Providing that the House of Representatives will focus on removing barriers to competitiveness of the United States economy.

Mr. Speaker, the United States has the number one economy in the world. For almost two centuries, we have been the envy of the world: a dynamic economy; a hardworking, motivated workforce; truly the land of opportunity where innovation has thrived. The status is changing, though. We are running a $670 billion annual trade deficit which is contributing to our Federal budget deficit and slowed economy over the past few years.

This development is not a temporary blip on the radar screen. It is the culmination of a generation of increased regulation, unsound tax policies, languishing emphasis on math and science education, unchecked health care costs, rampant lawsuit abuse, unfocused research and development funds and a weak trade policy enforcement. In short, our government has made it difficult and undesirable to do business in the United States. We have put roadblocks to keeping and creating jobs in America, and we have done this to ourselves.

If these current trends continue, our economy will continue to lag and we will no longer remain the most dynamic economy in the world. Meanwhile, China, India and other nations are preparing for the future. They are educating their students in math, science and technology, and pumping out record numbers of engineers. They are reducing tax rates and other economic barriers to entice investments in their nations. They are pursuing aggressive trade policies to reduce America's dominance in world trade.

Without attention to these matters, the United States is headed towards a third-rate economy; 5, 10, 20 years down the road, we will no longer be the world's leader or even second place. We will become a third-rate economy. That is why we need to take this issue seriously.

Last year, we began the competitiveness legislative agenda on the floor, and over a period of 8 weeks, we discussed and voted on issues related to keeping and creating keeping jobs in America. Later this summer, the Jobs Action Team will again bring legislation to the floor to combat this problem. We need to take a longer-term vision.

For this reason, I am initiating the House Economic Competitiveness Caucus. The caucus will carefully examine the issues facing our ability to compete economically over the coming years. We will work to focus congressional efforts to removing the barriers to American economic competitiveness and develop economic goals for the future and find paths to get there.

I encourage my colleagues to join me in finding ways to guarantee a vibrant, internationally competitive American economy now, 5, 10, 15 and 20 years down the road. Our goal is to ensure high-quality and high-paying jobs for all Americans today and in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for yielding me this time.

I welcome the comments from the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). He talks about a lot of issues that are more important to making America more competitive. We may disagree on the track, but I think it is important that we do move forward with an R&D tax credit that is permanent. I think it is important that we do move forward to protect intellectual property rights. But he does make an additional point, and that it is always easy to be against something instead of for something. If we are going to make progress, we need to work together; so I would welcome him to join the Economic Competitive Caucus because I think together we could find ways to fund technology grants and technology schools. And I would like to point out that we have doubled the funding for the National Science Foundation, and we continue the strong funding of that.

The gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) also mentioned a couple of things that I think are important to be addressed in this debate. One is the effect that China is having on our economy, and I think the point was made by the gentleman from New York that regulation is not holding them back. But let me tell the Members what is happening in China. They have focused on technology. They graduated 350,000 engineers last year. They graduated more English-speaking electrical engineers than America did, and they have done that because they want to target certain areas. In Kansas they have targeted several industries: the hand truck industry, the auto lift industry. They are trying to run American businesses out of business so that they can have a corner on the market, and that is why we need to have enforceable trade policy, which is part of this resolution.

The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) addressed education. That is why education and lifelong learning is part of this resolution.

But let me just tell the Members what China is doing that I think is important to the debate and why I think they should understand why we need to address these issues today instead of putting them off. The regulation barriers that we have are keeping us from doing wonderful things that could help create and start jobs. In China they are trying to create a Silicon Valley. They have set up a top-notch university. They have given venture capital to the area. They have office space available. They have property management for anybody who has a good idea. They have legal advice, patent advice. They even allow professors and students to start businesses on their own.

The way to address that is by changing our system and removing the barriers. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) mentions the trial lawyers, the $40 billion that came out of our economy for trial lawyers. Just think, if we apply some commonsense reforms, we can make jobs in America. One example is in 1995 when the Statute of Repose was passed, which put commonsense limits on the manufacture of airplanes, and the following year 4,000 jobs were created in Kansas alone, plus additional jobs all across the United States.

