Federal charter will help the Irish American Cultural Institute continue and expand activities that recognize and celebrate the heritage of Irish-Americans. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the Protecting America's Workers Act introduced by Senator Kennedy. I am proud to join him as a cosponsor of this important legislation.

Yesterday, this country recognized Worker Memorial Day. Created in 1989 to remember workers who have been killed or injured in the workplace over the past year, Worker Memorial Day has been designated April 28 as a tribute to the anniversary of the enactment of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. In my view, there is no better tribute to the lives that have been lost than to think about how we can prevent future losses of this kind.

The facts tell a grim story: an eight-month examination of workplace deaths by The New York Times found that, over a span of two decades, from 1982 to 2002, OSHA investigated 1,242 horrific instances in which the agency itself concluded that workers had died because of their employer's ``willful'' safety violations. Yet in 93 percent of those cases, OSHA declined to seek prosecution.

Employees have a fundamental right to a safe work environment, and more needs to be done to ensure that businesses that deliberately put the lives of their workers at risk are held accountable for their actions. This legislation would go a long way to strengthen our workplace safety system in a variety of ways.

I am particularly pleased that this legislation includes provisions to shore up a fundamental weakness in American workplace safety law: the shockingly inadequate penalties associated with crimes under the Occupational Safety and Health Act. This legislation includes the provisions of the Workplace Wrongful Death Accountability Act, S. 1272, legislation that I introduced to increase the maximum criminal penalty for those who willfully violate workplace safety laws and cause the death of an employee.

It is unbelievable to me that, under existing law, that crime is a misdemeanor, and carries a maximum prison sentence of just 6 months. These provisions would increase the penalty for this most egregious workplace crime to 10 years, making it a felony. They also increase the penalty associated with lying to an OSHA inspector from 6 months to 1 year, and increase the penalty for illegally giving advance warning of an upcoming inspection from 6 months to 2 years.

In recent times, Congress has focused on a shocking succession of corporate scandals: Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, to name a few. These revelations of corporate abuse raised the ire and indignation of the American people. But corporate abuses can sometimes go further than squandering employee pension funds and costing shareholder value. Sometimes, corporate abuses can cost lives.

The provisions are based on the simple premise that going to work should not carry a death sentence. Annually, more than 6,000 Americans are killed on the job, and some 50,000 more die from work-related illnesses. Many of those deaths are completely preventable.

While many factors contribute to the unsafe working environment that exists at certain jobsites, one easily remedied factor is an ineffective regime of criminal penalties. The criminal statutes associated with OSHA have been on the books since the 1970s, but, over time, the deterrence value of these important workplace safety laws has eroded substantially. With the maximum jail sentence of 6 months, Federal prosecutors have only a minimal incentive to spend time and resources prosecuting renegade employers. According to a recent analysis, since the Occupational Safety and Health Act was enacted, only 11 employers who caused the death of a worker on the job were incarcerated.

The logic behind increasing criminal penalties in these cases is simple. It will increase the incentive for prosecutors to hold renegade employers accountable for endangering the lives of their workers and, thereby, help ensure that OSHA criminal penalties cannot be safely ignored. This will provide the OSHA criminal statute with sufficient teeth to deter the small percentage of bad actors who knowingly and willfully place their employees at risk.

I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this landmark legislation.

Mr. President, I rise along with several of my colleagues, the esteemed Minority Leader, Senator Daschle, the ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, and my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautengerg, to introduce legislation that will strengthen trade enforcement efforts, open foreign markets to U.S. exports, reduce the trade deficit, create export-based jobs, and provide a lift to America's economy.

This legislation would restore the so-called ``Super 301'' process, a tool that has been used by Republican and Democratic administrations to expand access for U.S. exporters to foreign markets. Super 301 requires the Office of the United States Trade Representative to negotiate with foreign countries that have established burdensome trade barriers in order to open those markets to U.S. exports. The legislation also requires the USTR to identify, and eliminate, the illegal protectionist trade barriers that most adversely effect American businesses and workers.

With more than 8 million Americans out of a job, we need to take strong action not only to get people back to work, but to get them into well-paying jobs. Unfortunately, in recent years, even when unemployed Americans have found new jobs, too often they've been forced to take a pay cut. That's one reason why so many middle class families are feeling the squeeze, and are having such a hard time making ends meet.

