Popcorn Workers Lung Disease Prevention Act

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

Mr. Chairman, when I looked at the issue of diacetyl in manufacturing during the debate in committee, the answer seemed very clear to me at the time: proper ventilation. Even though it is unclear what is affecting manufacturing workers, all the experts agree that engineering controls, such as ventilation, reduce worker exposure.

I take very seriously lung illness. For nearly 10 years, I served on the State board of the South Carolina Lung Association. In the South Carolina State Senate, I introduced innovative legislation promoting clean air.

Fundamentally, the science does not exist to state a link between diacetyl

and impaired lung function. Indeed, last year, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH, noted, ``At this time, insufficient data exists on which to base workplace exposure standards or recommended exposure limits for butter flavorings.''

Unfortunately, this bill goes beyond the issue of what is known. The underlying bill requires the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, to set a standard based on documents that OSHA informs us cannot guide rulemaking. These documents provide guidelines of how to solve the problem at issue but are not the foundation for a rule.

More research is currently under way to determine a connection between diacetyl and this respiratory condition. I fully support that research moving forward. In fact, the underlying measure contains an amendment I offered during the committee consideration of the bill to require NIOSH to study similar flavorings to determine possible exposure hazards with flavorings similar to diacetyl. Until there is conclusive evidence, it remains to be seen if diacetyl alone is to blame or whether the chemical, in combination with the other flavorings, places workers at risk.

On June 18, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, Edwin Foulke, a distinguished attorney from Greenville, South Carolina, of the highest integrity, reiterated this in a letter to Congress, in which he stated, ``Focusing on diacetyl ignores the possibility that other flavoring components, many of which are irritants and airway-reactive substances, are playing a role in the development of disease. Given the wide variety of ways and forms in which diacetyl and other flavoring components are used in the food manufacturing industry, a narrow focus on diacetyl would likely result in the selection of risk-management strategies that may not adequately protect employees.''

This is a critical point. Until we know the true cause of this lung impairment, I do not see how we can effectively legislate on it. Further, major manufacturers, using this flavoring have already announced they will no longer be using diacetyl.

The lack of scientific foundation is, unfortunately, not the only problem with the bill before us. There are numerous flaws outlined by the OSHA administrator's letter. Further, the President has announced strong opposition to the bill, largely because it is flawed. Undermining the rulemaking process, as this bill does, would almost certainly exclude input from key stakeholders that often proves imperative for a balanced rulemaking process.

Because this bill fails to allow time for appropriate scientific research and because it undermines the proven regulatory framework, I fear it will not do enough to protect workers.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment that was made in order would resolve much of this problem.

Department of Labor,

Washington, DC, June 19, 2007.

Hon. George Miller,

Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Miller: I am writing to express my strong

concerns with legislation (H.R. 2693) that would require the

promulgation of an interim final standard (IFR) regulating

employee exposure to diacetyl in the popcorn and flavor

manufacturing industries and mandate that the Occupational

Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issue a final rule

covering all workplaces that use diacetyl.

I share your goal of protecting workers from the risk of

obstructive lung disease. As outlined below OSHA is in the

process of taking important steps to strengthen worker

protections in this area. However, after careful review of

this legislation, we have concluded that the regulatory

approach mandated by H.R. 2693 will not afford the best level

of protection for workers. Equally important, the process the

bill would require may result in missed opportunities to

provide needed worker safety. Instead, I urge you to allow

OSHA to thoroughly evaluate all available science concerning

the effects of exposures to food flavorings, feasible

abatements and related issues.

Several considerations lead us to the conclusion that the

approach mandated by H.R. 2693 would not best protect

workers:

1. The expanded scope of the final rule and the lack of

knowledge about the industries that use diacetyl will lead to

superficial analysis that may fail to provide needed worker

protection.

H.R. 2693 would require OSHA to expand the scope of the

final rule to include all establishments where there is

potential for exposure to diacetyl. Unfortunately, little is

known about industries--other than the microwave popcorn

manufacturing and food flavoring manufacturing industries--

that use diacetyl and diacetyl-containing flavorings. OSHA

would need to identify those companies that use diacetyl then

conduct site visits to gather needed data to (1) identify

processes where exposures occur, (2) develop control

strategies for each process, and (3) identify employers who

have implemented control strategies to determine if those

control strategies are effective. Although OSHA has been

obtaining this information for microwave popcorn and food

flavoring manufacturing establishments, to date little

information is available on the many other industry sectors

that would potentially be covered by the final role required

by the bill. OSHA believes that two years is too short a

period of time to develop the information base and analysis

necessary to adequately support the proposed and final role,

and to afford the public adequate time to comment on OSHA's

proposal. The Agency believes that robust public input is

essential to achieving a final rule that provides protection

for employees while addressing potential impacts on all

affected industries.

2. Focusing solely on a Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL)

for diacetyl may ignore other components that are playing an

important role in the development of disease.

H.R 2693 requires OSHA to develop a PEL for diacetyl that

would apply to all facilities where diacetyl is processed or

used. Research is ongoing by groups such as the National

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the

National Jewish Medical Center, the National Institute for

Environmental Health Studies and California Department of

Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and

Health (Cal OSHA) to better determine the role that exposures

to diacetyl and other chemicals may play in the development

of bronchiolitis obliterans.

By focusing solely on diacetyl, H.R 2693 raises two major

concerns:

a. Focusing on diacetyl ignores the possibility that other

flavoring components--many of which are irritants and airway-

reactive substances--are playing a role in the development of

disease. Given the wide variety of ways and forms (e.g.,

liquids or powders) in which diacetyl and other flavoring

components are used in the food manufacturing industry, a

narrow focus on diacetyl would likely result in the selection

of risk management strategies that may not adequately protect

employees. These might include substitution of diacetyl with

other chemicals that may be as dangerous under similar

circumstances as diacetyl.

b. NIOSH has stated that ``at this time, insufficent data

exist on which to base workplace exposure standards or

recommended exposure limits for butter flavorings.'' Given

the state of the data currently available, OSHA would only be

able to develop an imprecise PEL for diacetyl which would

have a considerable amount of uncertainty associated with

respect to the degree of protection afforded.

3. As drafted the bill would require the interim final rule

to impose engineering requirements based on NIOSH

recommendations that lack the clarity and specificity

necessary to form the basis of a new health standard.

H.R. 2693 would direct OSHA to issue an interim rule at

least as stringent as the 2004 NIOSH Hazard Alert. The NIOSH

recommendations serve as good general recommendations, but do

not provide specific performance criteria that would be

necessary to develop an unambiguous and enforceable interim

rule. The NIOSH Alert refers to the 2001 ACGIH Ventilation

Manual, which provides some general objective design

criteria, but mixing and blending processes in flavoring

establishments vary greatly. For example, they can range from

a 10-gallon batch operation up to several hundred pounds of

batch mixing. Each of these operations may use similar

control strategies but would require different engineering

design parameters to achieve the same level of effectiveness.