All we are saying in this resolution is let us step back from what we are doing today and say if we were going to start this system tomorrow, would we do the same thing? Will it impact jobs? Can we work together to create and keep jobs in America instead of seeing them slide off to other countries?

So I think this is a good resolution, and I would welcome the suggestions from the other side, and I think together we can help bring jobs back to America.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for yielding me this time.

The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) did talk about some issues that I think are very important, especially when he talked about education. I think education is very important for the future of this economy. If we look at education spending over the last 5 years, we have had dramatic increases in education, as far as the spending is concerned.

What we need to do now is focus on math, science, engineering and technology. We know this is the direction the future economy is going. The world is getting more technically complex, not less technically complex. Yet we have fewer people going into engineering. We have fewer young women going into science. We have fewer people going into the technologies, the maths and the sciences. It should be concerning to us, and we need to take steps today. I would welcome their support as to how we do that.

National Science Foundation money, the NSF has come up several times here. We increased the NSF again this year, again. Over $5.6 billion will go into NSF this fiscal year and we have plans to increase that funding in the future, too.

Innovative research is very important. We need help from the other side of the aisle to get research and development tax relief permanent, and I think we can do that. I just want to mention the supply-side tax cut did stimulate the economy. We have more people working today than ever before in the history of our Nation. The average wage is higher than it has ever been in the history of this Nation. We have more people owning their own homes today than ever before in the history of this Nation, and we have done it because we cut taxes. More money got into the economy, and jobs started increasing. But does that mean we should be satisfied? No. We have barriers that need to be removed so that we can increase the number of jobs and the number of opportunities in America in the future.

I think it is important that we work together. I look forward to working with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) on issues like we addressed with Sarbanes-Oxley, corporate corruption, we had hearings. We had hearings; we had legislation on the floor. We made progress. We passed Sarbanes-Oxley. And now there are white collar criminals in jail today.

Corporate corruption was addressed and needs to be addressed in the future. But certainly we made some movement. But I welcome them. I know we can agree on creating more jobs. I think it is important that we work together to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) for his leadership on the floor today and his help in these very important issues of making America more competitive tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, you know, when I listened to the debate today, I find that there are areas both Republicans and Democrats can agree on. And there are ways that we can work together to make a more solid economy in the future so that we can retain our number one status in the future instead of falling into a second or third-rate economy.

The danger is out there. We heard talk from the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) that it is all because of NAFTA. That we have lost all jobs to NAFTA. Yet we have more jobs than ever before in the history of our Nation. We have heard that we do not spend enough money on R&D, that the tax credits are not permanent.

We need your help in making them permanent. We need to make these tax credits permanent. There are eight issues that we have confined the problems that we are facing tomorrow in, and these eight issues are health care, security, bureaucratic red tape termination, lifelong learning, energy self-sufficiency and security, spurring innovation, trade fairness and opportunity, tax relief and simplification, and ending lawsuit abuse.

Today we are going to take a giant step forward in dealing with regulation. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) is going to lead the effort to reform OSHA.

And let me just tell you a little bit about why it is important that we take on these agencies and try to change the environment. In the past we have had this adversarial relationship between the government and the private sector. There are fines, there are citations, there are unnanounced intrusions into companies.

Employers are unable to deal with this without high expenses, without high cost, without hiring individuals to take care and track what the increasing regulation burden is.

Today we are going to start with OSHA, and we are going to deal with that today. We are going to try to create an environment where we work together. You know, we could work together. In fact this happened in Wichita, Kansas, where OSHA targeted Sedgwick County, and said we are going to go to the homebuilders and we are going to make it a safe place. They stood off. They took pictures. They fined, they created citations, and the housing industry shut down.

We got the Wichita Builders Association together with OSHA and we said, why do we not work together? Why do you not come in on an announced basis, make a list of the violations, let the company have time to make the safe environment at the work area, and then come back and see how they are doing? Well, they did that. The housing industry went back to work. And they created a safe work environment by working together, working together instead of against each other in an adversarial relationship.