One of the areas hardest hit by job loss under this administration is the manufacturing industry. 2.9 million manufacturing jobs have been lost. In many ways, we are witnessing the slow decimation of the U.S. manufacturing industry. And the Bush administration has done little about it.

One way to deal with the decline in manufacturing--and the problems in our economy, more generally--is to do a better job of enforcing our trade agreements. U.S. businesses generally are the best, most competitive in the world. But, too often, they're not playing on a level playing field. Instead, they're being forced to contend with a wide variety of trade barriers that make it difficult or impossible for American businesses to compete. The end result is lost opportunities, lost jobs, and lost income for American workers.

Let's be clear. Trade is a good thing for America. And as a global leader we must be engaged in the global economy. Trade doesn't just help grow our own economy. It helps build the world economy, which, in turn, promotes democracy and greater security for everybody. I'm not arguing for building walls around the United States. To the contrary, I want to tear down protectionist walls that keep U.S. businesses out, and that destroy jobs here in our own country.

The Bush administration likes to advocate for free trade agreements. But it's not enough to sign a trade agreement and trust our trade partners to honor their end of the deal. Those deals need to be complied with. And if they're not, we need to be aggressive in ensuring compliance.

Unfortunately, when it comes to enforcing trade agreements, the Bush administration, as Senator Kerry said recently, has been ``asleep at the wheel.'' And there's no excuse for it.

After all, we face a trade deficit of nearly $500 billion, and a deteriorating fiscal situation that has led to increasing reliance on foreign creditors. Under the circumstances, you would have thought that the administration would be doing all it could to address these problems. But it's not.

There's a stark difference between the commitment of this administration to enforce trade compared to that of the Clinton administration. Between 1995 and 2000, the Clinton administration filed an average of 11 cases a year with the World Trade Organization to battle foreign protectionism. By contrast, the Bush administration has filed only 3 per year.

The White House also has repeatedly refused to respond when the bipartisan International Trade Commission has recommended remedies for U.S. businesses facing floods of imports from China--even when the ITC rulings have been unanimous. The President's determination to overrule the ITC has had a dramatic impact on many small businesses, including some in my State of New Jersey.

The administration also continues to sit idly by while China, and other Asian countries, manipulate their currency, to the detriment of U.S. exporters.

The administration's refusal to enforce our trade agreements, and the passive approach they have taken to problems like Asian currency manipulation, helps explain why we're now facing such massive trade deficits. In fact, the Bush administration is the first since the Hoover administration to preside over a decline in real exports.

Again, what we need is a commitment to let U.S. businesses compete on a level playing field. That is why we need to reestablish the Super 301 process.

Super 301 may sound like a technical legal mechanism. But it would help open up new markets, boost our economy, strengthen our export- based manufacturing sector, help reduce our trade deficit, and create new, well-paying domestic export-based jobs here in America.

Under the legislation, the USTR would, within 30 days of the release of the National Trade Estimate, submit a Super 301 report to Congress, listing the foreign trade barriers that most adversely affect U.S. exports.

Within 21 days of submitting the report, the USTR would be required to seek consultations with each trading partner identified in the report in order to resolve the issue. If consultations do not succeed in eliminating the trade barriers within 90 days, USTR would be required to take action that could lead to sanctions either by the U.S. or, ultimately, by the WTO.

As I said earlier, Super 301 is not new. It was signed into law by President Reagan, and renewed throughout the '90s by President Clinton. It was a tool that worked. The threat alone of being on the Super 301 list has, and will, force countries who have erected barriers to U.S. exports come to the table.

Some will argue that this is protectionism. Some will argue that it's unilateralism. In fact, it's the opposite. It's intended to protect U.S. businesses and workers from protectionist foreign trade barriers-- to knock down walls, not erect them. It's intended to encourage our trade representatives to engage in a constructive dialogue with those who have erected barriers to U.S. products. It equips the administration with a needed tool to fight for the rights of American workers and businesses against those countries who are unwilling to remove those barriers.

In a word, Super 301 would make trade more fair. And when trade is more fair--when U.S. companies are playing on a level playing field-- Americans win. American workers win. And when America's workers win, America's economy wins.