Therefore, the NIOSH Hazard Alert is not helpful to specify

required minimum operating parameters for engineering

controls because these minimum parameters will not provide

equal protection to all employees in affected establishments.

Furthermore, there is simply not enough information available

at this point on flavoring processes and current exposure

control practices to develop a specification-oriented

standard.

OSHA traditionally has used PELs instead of specification-

oriented standards to protect workers in this type of

situation, because a PEL will set a precise, measurable

standard to protect workers. However, as previously

mentioned, currently available data do not support setting a

PEL for diacetyl. Thus, OSHA would be forced by H.R. 2693 to

issue a PEL based on imprecise information and an IFR based

on a NIOSH Hazard Alert that does not provide specific

performance criteria.

Additionally, the Department of Labor is very concerned

that the IFR that is mandated by this legislation will not be

open for comment by stakeholders, or reviewed in accordance

with the requirements of the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), the Administrative

Procedures Act, and the rulemaking requirements of the

Occupational Safety and Health Act These statutes ensure

thorough consideration and transparency in rulemaking. We do

not believe these regulatory requirements

should be waived except in the most exceptional situations.

Thorough vetting is particularly critical when the medical

and scientific studies do not provide unequivocal

conclusions.

The Department of Labor is committed to protecting

employees from obstructive lung diseases. The Department

recently announced that OSHA win focus on health hazards of

microwave popcorn butter flavorings containing diacetyl

through a new National Emphasis Program (NEP). The NEP will

direct inspections to the facilities where workers may be at

the greatest risk of exposure to this hazard. Implementation

of this NEP would allow OSHA to inspect every such facility

under Federal jurisdiction by the end of this year. This will

be followed by a second NEP that focuses on establishments

manufacturing food flavorings containing diacetyl.

In addition to the NEP, OSHA is also preparing a Safety and

Health Information Bulletin (SHIB) to better inform and

instruct employers on how to protect employees from

obstructive lung disease caused or exacerbated by food

flavorings used in the microwave popcorn manufacturing

industry. The SHIB will provide guidance to alert employers

and workers to the potential hazards associated with butter

flavorings containing diacetyl and will provide

recommendations on how to control these hazards. OSHA is also

developing a hazard communication guidance document to ensure

that material safety data sheets and labels properly convey

hazard information on diacetyl and diacetyl-containing food

flavorings. Given that NIOSH has stated that insufficient

data exist on which to base workplace exposure standards or

recommended exposure limits for butter flavorings the

approach we are taking is the quickest and most effective

means of providing protection to workers in the popcorn and

flavor manufacturing industries.

Because of the concerns I have outlined, the Department of

Labor is opposed to H.R 2693. We have concluded that the

approach proposed by H.R. 2693 will not afford the best level

of protection for workers. By not providing sufficient time

to do a proper rulemakin OSHA may unintentionally overlook

opportunities to provide needed worker safety and, at the

same timel require expensive process isolation, and

ventilation and other control strategies that may be

ineffective. Instead, I urge you to allow OSHA to thoroughly

evaluate all available science concerning the effects of

exposures to food flavorings, feasibie abatements, and

related issues.

Sincerely,

Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,

Assistant Secretary for

Occupational Safety and Health.

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

Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record letters in opposition from the American Bakers Association, dated September 25, 2007; the OSHA Fairness Coalition, September 25, 2007; and the Office of Management and Budget, dated September 25, 2007.

American Bakers Association,

Washington, DC, September 25, 2007.

Hon. Howard McKeon,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. McKeon: On behalf of the American Bakers

Association (ABA), I am writing to express our opposition to

H.R. 2693, ``the Popcorn Workers Lung Disease Prevention

Act,'' which the House of Representatives is expected to

consider this week. Passage of H.R. 2693 would significantly

short circuit the appropriate regulatory process by mandating

that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

implement a regulation, including a Permissible Exposure

Limit (PEL), applicable to all sectors of the food industry,

and based on limited scientific data. For over 100 years, the

ABA has represented the interests of the wholesale baking

industry and its suppliers--companies that work together to

provide over 80 percent of the wholesome and nutritious

bakery products purchased by American consumers.

The American Bakers Association prides itself on our long

history of assisting baking companies to stay ahead of the

curve on safety and health in the workplace. Our Safety

Committee provides tremendous leadership on safety and health

policy issues. We are committed to keeping our workers safe

and support science-based standards and regulations. The ABA

is aware of recent data from the National Institute for

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) regarding the use of

diacetyl in popcorn manufacturing and the flavor

manufacturing industry. We also understand the severity of

the health effects that have been demonstrated in a limited

number of cases. However, we strongly believe that the recent

NIOSH data does not accurately reflect the use of diacetyl in

other sectors of the food industry, such as baking.

Differences exist in the food processing industry, the

concentrations of diacetyl used, and the existing controls in

place.

Mandating specific requirements that OSHA must include in a

diacetyl standard sets a precedent that should be avoided.

Congress's role as set forth in the OSH Act of 1970 is to

``assure so far as possible every working man and woman in

the Nation safe and healthful working conditions and to

preserve our human resources.'' However, it is the role of

the Department of Labor to use its expertise for implementing

regulations. For Congress to specify the applicable

requirements of a ``final standard'' would bypass

inappropriately the mechanisms and tests established under

the OSH Act. Expedited regulation, even if directed by

Congress, would rest on very limited scientific evidence and

would represent rushed and inappropriate legislative and

Agency action.

Further H.R. 2693 does not address the carefully developed

procedures for rulemaking that Congress and the courts have

put in place under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA),

including provisions designed to protect small businesses.

Finally, on September 24, 2007 OSHA announced its intent to

move forward with a rulemaking

on diacetyl. This rulemaking process should be allowed to

move forward as it includes the appropriate procedural

safeguards.

ABA respectfully urges you to oppose this legislation and

allow the regulatory procedures designed to protect the

interests of small businesses to guide OSHA in developing a

standard.

Sincerely,

Robb MacKie,

President and CEO.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, we are considering this bill under unfortunate circumstances. A number of workers have become ill, and it is not entirely clear why. We suspect this particular food flavoring diacetyl may be involved, so we all support a thorough investigation into this substance and how exposure to it may impact workers.

Like my friends on the other side of the aisle, I wish there was an easy answer. If only we knew what had made these workers ill, we could immediately eliminate the risks. If only we knew for sure that diacetyl and manufacturing alone caused lung obstruction, then Federal agencies could go through the appropriate regulatory process to establish exposure limitations and take the necessary steps to protect workers.