That is what we are talking about in changing the environment in America so that we can create and keep jobs in the future, working together and not against each other. Now, this environment here on the floor of the House is an adversarial environment. But yet we can work together. That is what we are advocating here, the government working with private sector to make more jobs in the future.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 351 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

The resolution before us is the rule for the consideration of a package of four bills, H.R. 739, 740, 741, and 742. They are pieces of legislation which passed with a significant bipartisan majority in the 108th Congress and are once again being brought to the floor today to help reduce the impact of unduly burdensome regulations for American small businesses and thereby enhancing American competitiveness, and to restore fairness in applying workplace safety regulations to small business.

The rule before us, House Resolution 351, provides for the separate consideration of each of these four bills. Under the rule, each bill will have its own debate time and the opportunity to be thoroughly debated and voted on by this body.

Finally, the rule also provides that at the close of consideration of these measures, the Clerk of the House will be directed to combine the text of each of these bills that do pass the House under this rule as one engrossed bill, and send that bill to our friends on the other side of this Capitol, where they will have a better opportunity this time to be both deliberative and, hopefully, active at the same time.

While this may seem to be a complicated rule, the effect is quite simple. The bills brought up for consideration under this rule will allow small businesses to focus more of their energy on competing in the marketplace, providing their customers with better goods and better services and creating new jobs across America, rather than spending their time paying questionable fines, wrangling with regulators, worrying about the uncertainties created by an inadequate dispute process, created by staffing shortages, or having to pay for lawyers' fees to help fight a just cause with occasionally insensitive, but most often distant, Federal bureaucracy in Washington, D.C.

The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) and the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), as well as the hard work by both Republican and Democratic Members of this committee, are to be commended in bringing a well-balanced small business fairness package to the floor today.

The first of these four bills, 739, which is the Occupational Safety and Health for Small Businesses Day in Court Act, tries to provide flexibility to employers filing responses to OSHA citations.

We currently have a hard and very arbitrary standard of 15 days to respond to an OSHA citation, even though in the 1980s, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure granted employer relief to file a late notice if there was a mistake, inadvertence, a surprise, or excusable neglect.

This bill simply codifies this commonsense practice. Hard and fast deadlines in instances sometimes work an injustice, but in any case they provide only a safe standard for the bureaucrats, but lack the common sense to help small businesses which were clearly recognized in the Federal Rules on Civil Procedure.

There is no good reason why we should not codify for all what is occasionally given to some and allow for some discretion in granting relief to innocent employers for, as the law says, mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. There should be no controversy over this commonsense bill.

The second bill, H.R. 740, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission Efficiency Act of 2005, provides for the addition of two additional members to the review commission, and the additional human resources will allow it to complete its work in a timely fashion for the benefit of both employers and employees. For two-thirds of the life span of the review commission's existence, the commission has frequently been paralyzed by vacancies that have resulted in several critical and well-documented inefficiencies and rendered the entire regulatory scheme devised by Congress to resolve OSHA disputes as unworkable. The byproduct of this breakdown delays final adjudication. It harms real business. It hinders real job creation. There is a simple and easy way to resolve this particular problem.

The third bill, H.R. 741, the independent review of OSHA citations, by legislative history and practice, OSHA was designed to be responsible for rule-making, enforcement and adjudication. But Congress also established a review commission. Its intention was to give an independent review of OSHA functions as a check on prosecutorial excesses by OSHA.