It is my ardent hope that we can get this much needed bill passed, and I urge my colleagues to give it their support. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Super 301 Restoration Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in case any Members just came in in the last few minutes or little while or are watching on the monitor, let me remind us what we are doing. This particular hour we are giving consideration to H.R. 2729, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission Efficiency Act. That is what we are discussing. That is what is under debate and that is what we are going to vote on.

Mr. Speaker, in the report on H.R. 2729, the Committee on Education and the Workforce observed that once Congress has created a government agency, it must continue to monitor the government agency for its performance on behalf of the taxpayers. Surely nobody can disagree with that. When the performance of that agency is found to be unsatisfactory, Congress must seek to identify the reasons for this failure and then make the needed corrections. It is that simple. That is all this bill is about.

We are trying to make the needed corrections on behalf of the taxpayer. That is what this is about, regardless of what we previously have heard.

Mr. Speaker, we are all tasked with performing this oversight that Congress has mandated since the inception of the OSHA law. That process describes what H.R. 2729 seeks to accomplish in a narrow, surgically targeted measure. In correcting clearly identified problems, this measure will improve the agency's performance, increase efficiency and eliminate unnecessary government waste. Who can disagree with that?

Let me use this visual aid behind me to explain why it will do that. I am sure the blue and pink areas are seen prominently by all. These shaded areas represent the time periods when the agency specifically created by Congress to hear all disputes between OSHA and employers have not been able to meet. The shaded areas are an indication of a time when the review commission at OSHA was nonfunctional. It did not work. They were getting paid, of course, but it did not work.

This is since 1970. Half of the time since 1970 the review agency did nothing. That is not good for anybody, especially the American taxpayer, but more importantly, the worker or the employer.

They found it impossible or at least very difficult to perform the functions that the Congress said to them this is their job, this is what they must do.

This agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, or OSHRC, was created by Congress for one single purpose; and, incidentally, had it not been created, there never would have been an OSHA Act. It would never have passed in 1970 had it not been for at the last minute OSHRC being put in.

Their job is hearing disputes between OSHA and the regulated community. They are the court. OSHA is the plaintiff. The small business person is the defendant. They are supposed to be totally independent of the Labor Department. To serve this important purpose, OSHRC, by statute, was given three members, or judges. Two members constituted a working quorum. That is, without an agreement between two judges on all issues of law, no decision can be issued. Without this agreement, OSHRC cannot perform its congressional mandate, and the review commission established by Congress is instead forced to shut down or come to a stalemate where waste and efficiency rule the day. Guess who gets to pay? The same old folks, the taxpayers.

Here is the problem. Stalemate and waste have been the rule over the history of this agency since 1970 rather than the exception. I am telling the Members they have been out of business half the time since 1970. As the visual I pointed to earlier, this one indicates the time of trouble highlighted by the shaded areas seems to overrun this timeline and it seems to signal a problem. And as one witness testified, these legal stalemates produce cases as long as 8 years old that sit on a court docket. That is not what Congress intended and it is not fair to anybody, 8 years of stalemate and waste.

Now we are trying to remedy that. It may be hard for Members to tell we are trying to remedy that with some of the demagoguery, but that is all we are trying to remedy. A simple remedy can be found by looking at OSHRC's sister agency, the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission. There, Congress placed five members on their review panel; and since the mine safety law was passed 7 years after the OSHA Act, most believe this represents a lesson learned. With five commissioners, are they doing better than OSHA is with three? It is not hard. And the answer is, yes, they are.

A second remedial step is necessary to maximize efficiency, however; and H.R. 2729 accomplishes this by enabling the President to use what we call a ``hold-over'' provision to improve effectiveness and efficiency, which is what the taxpayers want, what we all should want. Simply stated, this provision would permit the President to ask incumbent members of OSHRC whose terms have expired to remain seated, listen to this now, remain seated no longer than 365 days, until the Senate can confirm a replacement. That lets this agency keep working.