Unfortunately, we do not have enough information at this point in time to take such action. Research is underway, and it is my hope that the research continues quickly so we can get to the bottom of these questions about how diacetyl impacts manufacturing workers.

Until that research is available and until we have a scientific basis for regulation, in my mind we simply cannot move forward. There is a very real danger that by acting too quickly, we could inadvertently push manufacturers to begin using substitute flavorings. There is a possibility that these substitute flavorings could also put workers at risk; thus, a hurried regulation may provide a false sense of security while manufacturing workers remain vulnerable.

Again, I understand the frustration about a lack of clarity on the administration's intent in this area. Until the recent announcement by the Department of Labor that it intends to undertake a rulemaking process for this flavoring, we had not received any clear indication from the administration that it intended to take action. As such, I believe some on the other side the aisle believed they had no choice but to act themselves.

Mr. Chairman, I recognize the difficulty we face. We have workers who have fallen ill and we do not know why. We have questions about a flavoring that workers are exposed to during manufacturing, but we do not know whether it is the sole cause of their ailments. We have a Federal regulatory agency that is responsible for ensuring workplace safety, but until this week we did not know whether the agency would act.

Republicans proposed a sensible alternative when this bill was considered in the committee, and we plan to do the same today. We want to balance our pressing desire to act quickly to protect workers with our equally important need to adhere to sound science.

Because I believe it undermines the basic regulatory framework and neglects the necessary scientific foundation, I regret I cannot support the bill in its current form. I hope my alternative will be adopted so that we can quickly increase evidence to guide the final rules to provide the strongest protections possible.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), my next-door neighbor of historic Savannah.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very straightforward. This would ensure that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, sets a permissible exposure limit as directed by the underlying bill, which can be relied in science.

I offered this amendment in the Education and Labor Committee, and we agreed to work together to see if we could reach an agreement. Between committee action and today, we were unable to reach an agreement on the timeframe addressed by my amendment. So I'm offering it for floor consideration.

I understand my colleagues' goal is to set a standard for a substance that appears to be harming manufacturing workers in and around microwave popcorn manufacturing facilities. I know the well-meaning intention of their efforts. Unfortunately, I do not share their belief that this legislation will accomplish that goal.

First, there is widespread concern that while diacetyl is unquestionably a marker, it is not the sole cause of lung impairment in these workers. In addition to this, however, this bill would regulate diacetyl and require a standard to be set based on little or no available science. In other words, if a food manufacturing facility substitutes diacetyl with another flavoring chemical, there is no guarantee that that chemical is not the one making manufacturing workers sick.

Technically, the bill before us requires OSHA to set an interim final rule for diacetyl manufacturers and microwave popcorn plants to implement engineering controls for diacetyl exposure. It then directs OSHA to set a standard that will apply to all food manufacturing facilities. The expansion of coverage from the interim rule to the final rule and the time frame of 2 years in which OSHA is given to set the standard will impact OSHA's ability to follow the appropriate legal guidelines that would apply to a normal rulemaking.

All my amendment does is ensure that OSHA promulgates a regulation with appropriate stakeholder input and the science to establish a technically feasible permissible exposure limit. Also, I would note that OSHA announced Monday that it would undertake a rulemaking on this substance.

I should note that there is a great deal of ongoing research and data gathering concerning the health effects of diacetyl. For example, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health is working to improve measuring diacetyl, while the National Jewish Medical Center is working to gather data from workers about lung function. California OSHA also is working with the industry to gather the much-needed information to set a standard. Without any conclusive evidence, which has yet to be generated by any source at this point in time, we are putting the cart before the horse, and because of this, I respectfully urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the distinguished ranking committee member.

Mr. Chairman, again, I urge adoption of the amendment. I want to commend my colleagues again for their good intentions.

I would like to restate that as a former member of the State board of the American Lung Association for a number of years, I've had a long- time concern about lung illnesses. I sincerely believe that the amendment that I have, which provides that action would be taken upon scientific evidence, is in the interest of the manufacturing workers in the United States.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5522, the Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Prevention Act of 2008.

On February 7 of this year, a huge explosion ripped through the Imperial Sugar refinery in Port Wentworth, Georgia. Eight workers died instantly, and five more have died in the months since the explosion from the horrific

burns that they suffered. More than sixty workers were injured, some so seriously that they will never fully recover. This was a terrible disaster, one of our Nation's worst workplace tragedies of the past decade.

The cause of the explosion was combustible sugar dust. It may surprise many of us that sugar dust can explode with such violence. But it can, and so can many other dusts that are commonly found in U.S. industrial sites.

In 2003, three fatal dust explosions occurred in the United States, killing 14 workers. The U.S. Chemical Safety Board investigated these incidents. The board examined whether these tragedies were just coincidences or a major national problem. The Chemical Safety Board also examined whether there were adequate laws to protect workers or whether new protections were needed. The Chemical Safety Board found that these explosions were not coincidences. In fact, between 1980 and 2005, 119 workers had been killed and 718 injured in dust explosions that had also extensively damaged the industrial facilities. The Chemical Safety Board also found that there were no enforceable national regulations to prevent combustible dust incidents. Let me repeat that. The Chemical Safety Board also found that there were no enforceable national regulations to prevent combustible dust incidents.

The Chemical Safety Board concluded that controlling combustible dust explosions isn't a mystery. In fact, the first National Fire Protection Association standards to prevent combustible dust explosions were issued in 1923. In November of 2006, the Chemical Safety Board, an independent Federal agency whose members were all appointed by President George W. Bush, concluded that the only way to prevent more worker deaths was for OSHA to issue a comprehensive standard covering combustible dust. That was in November of 2006. But to this day, OSHA has taken no action to issue a standard. In fact, OSHA has refused to act despite the fact that 70 more combustible dust explosions have occurred since 2006.

Even now, after 13 needless deaths in Georgia, OSHA demonstrates no understanding of the urgency of this problem. This is a shocking failure by the very governmental agency responsible for keeping workers safe.

Sadly, this isn't the only time that OSHA has failed to act on a Chemical Safety Board recommendation, and it's not the only time where the result of that inaction has been the death of American workers. The Chemical Safety Board warned OSHA in 2002 that new rules were needed to prevent reactive chemical explosions, but OSHA refused to act. Then last December a reactive chemical explosion in Jacksonville, Florida, killed four workers.

Because OSHA refused to act, Congress must now act. Congressman John Barrow and I have introduced H.R. 5522 to force OSHA to do the job it should have done on its own. The legislation will require OSHA to issue an interim standard on combustible dust within 90 days and a permanent standard within 18 months. It would require OSHA to base the new standard on the National Fire Protection Association standards.

OSHA says that the combustible dust hazards are already covered by numerous existing regulations. But that simply is not true. Most of the existing standards do not even mention the word ``dust'' and do nothing to educate or inform employers and employees how to prevent combustible dust explosions. Existing OSHA standards also do not address what levels of dust are safe, how to clean the dust safely, or how to prevent dust from accumulating to unsafe levels.