A 1984 court decision extended the concept of administrative deference to the agency and subsequent court decision which have been conflicting, have compounded the problem, and conflicted the process of checks and balances Congress intended. This bill simply restores responsible checks and balances to the current system by making it clear that it is the commission's legal interpretation that should be given proper judicial deference.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the fourth bill, H.R. 742, deals with small employers' access to justice. This simply provides for a small employer to have payment of attorney fees when that small employer prevails in litigation that was prompted by the issuance of a citation by OSHA. The legislation is simple in its rationale: Small business people should not be intimidated into blindly following mandates because they do not think they can afford to fight a case in court in which they would otherwise prevail. This levels the playing

field so that small businessmen and businesswomen have an equal chance with powerful government bureaucracies that have virtually unlimited legal resources of the Federal Government behind them. This bill helps the mom-and-pop businesses to be able to have the courage to speak up for themselves when they are right.

Small businesses still provide a majority of the jobs in this country, and they feel the economic pressure brought by government regulations and taxes every day. It is only fair that through these four bills in these very specific areas that we take care to remove any economic incentives for the fostering of an insensitive Federal regulatory bureaucracy.

Mr. Speaker, these are four commonsense good bills which, once again, enjoyed a bipartisan majority of Members' support in the 108th Congress.

Our country has had 35 years of experience with OSHA. As documented in testimony before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, modest improvements are needed to restore balance to the regulatory scheme through these bills as they relate to small business. Last year, the Office of Management and Budget reported to the Congress the annual cost of major Federal regulations for the decade from 1992 to 2002 was somewhere between $38 and $44 billion which means that, for every dollar we spend for regulation, we also as a government spend $1.50 for compliance costs and the private sector spends $45 in compliance costs.

The over-regulation of business puts us at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of the world, places unlimited, unnecessary limits on our economy and harms the consumer.

I am proud the congressional leadership is continuing to look at ways to pare back the overwhelming growth in regulation and bureaucracy, and I urge my colleagues to support the rule for these four bills to keep American businesses competitive in a global marketplace, to keep jobs here in America. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bills.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am appreciative of being able to talk about the four bills dealing with regulatory reform, all of which have had full debate in the committee this year, as well as full debate in the committee last year. And the Committee on Rules did approve every amendment that was germane. Unfortunately, of the three amendments that were present, none of them were germane to the topic of regulatory reform.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), the subcommittee chairman, to address this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to note that, though I appreciate the very articulate remarks of the gentleman from California about the issue at hand, which is a significant issue we should somehow debate, I remind him that we are talking here about reform of a regulatory process of OSHA. The gentleman's comments are not germane to this particular bill. There will be a point in time for that discussion, but we should not cloud what this bill is actually doing.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis) to hopefully clarify this.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, I have enjoyed the articulate and emotional discussion that has gone forward on this rule so far. Eventually, we may actually have a bill that meets the debate.

I would remind my colleagues that these four packages are how we help small business negotiate through the stream of Federal regulation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) to once again reemphasize that point.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), subcommittee chairman.

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

Mr. Speaker, last term, when I was a freshman here, having had some State legislative experience, I remember sitting back there by the rail talking to some other freshmen saying one of the things we need to do desperately in this body is have the rule that there should be one bill and one issue. If we did that, it would create better transparency and actually better legislation that people would understand.

I think our discussions today illustrate that point. I have a great deal of empathy for the gentleman from Texas who spoke a few moments ago, a good friend, a good legislator, and he said, the bills we have before us would not solve the problem that he introduced. He was totally accurate, because the topic of his amendment is not the same as the topic of the bills we have before us today, which is why they were ruled nongermane and not put in on the rule itself.

I think we have had some fascinating words that I have enjoyed. I am going to call it fascinating rhetoric today, not really debate, because like ships passing in the night that never touch, so has our discussion from both sides of the aisle gone forward, but never really discussed the same topic at the same particular time.

The four bills we have before us are very narrow in their approach, and they are very good bills, because they help small businessmen and small business women to try and negotiate the rule process with OSHA. They deserve our support, as they deserve the support they got last year when they were discussed in committee; last year when we passed them with bipartisan support on the floor; this year, once again, as they were discussed in committee, because the goal of those bills is to eliminate the conflict between the Federal Government and small business and, instead, to enhance cooperation. And that enhanced cooperation will make a better atmosphere for the business community in America and make a better country for all of us. That is the point of these four very good, very narrow and very specific bills.