Lastly, because the case is decided that OSHRC go on appeal directly to a United States court of appeals, we have inserted the word ``legal'' before the word ``training'' and subsection 12(a) of the OSHA Act. This directs the President to select qualified candidates, but it in no way prevents the appointments of individuals who are nonlawyers to serve on OSHRC because there is a threefold criteria for selections. It includes training, that is one of them; it includes education; and it includes experience.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2729 represents a very narrow change to the current law. It will have positive and sweeping consequences in terms of improving the performance and the efficiency of OSHRC while eliminating unnecessary government waste. Who can be against that?

I urge the passage of this bill. And I conclude by saying that the demagoguery earlier that says that this bill should be called More Injury and Death Marathon Act is shameful, it is embarrassing, and it is out of line.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to sincerely and honestly thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for staying on the subject matter. We are indeed dealing with this bill. He and I may not agree, but at least we are having a discussion about the bill, and there may be just a couple of things that I want to make sure we have clear.

The gentleman indicated that should the President make an appointment, that that could be forever. That is simply not true. It is 365 days. The bill clearly states that. If the President makes an appointment, it is for 365 days, not forever.

Secondly, the word ``legal,'' that is an interesting thing. I tended to not want to do that too. I understand that. But the problem is, OSHRC is an adjudicative agency, and appeals from OSHRC go straight to the U.S. Court of Appeals. That strongly indicates, perhaps, some need for legal training, and this training could be a very useful tool for a member of this commission in light of the role that they play before it goes to the Court of Appeals.

Secondly, I am very concerned that the courts have been giving deference to the plaintiff. The plaintiff in this case is OSHA. The court should be the review commission. The courts have been giving deference to the plaintiff, rather than the court, and perhaps this will stop some of this.

In terms of efficiency and going from three members to five and the gentleman's indication that he is really against growing government, Congress has a very difficult time saying, you know, this is not working. We need to do something about this. This agency is not efficient. This agency is not getting done what Congress asked it to do.

I pointed out earlier that this agency has almost been out of work half of the time since 1970. What could possibly be done to make it much more inefficient than that? For some 20 percent of the agency's history, it has not had a statutory working quorum in place, and despite otherwise fully staffed people in the agency, they could not act. That is wasteful and that is inefficient.

Will five do better than three? Let us pray, is all I can tell you. It certainly has worked better for MSHA, and we hope that it will for

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I need to remind everybody that this hour is devoted to H.R. 2729, that it is about the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission Efficiency Act. That is exactly what we are talking about.

I want to remind everyone that a President, a President of either party, is going to appoint somebody to the commission that they agree with. That makes sense, whether it be President Clinton or President Bush. But all of these confirmations have to be confirmed in the Senate, so there is a check and a balance on it no matter which party is in the White House.

The comment earlier about President Bush is more concerned about big business than worker safety , I would simply say this bill is about small business. It has not got anything to do with

big business. It is about helping small business.

To simply say, well, this is not what workers want, is very presumptive. There are 92 percent of the population out there that are working families who own businesses, who work every day, and they do want some relief in the regulatory element, particularly, particularly, when the setup at OSHA is so unfair and the deck is stacked against them.

So I will tell you that a lot of small businesses and a lot of working families do want this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to say to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) that I have great admiration for him, that I always listen to him very carefully, and when he speaks, it is usually well thought out and there is some wisdom behind it. I appreciate that.

I do not necessarily agree with his remarks, but I am thankful he stayed on the subject, generally speaking, of the bill that is before us. I suppose actually we could sit down and probably have some long nights of discussion as to whether there should be three members, four members, five members. But both of us know that the commission is simply not working.

My suggestion is to vote for this bill and let us give a chance for something else to work, particularly when we know that the commission is working pretty well over at MSHA.

I do not know anything sinister about the appointments by the President. It is pretty simple. Frankly, what we need to do is have this commission operate. You cannot operate if it is going to take 8 years producing its findings, and that happens occasionally simply because there is no one there that can get confirmed in the Senate. We need to give Democrat or Republican Presidents an opportunity to put somebody in.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, as the gentleman knows, the legal training simply is not the only criteria. There are other criteria, such as education and experience, and I do not necessarily think that it has to be a lawyer.

Speaking of the AFL-CIO, they have as many lawyers in this town as anybody in Washington. I am not worried about them not getting somebody on the commission.

We have probably said enough. It is time to vote.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.