And it is not true, as opponents of this bill say, that we don't allow for public input. In fact, OSHA would have to conduct full public hearings and a small business review but to do so on an expedited basis that reflects the life-or-death urgency of this issue.

Because of the serious hazards imposed by combustible dust, because OSHA has issued no major standard during this administration except under pressure of the courts or the Congress, and because OSHA is unable to meet the regulatory deadlines it sets for itself, it is necessary to set some tight deadlines for action.

It is also not true that this bill requires OSHA to adopt the National Fire Protection Association standards. The bill requires OSHA to include only the relevant and appropriate provisions of the National Fire Protection Association combustible dust standards. While the National Fire Protection Association standards have proven to be effective, OSHA should use its discretion, after full public hearings and comments, to determine how the National Fire Protection Association guidelines should be used in a final standard.

You will hear opponents of this measure say we should wait until the OSHA investigation is completed and the results of OSHA's current National Emphasis Program are in. But we have waited long enough. And, in fact, again, the Chemical Safety Board recommendations predate that accident based upon the urgent need for these regulations to save American workers' lives and to prevent their injuries prior to that time.

Again, if OSHA doesn't act, we must. We know that most businesses are doing the best they can to make their workplace safe. But it is also clear that other businesses may not be doing enough to ensure the safety of their employees. The bottom line is that workers need protection and the agency established by Congress 37 years ago to protect workers has once again failed in that duty.

The goal today is to protect workers from those preventable explosions, and we believe that this legislation accomplishes that goal without imposing unreasonable burdens on employers.

I want to leave the House with the closing words of a witness who appeared before the Education and Labor Committee, Tammy Miser. Tammy Miser's brother, Shawn Boone, was killed in a combustible dust explosion in 2003. Tammy recounted the terrible suffering that her brother went through before he died, her hopes that something would happen after the Chemical Safety Board recommendations were issued, and her disappointment that OSHA has yet to act, even after the Imperial Sugar explosion.

Tammy left us with this one request: ``that you not let our loved ones die in vain and help us keep other families safe from the dangers of combustible dust.''

It's the least we can do for Shawn Boone, the workers in Port Wentworth, and the many other workers who have needlessly lost their lives.

Madam Chairman, I strongly urge that all of my colleagues will support H.R. 5522.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), the Chair of the subcommittee.

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow), the cosponsor of this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.

This manager's amendment is offered because during the drafting and the refining of this bill we have had numerous extensive conversations with OSHA, with its technical staff and with affected industry associations about problematic issues. Our goal is to save workers lives, but also make these OSHA standards workable for businesses who need to implement them. To that end, the manager's amendment makes four adjustments to the bill:

One, several industry associations were concerned that the short 1- month effective date on the interim standards was too short to make some of the capital improvements that may be needed for engineering controls. The manager's amendment therefore provides for engineering controls required by

the interim standards shall be effective 6 months after the issuance of the standard, rather than 30 days.

Because emphasizing specific National Fire Protection Association standards was seen as putting more emphasis on some than on others that were not mentioned, the manager's amendment maintains the provisions that OSHA shall include appropriate and relevant National Fire Protection Association standards in its final standards, but eliminates reference to specific National Fire Protection Association standards.

Then, because we want to make perfectly clear that OSHA is expected to conduct a full review of small business impacts of this standard, the manager's amendment clarifies that the final standard shall be conducted in accordance with the usual rulemaking procedural requirements, including those that provide for a small business review.

Finally, it changes the title to ``The Worker Protection Against Combustible Dust Explosions and Fires Act.''

I would encourage all of my colleagues to support the manager's amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, this amendment is an attempt to gut this legislation. This amendment would have OSHA not only wait for the outcome of the Imperial Sugar investigation, but also from findings from the combustible dust National Emphasis Program before deciding on whether or not to move forward. The National Emphasis Program could go on for years before there are findings. In fact, at the end of the day, OSHA could decide to do nothing.

To do nothing has turned out to be very expensive for the American workers in those workplaces where there is combustible dust. The track record is horrible with respect to OSHA preventing these dust explosions from taking place. That is the reason that prior to the most recent explosion that Mr. Barrow and I are trying to address, prior to that, the Chemical Safety Board made a recommendation to OSHA that they should promulgate these enforceable regulations, because there are no enforceable regulations with respect to dust currently in effect, except for what we did years ago in the grain industry.

Except for what we did years ago in the grain industry, and that dramatically reduced the number of incidents that took place. So to adopt the Wilson amendment is to adopt a position to do nothing, and to take an agency that has chosen time and again to do nothing in this field that any way provides for enforceable regulations of this most dangerous material when the workplace is not properly maintained and preventible actions are taken. That is just not acceptable. That is not acceptable in the name of the workers who died in the Port Wentworth plant. It is unacceptable to the workers who died earlier from the explosions.

OSHA has refused to act. They have not acted on a single standard in the entire last 8 years unless they were prodded by the Congress or the courts. So to now say that you are going to take the lives of American workers and you are going to give those lives again back to OSHA, where they have not seen any hazard, they have not seen any danger in spite of the explosions is just the height of irresponsibility by this Congress. And I would hope that the Congress would overwhelmingly reject this amendment that allows OSHA to continue the status quo that allows OSHA to continue its irresponsible position.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow).

I thank the gentleman. I think the gentleman has the right to close on his amendment.

Could the Chair advise me of the time I have remaining.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would just note that a significant number of the signatories to the letter that was referred to by my colleague on the other side of the aisle really have little or nothing to do with these standards or are impacted by them. And this is the same coalition that continues to call for no action with respect to actions by OSHA, and it is that approach to the protection of American workers and to the safety of those workers that has led to the tragedy that we witnessed at the Imperial Sugar facility. And, clearly, these are accidents that we know are preventable, that we know we can dramatically reduce because we have the experience from the grain dust standards.

This legislation is designed to be workable. It was worked, as I pointed out, with numerous conversations with the technical staff of OSHA, with the affected industries and the trade associations that are involved with this.

I would note that the National Fire Protection Association, when we tell OSHA that they should select the ones that are relevant to the standards and the ones that are meaningful to this effort, we are talking about standards in which a consensus has been arrived at within the industries. These are consensus regulations that are put out there, but they are not required. And we think that in our discussions again with the OSHA staff and with the associations this is a good place to start because of the consensus. There may have to be additions and subtractions, and that is within the discretion of OSHA during the process that is anticipated under this legislation.