I urge the Members to support this rule. It is a fair rule. I urge the Members to support the four underlying bills. They are good bills.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule and all four of the underlying pieces of legislation that it encompasses. For those who did not hear me the first time, I said four pieces of legislation under one closed rule.

This is a quadruple coupon day in the House of Representatives, Mr. Speaker. Four opportunities to shut off democracy for the price of one. What is perhaps most offensive about the rule is the fact that not one amendment was made in order for any of the four bills. Let me repeat that: Not one amendment was made in order for any of the four underlying bills.

Closed rules are an affront to our democracy. We should stop it now. My outrage and the outrage of all on this side of the aisle is as much about process as it is about policy. Pure partisan politics never produces sound public policy. And patronizing corporate interests to pad one's campaign coffers has no place in the people's House. Yet, that is all the majority seems interested in doing.

The political score Republicans are seeking to settle with their barrage of anti-working-class legislation is not going to be fulfilled by stifling debate and blocking Democrats out of the process. Republicans are calling this the OSHA fairness package. Fair for who? There are only losers with these bills, Mr. Speaker, and the biggest victim is the American worker. All four of the underlying pieces of legislation represent a buffet of rollbacks in our laws governing working conditions.

Mr. Speaker, do we have an overwhelming epidemic in this country of ridiculous and overzealous workplace lawsuits that I do not know about? The judicial process for violations and workplace health and safety standards has been in place for nearly 30 years. It is fair, and most importantly, it protects the rights of workers. Yet, two of the underlying bills affecting OSHA standards are coming as a direct result of recent court rulings that Republicans and their corporate friends do not agree with. The other two are aimed at stacking the OSHA commission with anti-worker commissioners and creating a system where only those who can afford legal representation will be permitted to file a complaint with the Workplace Safety and Health Board.

Mr. Speaker, I do not like the new policy of this Congress which can best be described as ``when the courts rule against you, legislate against the courts.''

Why are we stifling Members from offering thoughtful amendments? Just one example, if I may. The ranking Democrat on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), a man who served in this body for 30 years and is known throughout the country as a champion for working- class Americans, Republicans denied him the opportunity to offer a substitute to one of the underlying bills that came out of his committee.

Had the majority made the Miller substitute in order, the House could have done something today that would have actually benefited working- class Americans. We could have had a real debate about increasing the minimum wage to a meager $7.25 an hour.

Realize, this is an amount that while above the current level of $5.15 is significantly below the much needed living wage that is needed to pull someone making the minimum wage 40 hours a week above the poverty line. In blocking the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) from offering his amendment, Republicans are again proving that they are anything but the people's party. Perhaps the majority is blocking what it knows it cannot defeat, or better yet, perhaps the majority is just protecting its members from taking a vote that will show their true colors. Shame on them and shame on this body if it allows this assault on American workers to continue. None of us in this body would want to live on $5.15 an hour. None of us would want to work three jobs just to make ends meet. None of us would want to work three jobs and still have no health care. Yet, that is what we are asking, no, requiring millions of our fellow citizens to do.

When the opportunity to increase the minimum wage presents itself, Republicans blocked House Members from voting on it. At least in the other body, while the leadership opposed an increase in the minimum wage, they at least permitted a vote. Protecting the rights of those most in need is the cornerstone of our great democracy. I refuse to remain silent while those on the other side of the aisle seek to dismiss this cardinal American value.

I urge my colleagues to reject the closed rule and oppose the underlying pieces of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), a champion of worker rights.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).

(Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I kind of question whether a closed rule is fair, but I hear the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

First, I heard several times that the matter of the minimum wage is not germane to the four measures included in this one rule. The simple fact of the matter is that an amendment was offered at the Committee on Rules last night and that amendment was voted down on a party-line vote. So at least a discussion during the period of the rule allows the germaneness of the question having to do with the minimum wage, not so much of the substance of the base bill.