So I would hope that we would reject this amendment by Mr. Wilson and that we would pass the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would just say that the problem with home building is not explosions, it is implosions.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I would hope that people would vote against the Wilson amendment. The people who are truly impacted by combustible dust are the workers who have been killed in the past and the workers that will be killed and injured in the future if we do not have an enforceable standard. I appreciate you have 17 regulations and all these things that OSHA is yakking about now, after years of doing nothing. The fact of the matter is, according to the Chemical Safety Board, they are not enforceable standards with respect to dust.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker and Members of the House, this is a very serious piece of legislation and a very important piece of legislation. The idea that we would delay this until some time that the Secretary of Labor could make some certification about its impact on food costs is really unacceptable.

Let's look at the record of the Secretary of Labor. Since January 1980 until 2006, there were 281 explosions in these kinds of facilities due to dust. Seven hundred eighteen people were injured and 119 died in those explosions. One hundred nineteen bread-winners were killed in those explosions. That's the result of a study from the Chemical Safety Board of whose members are all appointed by President George W. Bush, an independent agency that may be the gold standard in terms of independent review of accidents.

They then recommended that OSHA adopt dust standards. OSHA did nothing. Did nothing. No enforceable standards were adopted by that point. No enforceable standards at all. And then in February 2008, the Imperial Sugar plant exploded.

In the meantime, 67 explosions took place since the Chemical Safety Board recommended the standard. Five hundred seventy-five injuries and 14 deaths took place before OSHA did anything. And the Chemical Safety Board recommendations continue to say there are no enforceable standards with respect to dust. Not only does it devastate the lives of these individuals and their families and the community, it devastates the facility, a facility here that is key to the commerce of that area. So talk about an impact on price in a tight market when these facilities start pumping up.

The feed and grain people, they're under their own standards. And what is their analysis of that standard? That it drove technologies, it drove better design, and better productivity in their markets. That's their findings. They're not implicated in these standards. What happened there? Eight people were killed in the explosion, 20 were put into medically induced comas for a number of weeks, 5 of those died, and 3 are still in the hospital.

Since the Chemical Safety Board made its recommendation, there have been 67 explosions, and OSHA never found the urgency to protect these workers. Now to come along and to be so cynical as to suggest that if we could just keep killing the workers, the price of food will stay down.

You know, it's funny. I read the papers, read the business journal, read The Wall Street Journal, and they're talking about how the price of food has driven the profits of the grain companies; but when they talk about why it's gone up, it says, ``The crisis stems from a combination of heightened demand for food from fast-growing developing countries like China and India, low grain stockpiles caused by bad weather, rising fuel prices and the increasing amount of land used to grow crops for ethanol'' and others.

Some people say it's because Zimbabwe has quit producing food under the corrupt regime of Mr. Mugabe, so Africa has a double problem. I see the Governor of Texas, Mr. Rick Perry, thinks we ought to cut back on ethanol production. He doesn't think we ought to keep killing American workers. Nowhere in this paper, The Wall Street Journal mind you, nowhere in this paper, when you read about food prices, do you see any mention that we ought to continue to subsidize food prices by blowing up processing plants and killing and injuring workers. Nowhere do you see that except, perhaps, in this amendment.

We ought not to accept this amendment. These workers and this critical industry are entitled to this protection. And the facts on the ground are: The last time we put in a standard was for the feed and grain industry, and it has turned out to be wildly successful. Why is it wildly successful? Because injuries went down 40 percent, fatalities went down 60 percent, explosions went down 60 percent.

Don't you think we know enough now to think that these other workers in this industry are entitled to this protection? But OSHA has done nothing. OSHA has done nothing. And if OSHA is not going to act, we must. In this administration, OSHA has only acted when prodded by the courts or the Congress, never on their own. Never on their own have they suggested that they were going to go out and do this. Even after the recommendation of a presidentially appointed commission to look at these kinds of accidents, appointed by this President, they've chosen to do nothing. And it's important; it's important to these workers, it's important to the Congress.

John Barrow and I have put together legislation that works for the industry. We've consulted with the industry. We've sat down with the industry. We've sat down with OSHA. And we ought to oppose this motion to recommit in the name of the workers, in the name of their families, in the name of our Nation, we owe it to protect these workers.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, today we have an opportunity to protect thousands of American workers from a serious, irreversible and deadly lung disease known as ``popcorn lung,'' a disease caused by a simple artificial butter flavoring chemical called diacetyl.

The alarm bells began ringing on this health crisis over 7 years ago when a Missouri doctor diagnosed several workers from the same popcorn production plant with this debilitating lung disease. In 2002, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health linked the lung disease to exposure to diacetyl used in the plant.

Scientists have called the effect of diacetyl on workers' lungs ``astonishingly grotesque'' and likened it to ``inhaling acid.'' Hundreds of workers in popcorn and flavor production have become ill, several have died of popcorn lung, and many of the workers are so sick they needed lung transplants. Dozens of workers have sued flavoring manufacturers, winning millions in lawsuits and settlements.

NIOSH first connected popcorn lung to this chemical in 2002. In 2003, NIOSH issued guidance recommending that workers' exposure be minimized. In 2004, the Food Extract Manufacturers Association, the trade association of the flavoring industry, issued similar guidelines. Yet 5 years later, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration has failed to issue a standard to protect workers from exposure to diacetyl, preferring to rely on voluntary efforts.

Voluntary efforts, however, have not worked. Last year, California researchers found that despite the issuance of government and industry guidance for years before, many of those recommendations still have not been implemented in the flavor manufacturing facilities, and new cases of this debilitating lung disease have been identified.

How does this bill address the problem? H.R. 2693 would require OSHA to issue an interim final standard to minimize worker exposer to diacetyl. The

standard would contain provisions of engineering controls, respiratory protection, exposure monitoring, medical surveillance and worker training. The interim standard applies to popcorn manufacturing and packaging, as well as the food flavoring industry.

OSHA would then be required to issue a final standard within 2 years. This final standard would apply to all locations where workers are exposed to diacetyl and would include permissible exposure limit.

This bill should not be controversial. It is not another battle between workers and business about safety issues and alleged burdens of regulations. Over the past several months, we have built a wide coalition around this legislation from all sides, including industry, labor and scientists. The Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association, the association representing the companies that make these flavorings, has joined with the unions that represent the affected workers to strongly support this legislation.

In fact, the only outside dissenters from this coalition are the usual anti-OSHA ideologues spouting the same old ``sky is falling'' rhetoric about regulations. Such rhetoric may be music to the ears of the OSHA-hating ideologues in search of a talking point, but in the real world, this ideology leaves workers and their families to suffer from the preventable scourges of toxic chemicals.

There are many reasons why industry, labor and scientists agree on this legislation. They all agree that we don't need to wait any longer to act; indeed, we can't afford to wait. I have a list of almost 30 major studies and reports showing that diacetyl destroys workers' lungs. They agree that we know how to protect workers. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health issued guidelines in 2003 laying out the basic measures that industry can take to prevent worker exposure to diacetyl. In 2004, the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association outlined in even greater detail the measures that members can take to prevent the employees from getting sick.