I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question, Mr. Speaker, so I can amend the rule and allow the House to vote on the Miller-Owens bill to increase the Federal minimum wage. This amendment was offered in the Committee on Rules, as I just said, last night, but was defeated on a straight party-line vote.

My amendment to the rule would provide that immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring H.R. 2429 to the House floor for an up-or-down vote. This bill will gradually increase the minimum wage for Americans from the current level of $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour after about 2 years.

Mr. Speaker, it is time we in the House started helping American workers instead of taking away their rights as the four underlying bills in this rule do. I think one of the best things we can do to help working families is to increase the minimum wage. It has been nearly 10 years since this Congress has voted to increase the minimum wage, an increase that was signed into law by President Clinton in August of 1996. Since that time, the value of that increase has eroded by 20 percent. A full-time minimum wage earner is working 40 hours a week, makes about $10,700 annually, an amount that is $5,000 below the poverty line for a family of three.

Clearly we are way overdue for another increase. Somehow we have had time to implement numerous tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, but we have turned our backs on those who work the hardest and are paid the least, those who struggle to make ends meet every day.

I think it is time this Congress developed a conscience and started helping those who need help the most.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members of this body to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can help these 7.5 million American workers who directly benefit from an increase in the minimum wage.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time opposing this rule.

I would like to express my disappointment that the Committee on Rules refused to allow a vote on an amendment that has bipartisan support, an amendment that would require to list contract workers on their injury site log.

This was not a major expense or an inconvenience for employers, yet the Committee on Rules defeated it on a party-line vote.

The bills that are up today are not major legislation. They may correct individual problems, and each of them need to be debated, and they should be. But not to allow other needed OSHA reforms is a travesty of this House because of the situation I am getting ready to talk about. Our amendment was defeated on a party-line vote, even though we have bipartisan support on the original legislation that was introduced in March of this year.

Mr. Speaker, 15 people lost their lives during an explosion and fire at a refinery in Texas City. This is a picture of the site, and I include for the Record a copy of the Baytown Sun article on the

deadly accident. This picture shows the site in Texas City.

The bills that are allowed under this rule will do nothing to help the 15 people killed in this accident. Nothing. That is what the travesty is on this floor today.

A series of news articles quickly discovered that it is extremely difficult to assess the safety of such facilities due to the way employers are required to keep their site logs of injuries on the work site. While all deaths and injuries are reported to OSHA, only those involving direct employees of the site-controlling company are required to be maintained on the site incident log. This means that the incidents involving contract workers or part-time workers do not show up on the injury log employers are required to keep by law. Unfortunately, because current law does not require them to do so, the site log will look just the same as it did the day before March 23. It will show no lives were lost.

Those 15 workers who died on this site were contract workers, and they should be reported. Residents and communities surrounding these facilities have a right to know if they live near a place that could endanger them if something were to go wrong. If we had full disclosure of these incidents, the free market system may be able to work. Workers are less willing to work in hazardous environments, so facilities would have incentives to improve safety. Right now, it is nearly impossible to determine exactly how many accidents have occurred at a particular site without cross-referencing contracts between employers and contractors.

OSHA has known these reporting requirements were a problem for 14 years, and yet here we are today dealing with three pieces of legislation that deal with nothing to do with contract workers.

In 1989, one of the most serious plant explosions in our country occurred at a plant in Pasadena, Texas, and I am honored to represent that area. This accident killed 23 workers and injured 232 others. As a result, OSHA called for a study regarding the use of contract labor in the petrochemical industry. This study was conducted while the first George Bush was President, and this study found there was a lack of adequate injury and incident data. It states that current data reporting procedures do not capture the full range of injury or illnesses experienced in the industry because the injury statistics do not include the experience of contract workers.

This amendment does not require an industry to do anything more than record injuries and accidents on their site log regardless of whether they are their employee or someone working on their site. I am not here to bash employers or OSHA. The bottom line is that neighbors and employees have the right to know. These bills that we are considering today may very well weaken job safety, but I do not think they are that major. We should be working on a bipartisan basis to solve problems and prevent deaths and injuries like what happened on March 23, 2005, in Texas City, Texas. That is why these three bills are woefully inadequate to deal with the problems that we have with on-site job injuries right now.