This legislation is straightforward and merely requires that OSHA do what it could have done and should have already done, issue an emergency standard. There is precedent for this bill and for Congress stepping in when OSHA falters in its mission to protect American workers. In 1986, 1990, 1991, 1992 and 2000, Congress moved to require OSHA to issue health and safety standards.

Earlier this month, in response to a report that a consumer of microwave popcorn has contracted popcorn lung, a few popcorn manufacturers have announced that they intend to stop using diacetyl. This is welcome news. It highlights how serious this issue is, but it is not enough. Workers are still at risk because diacetyl will continue to be used in a variety of other food products. We can't wait for consumers to get sick and hit the companies in their pocketbooks before the industry changes. Workers are getting sick now, and have for many years, and will continue to get sick unless we act. Workers cannot wait any longer for our help.

In the past several years, we've seen hundreds of workers become sick from exposure to diacetyl, and we've heard about young workers who need lung transplants, who are not expected to live to see their small children grow up.

It is time for us to act. OSHA has failed over 5 years. They've been on notice to do this, they have failed to do this. The only time they have shown any movement is when we've called a hearing or had some congressional action, they have responded to it.

The time has come for Congress to act and pass this legislation and stop ignoring the needs of these workers' health and safety. And it's time to get OSHA to do the job that they were constituted to do, and that is, to protect these workers and their families from this preventable exposure to diacetyl as the toxic substance that it has become.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

I certainly appreciate the situation my ranking member, Mr. McKeon, from California finds himself in, and I appreciate his remarks about the actions of OSHA in this situation.

The fact is that, again, earlier this month, in a commentary of the Dutch study on diacetyl workers which found it is unlikely that any other chemical is responsible for these cases, NIOSH scientist, Dr. Catherine Kreiss, wrote ``the collective evidence for diacetyl causing respiratory hazards supports actions to minimize exposure of diacetyl even if contributions by other flavoring chemicals exist.''

That is the situation we find ourselves in. This isn't a desire to rush to legislation. The fact is, as Mr. McKeon pointed out, on this side of the aisle also we are all terribly disappointed by the failure of OSHA to engage this problem and to engage the people who are coming forth now supporting this legislation to construct a solution.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), who is the Workforce Protections Subcommittee Chair and who has handled this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, this isn't about confusion. This isn't about uncertainty. This is about the absolute failure of a Federal agency that has been established and designed to protect the health and the safety of American workers, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration, and the absolutely failure of that agency to take action, the absolute failure of this administration, the Bush administration, to insist they take action in light of mounting and compelling evidence that workers in popcorn manufacturing facilities and workers maybe now in other food industries have been stricken with a horrible disease that has been directly related to diacetyl.

I appreciate they want to throw up all of the other reasons. Maybe it wasn't O.J., but the fact of the matter is, here it is diacetyl, and we have got to understand that because people are going in for lung transplants, people are losing their ability to earn a living, and people have died from the results of this, and manufacturers and others are paying out millions of dollars.

The other side wants to offer an amendment that is based upon very old information, 3 years old. In those 3 years, NIOSH has recommended that actions be taken. The actions were not taken. NIOSH based that on the information at that time.

Then the industry recommended that actions be taken to protect the lives and the health and the safety of these workers, and actions were not taken in many parts of that industry. And, lo and behold, on the day that we are arguing this bill on the floor, we find out that OSHA has finally taken action.

And what action has OSHA taken? It didn't take action in the absence of information. It specifically states that they are updating the material safety data sheets because they have to include newer health effects information, information they need to understand the hazards associated. The hazards associated.

This is OSHA as of today. OSHA couldn't figure it out yesterday, they couldn't figure it out last year or the year before or the year before. But because Congress is moving, they are now going to give people a data sheet that says diacetyl, in the data sheet from OSHA today, can cause damage to respiratory tract and lungs if inhaled, and it is highly flammable.

This isn't because we don't have information. This is because they refused to act earlier.

The gentleman from the other side wants to talk about the fact that they have put together a rulemaking process. No, what they announced was a one-day meeting, a one-day meeting of stakeholders, and then that was the end of it. We don't know whether they are going to go to the rest of the process or not. There is no indication in their past that they have.

They have forfeited their right to suggest that they will set the time and the tempo and the urgency of the protection of these workers and their families. They have forfeited that. We are stepping in here; and in the first interim standard we are asking NIOSH to do what they have already recommended that they do, based upon the evidence they have today. We are asking them to join with the manufacturers who have made these same recommendations based upon the evidence that they have today.

And what are they asking them to do? These are the first precautionary things that you do: Isolate the mixing room from the rest of the plant using walls, doors or other barriers; provide the mixing room with a separate ventilation system and ensure that negative air pressure relative to the rest of the plant is maintained in the mixing room. Yes, they are doing this because they have information that this can cause damage to your respiratory tracts and your lungs.

The other side wants to suggest in their amendment that if we just knew more, we could do better. It goes on and on.

They suggest reducing the operating temperature and holding the mixing tanks to the minimum temperature necessary, equipping the head space of the mixing and holding tanks with flavor added to oil and held in a pure form, automating the mixing process using closed processes to transfer flavorings. These are all designed to protect these workers, and they would not have happened but for this committee action, but for this floor time and this debate, and but for us voting this bill out of here.

This is the least we can do, to ask these agencies to do what was already recommended they should do in 2003, to do at least what the manufacturers have already recommended they do in 2004. And then we ask them to proceed with a permanent standard using their scientific evidence, their data, their knowledge, not ours. And that is the process by which these workers are going to get protection.

They are not going to get protection from the gentleman's amendment on the other side of the aisle, and they are not going to get it from stalling the Congress from going forward.

This is our opportunity to respond to an urgent medical crises in this industry by these workers and their families. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation when it comes time for final passage and to defeat the Wilson amendment.

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

Mr. HARE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Popcorn Workers Lung Disease Prevention Act. As a Member of the Education and Labor Committee I had the privilege of participating in a hearing at which Eric Peoples, a former microwave popcorn worker, testified. Mr. Peoples had contracted a respiratory disease from exposure to the butter flavoring chemical, diacetyl, during his work at the factory. I was appalled to find out that despite the mountain of evidence showing the links between diacetyl and respiratory damage comparable to inhaling acid, the workers were told this product was safe. Now, Mr. Peoples struggles with only 24 percent lung capacity and is waiting for a lung transplant.

OSHA is failing to protect workers from chemical hazards. According to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, occupational diseases caused by exposure to chemical hazards are responsible for an estimated 50,000 deaths each year.

This bill does the job OSHA has failed to do. H.R. 2693 would require OSHA to issue an interim final standard to minimize worker exposure to diacetyl at popcorn manufacturing and packaging plants. OSHA would then be required to issue a final standard within 2 years that would apply to all locations where workers are exposed to diacetyl.

It is necessary for Congress to take this step to protect our workers. I urge my colleagues to stand with me in passing the Popcorn Workers Lung Disease Prevention Act.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this is an amendment technical in nature, and it clarifies that if no one is using diacetyl, it is not necessary for OSHA to issue a standard. The second portion clarifies that the purpose of the required NIOSH study is to study the health effects of substitutes of diacetyl. I urge passage of the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I find it rather incredible that the gentleman from Georgia would come down and ridicule the idea that Congress would act in this matter when there has been such malfeasance by OSHA, by the Bush administration, and by the oversight of this Congress. I guess you can try to make light of it if you don't want to take responsibility for your actions.

What we are recommending today in this legislation is what NIOSH recommended for the protection of these workers in 2003, and it didn't happen, and nobody on the other side of the aisle asked the question: Why? So now we have workers who have worked in popcorn factories and maybe now in other manufacturing facilities that are losing their lung capacity, that are seeking lung transplants, that have died and have a disease that is called ``grotesque'' by the medical profession and who suggest, when you get this, it is the equivalent of the damage to your lungs if you inhaled acid.

There may be something trite in that, there may be something cavalier in that, but I don't see it. I don't see it. These families, these workers, are asking for our help. These workers are dying.

The industry has tried and is asking for our help. The labor unions are asking for our help. The scientists are asking for our help.

The gentleman would make light of this. He ought to talk to the families who have had members who have died or who have been severely impaired or are hoping that they can get a lung transplant before they die so they might have a chance to see their children and their grandchildren grow up and enjoy their family. It's not to be made light of.

There's a great deal of malfeasance here by this administration, by OSHA, by the Department of Labor and by failure to have oversight on this in this committee. They ought not to come to this floor and make light of this measure. This is about people's lives and about their health and about their well-being, and we should pass this amendment. We should reject the next amendment and we should pass this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

And the gentleman has the right to close on his amendment; is that correct?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

This amendment was offered in committee, and we rejected the amendment, and we offered to work with the gentleman. We've had a series of discussions, and he's been involved and staff have been involved in the discussions, but at the end of the day the simple fact was that they would not agree to any deadlines for NIOSH or OSHA to act in this amendment.

We think the timetables that are in the legislation are very important. If we take off these timetables, all of the past evidence suggests that OSHA and NIOSH will sort of turn to norm and, once again, we will have an open-ended process here where there isn't an urgency about the impacts of diacetyl.

We know what diacetyl does. That's become very clear. We don't know about everything else in the workplace. We don't know about everything else in the workplace, but we know what this very bad chemical can do to people and what it's causing for them to do it.

And so we lay out NIOSH to do it. They've already recommended the manufacturers are laid out. Then OSHA will do the final rulemaking. If they come back and say they can't do it, that's their scientific evidence.

We're not putting a legislative prescription on them, but what we are insisting is they address it and they address it now and they address it on the evidence that is here and emerging and that they make a decision and they protect these workers.

That's what this legislation is about, and that's what this amendment would negate.

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

Mr. Chairman, I urge Members of the House to vote against the Wilson amendment and then to support the legislation. If we adopt the Wilson amendment, we're going right back to the status quo, and the status quo is killing these workers in these facilities. And we have the ability to stop it with this legislation.

We should stop it now. We should not any longer empower OSHA to continue to drag their feet and ignore the health and the safety of these workers and their families.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the Wilson amendment and an ``aye'' vote on the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 678 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. Lincoln Diaz- Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 678.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 678 provides for consideration of H.R. 2693, the Popcorn Workers Lung Disease Prevention Act, under a structured rule.

The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Education and Labor. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI.

The rule makes in order the Committee on Education and Labor amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment.

The rule makes in order the two amendments that were submitted to the Rules Committee and are printed in the Rules report.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in favor of the rule and in favor of H.R. 2693, the Popcorn Workers Lung Disease Prevention Act.

The central Ohio town of Marion is located about two hours from my hometown of Barberton, Ohio. Marion has the unique distinction of being known as the ``Popcorn Capital of the World.'' Just this month, the town of Marion hosted its yearly popcorn festival, complete with a popcorn scholarship pageant, parade and 5K run.

Unfortunately, these fun-filled festivities are not the only symbols of Marion's popcorn industry. It was recently discovered that a chemical used in the production of microwave popcorn is the cause of fatal lung disease in popcorn workers across the country, including the Popcorn Capital of the World, Marion Ohio.

Diacetyl is a chemical ingredient used in microwave popcorn that gives the popcorn a distinct buttery smell.

Diacetyl has been linked to illnesses in hundreds of workers in popcorn and other food production facilities across the United States. Diacetyl is specifically connected to a lung disease called bronchiolitis obliterans. This condition makes it difficult for air to flow out of the lungs. This difficulty is not reversible, and it is sometimes fatal.

In November of 2000, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health conducted voluntary tests of workers at a popcorn plant in Missouri. The workers in that plant suffered from chronic cough and shortness of breath almost three times as often as people in the general population. Those plant workers are over three times more likely to suffer from abnormally low airflow through their lungs. The percentage of workers in the popcorn plant with asthma or chronic bronchitis was double the national rate. Several workers from this plant in Missouri had conditions that were so severe that they had to be placed on the lung transplant list.

Remarkably, Mr. Speaker, despite these reports from the Missouri popcorn plant and other plants across the country, there are currently no enforceable OSHA standards requiring exposure to diacetyl to be controlled.

It has been 7 years since the first cases of popcorn lung were identified. It has been 5 years since the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health published its first report stating the inhalation of diacetyl was leading to deadly results. There is simply no excuse for the lack of action taken by OSHA in the face of this evidence. OSHA has failed to uphold its primary charge to protect the safety and health of American workers.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation fills that fatal void by protecting workers from this damaging chemical. The Popcorn Workers Lung Disease Prevention Act directs the Secretary of Labor to create standards for workers' exposure to diacetyl in popcorn plants and in any location where diacetyl is used or manufactured. Our legislation requires that final rules for exposure to diacetyl be in place under the Occupational Safety and Health Act no later than 2 years after the bill is enacted.

For the popcorn workers of Marion, Ohio, things are starting to look up. The popcorn factories in their town have eliminated the use of diacetyl because of its linkage to the fatal lung conditions. They have done the right thing.

But not every production facility that uses diacetyl has recognized the danger. In fact, on Monday of this week, one of America's largest food manufacturers introduced their new toasted butter flavoring. What is one of the ingredients in this new butter flavoring? Diacetyl.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that some food manufacturers have gotten the message, but some are going to continue to ignore the science and put their workers in harm's way. Over 500 workers in Ohio are already suffering because of uncontrolled exposure to diacetyl.