[From the Baytown Sun, June 29, 2005]

Alarms, Instrumentation Failed in BP Refinery Blast

(By Pam Easton)

Nassau Bay.--Key pieces of instrumentation and alarms at

BP's Texas City refinery weren't working properly in March

when explosions rocked the plant, killing 15 and injuring

more than 170, federal investigators said Tuesday.

Don Holmstrom, lead investigator with U.S. Chemical Safety

and Hazard Investigation Board, said an alarm within the

isomerization unit--where the explosion occurred--didn't work

properly until after the explosions had begun.

Holmstrom also said a sensor in a section of the raffinate

splitter, which separates chemicals for gasoline production,

indicated the liquid level in the tower was decreasing when

it was instead flooding. Another alarm that should have

sounded when the liquid exceeded 10 feet high didn't

activate, ``even as the liquid flooded more than 12 times

that height,'' Holmstrom said.

Among the 15 people killed in the March 23 explosion, seven

were from Baytown or surrounding communities.

They were: Jimmy Hunnings, 58, of Baytown; Morris Raymond

``Monk'' King, 57 of Baytown; Susan Duhan Taylor, 33, of

Baytown; Ralph Herrera Jr. 27, of Baytown; Larry Linsenbardt,

58 of Mont Belvieu; Ryan Rodriguez, 28, of Dayton; and Lorena

``Lori'' Cruz, 32 of La Porte.

BP spokesman Ronnie Chappell said the federal safety

board's findings are similar to the company's own

investigation completed in May.

The company blamed staff errors for the March 23 explosion

and fire. Among the procedural lapses company executives

cited were a lack of supervision and a six-minute window in

which unit supervisors could have sounded an alarm to

evacuate the area, but didn't.

``If personnel responsible for the safe startup of the isom

unit had followed procedures, the fire and explosion would

not have occurred,'' Chappell said Tuesday.

An alarm notified operators of a liquid level that was too

high in the raffinate splitter at 3:05 a.m. on March 23,

company records show. An operator silenced the alarm, but an

illuminated warning remained on screens and the alarm

remained in effect until 1:20 p.m., the time of the blast,

Holmstrom said.

Meanwhile, liquid-level indicators drifted down from 100

percent to 79 percent beginning at 7:30 a.m., and

``erroneously indicated to operators that the liquid level in

the tower was below 10 feet and was falling back toward a

normal value.''

However, the 164-foot tower was instead flooded with liquid

that reached 120 feet or more, Holmstrom said. A normal level

is below 10 feet.

When the excess liquid and vapor was discharged, it

overwhelmed one of the unit's systems, causing the vapor and

liquid to be released and ignited by a still-unknown source.

Holmstrom said federal investigators will spend the next

four to six weeks testing at least 30 instruments and other

equipment in the isomerization unit, which boosts the octane

level in gasoline. Federal investigators have also asked BP

for equipment maintenance records. Chappell said BP was

cooperating.

Holmstrom said it is ``unprecedented'' for his

investigators to spend so much time looking into equipment,

instrumentation and their possible failures.

``Our objective is to understand why this tragedy occurred,

and, we hope, to prevent similar occurrences in the future,''

he said.

The board will hold a public meeting to discuss complete

findings of the federal probe this fall, Holmstrom added.

Chappell said BP and federal investigators have the same

goal.

``We want to ascertain exactly what occurred and take

action to prevent something like this from ever happening

again,'' he said.