Today, we act to protect our food industry workers from these harmful chemicals and dangerous conditions. We stand up for workers and their families. This legislation is not just about the conditions in food manufacturing plants across this country. It's about changing the way we treat working men and women. It's about respecting the risks that they undertake every day to feed their family. The hardworking people who make our world turn deserve safe working conditions, a living wage, and strong support from Congress.

I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut, the chairwoman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, let me begin with a point of clarification; the earmark rule was not waived. And to the question about whether this bill today is premature, I would argue that it's not premature for the 500 workers in Ohio and those across this country who are now suffering from this irreversible disease.

I have heard the workers' stories from the Ohio popcorn plants. I have heard the story of a worker who worked 12-hour shifts in the popcorn factory outside of Marion, Ohio. His job was to mix the flavors, measuring and dumping butter-flavored powders and pastes into the vats of soybean oil. Now, Mr. Speaker, he is so crippled from breathing the vapors in the plant that he hardly has the strength to hold his granddaughter. He is racked with spasms that leave him dizzy and incapacitated.

In 2001, after an outbreak of diseases at the popcorn factory in Missouri, his employer guaranteed him that his plant was safe. Mr. Speaker, OSHA's failure to protect our workers by ignoring the reports, studies and warning signs has endangered the health of families. That is why we must act today. Our workers should never have to choose between their health and feeding their families. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 678 Offered By Mr. Diaz-Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this

resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point

of order, consider the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the

Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for

enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House

of Representatives. The resolution shall be considered as

read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the resolution to final adoption without intervening motion

or demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour

of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and

ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; and (2)

one motion to recommit.

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

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in opposition to the bill at this time and in this form.

Consideration of this bill is a somber occurrence. It reminds us that less than 3 months ago, workers at the Imperial Sugar refinery in Port Wentworth, Georgia, lost their lives to a tragic workplace accident. Even today many others remain injured.

As with any workplace accident of this magnitude, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA, was dispatched to the scene to investigate what went wrong. Preliminary reports indicate that the explosion was linked to combustible dust, a known hazard for which at least 17 OSHA standards currently apply.

OSHA has 6 months to complete its investigation, a time frame that I think is appropriate for any injury of this seriousness. I expect that investigation to provide us a thorough, candid examination of exactly what went wrong so that steps can be taken to prevent such an accident in the future.

Among the first questions OSHA needs to answer is whether existing safety guidelines were followed at the Imperial refinery. This question is fundamental. It will tell us whether the cause of this accident was a lack of sufficient safety standards or a failure to follow the standards that exist.

The bill before us today presumes that current safety standards were insufficient. But the truth is we don't yet know whether that is the case. Less than 3 months after the accident, OSHA has not even had an opportunity to complete its investigation. We cannot possibly provide effective new safety standards when we don't know which standards, if any, we're lacking.

I understand why we're here today. Like Chairman Miller; Representatives Barrow and Kingston, who represent the refinery and surrounding areas; and all Members of this body, I grieve for the workers who lost their lives. But making an end run around a proven process for establishing workplace safety guidelines is the wrong answer at the wrong time.

The bill before us proposes a highly proscriptive regulatory mandate in an excruciatingly compressed time frame. More concerning still, OSHA, the agency that would be responsible for implementing these new requirements, does not believe this bill will produce the most effective safety measures.

Of course, this is not to say that we should do nothing in the face of such an accident. To the contrary. I believe OSHA has a responsibility to complete a thorough, aggressive investigation of the accident at the Imperial Sugar refinery to determine its causes and consider whether additional regulatory guidance is needed. If it becomes clear that existing standards are ineffective, OSHA should move forward with a robust regulatory process that provides clearer, more effective guidance on combustible dust.

I want to be clear on this point. This bill at this time, and in this form, is not the only opportunity to strengthen safety standards for combustible dust. OSHA itself has not ruled out additional regulations if it becomes clear that the 17 existing standards that apply to workplaces with combustible dust hazards are not effective or clear enough to protect workers.

The danger of combustible dust in the workplace is a serious concern, and I am committed to appropriate and effective safety measures. That is why we plan to offer an alternative proposal today that calls for a more comprehensive approach that would include stakeholder input and expertise in any regulatory action that may be needed.

We had hoped to see another amendment made in order, as proposed by Representative Kingston. Because of the compressed timetable in the bill, OSHA will not have to take into account economic feasibility of the standard. Mr. Kingston's amendment would have simply asked that a study on the job losses resulting from the standard be reported to Congress. Surely it would not have been too much to ask whether Congress was exacerbating job losses in an already weakening economy. But, unfortunately, that amendment was not made in order.

Still, I continue to believe we can work together in good faith to protect worker safety without undermining the proven road to developing effective, enforceable safety protections.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield to the subcommittee ranking member that has jurisdiction over this issue, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), such time as he may consume.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), who represents constituents that work in this sugar factory, and has been dealing with this problem now for 3 months. I am happy to yield him 4 minutes.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the bill, although I do not expect to oppose it.

Madam Chairman, although the changes in this amendment are modest, they are a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, they simply do not go far enough.

Specifically, this amendment includes a cosmetic change to the requirement that OSHA include National Fire Protection Association standards among its new mandates. As Chairman Miller knows, the NFPA standards are voluntary guidelines that offer a far more complex, stringent protocol that may be adopted in whole or in part by industry participants. These guidelines play an important role as voluntary practices that can enhance safety efforts, but they are entirely inappropriate as a replacement for effective OSHA rulemaking.

So while I appreciate that this amendment removes a direct mandate for a specific NFPA standard, I remain deeply concerned that the amendment retains the requirement that OSHA include relevant and appropriate NFPA standards in the final rule. I fear that this may be a distinction without a difference.

The amendment includes other modest improvements, including a more reasonable time frame for implementation of the engineering controls in the interim standard. It also clarifies that the final rule would be developed under more normal and inclusive procedures. Both of these steps improve the underlying bill, but because they fail to fully address concerns about the bill's abbreviated timeline, they are half measures at best.

However, I do appreciate the gentleman's efforts, and I will support the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and I am pleased to lend my support to this amendment.

As Representative Wilson has made clear, this amendment will ensure OSHA takes the necessary steps to protect workers against the hazards of combustible dust. It demands an aggressive investigation into the Imperial Sugar refinery, it requires that OSHA utilize the findings of its National Emphasis Program on dust hazards, and it calls for a comprehensive, inclusive and effective standard to be established if it becomes clear that existing safeguards are not protecting workers.

The amendment fulfills our shared commitment to workplace safety, and it does so without undermining the credibility of the rulemaking process. I urge its adoption.