The blast was the plant's third accident in a year,

following a March 2004 explosion that caused an evacuation.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 352) providing that the House of Representatives will focus on removing barriers to competitiveness of the United States economy.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 352.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the gentleman with regard to Ireland. Surely they have improved their public education system. And, furthermore, they have lowered their regulatory burden and cut taxes. I think those two areas are largely responsible for their growing economy and the increased opportunity in Ireland.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

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

First I want to respond to a few comments made by the opposition here. There is a lot of talk about a nonbinding resolution, but this House today is going to take up four bills to reform OSHA that will help small businesses and their enterprises be more competitive and their employees be more competitive in the global economy. Health care, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) brought up health care, and he very well knows that the Committee on Education and the Workforce that he sits on as the ranking member is addressing health care. We recognize that health care is a problem. We recognize that the plight of the uninsured is a problem. And yet I will say as a physician, as someone who has dealt with health care on a daily basis, universal government-run health care is not the answer.

We need to continue to address this problem and support solutions like association health plans, something that we have already taken up in committee and will be coming to the floor soon. This will help get people who are uninsured back on to the rolls of being insured. This will help small businesses provide insurance for those who lack insurance today.

We need to continue to expand health savings accounts. These have already begun to help many Americans, but we need to continue to work on this. This is the future of health care. This is how we are going to create a competitive health care environment that will bring down the cost and make it affordable for all Americans.

And we need medical liability reform. We need medical liability reform. No question about it. And this Congress will address these issues.

So to say this is a nonbinding resolution, surely it makes a statement about some of the needs that we need to work on, but at the same time this Congress is addressing all of those issues; and we ask our colleagues across the aisle to join us to pass these bills so that we can help those Americans in need and we can increase our competitiveness on the global market.

I support this resolution, and I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) for their tireless work to remove barriers on U.S. companies, to ensure that America can be competitive in the global economy.

American businessmen and -women are second to none in resourcefulness, entrepreneurial spirit, business ingenuity; and the government should foster, not stifle, these qualities.

I mentioned, as a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, that we are going to work on OSHA reform and AHPs. These are commonsense good measures that will improve our competitiveness.

Frivolous lawsuits, costly health insurance, an overly complicated Tax Code, skyrocketing energy costs, compliance with innumerable Federal and State regulations result in small businesses spending more time just trying to comply with government and government laws and regulations than growing their businesses, creating jobs, and generating revenue. Yet because of the entrepreneurial spirit of these Americans and many small businesses that we have out there, they do survive and even thrive despite all these adversities.

Let me talk about my district in southwest Louisiana for a moment, which has been known for its entrepreneurial spirit. Today, it is a spirit that continues to grow our agricultural influence, despite many adversities, and build small businesses that are grabbing the eye of the global market. We have a port, the 11th largest port in the country, the Port of Lake Charles. Once known as a regional provider, it has grown into an economic engine for our State and our Nation. And as it continues to increase in size, it is moving larger numbers of products into the United States and out into the world.

Our economic developers are finding ways to attract businesses that have never before known the advantages of doing business in Louisiana. Let me give an example. Lafayette Economic Development Authority is a prime example of showcasing the educational and technological benefits of Louisiana's Seventh Congressional District to attract companies to our area. Gregg Gothreaux heads up this organization and has strived to capitalize on an outstanding workforce to make Lafayette a competitive force in the business world. In fact, in the year 2004, Inc. Magazine named Lafayette, Louisiana, one of the best places to do business. And 3 months ago, Entrepreneur Magazine named Lafayette one of the top technology centers in the South, based on its appeal and ability to attract high-tech companies.

Another great example from my district is a small business with 15 employees headed up by Rick Broussard, and he has been able to attract the United States Marine Corps with a service by building these drone airplanes. And he is hoping to build his business, employing hopefully in the

near future 100 employees, so that he can improve his competitiveness and raise his revenue and contribute to the competitiveness of our country and our defense initiatives.

He is not an isolated example. There are many examples in Louisiana and around this country that are competing, despite the regulatory burden, the tax burden and other added costs of doing business.

Mr. Speaker, it is our job, it is our job as elected officials to ensure that our businesses have the necessary tools to compete in this global economy, and this Congress will address these issues.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished Majority Leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond.

I would remind the gentleman that these tax cuts have led to an economic growth of 3.8 percent and significant job growth, so I would remind him that these are pro-economic growth policies.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), who has worked so hard to ensure the competitiveness of this country.