Worker Protection Against Combustible Dust Explosions and Fires Act of 2008

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. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1157 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes 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 may be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1157.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1157 provides for the consideration of H.R. 5522, the Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Prevention Act of 2008, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Education and Labor, and makes in order the committee-reported substitute. It also makes in order two amendments printed in the Rules report, with a manager's amendment debatable for 10 minutes and the Wilson substitute debatable for 30 minutes.

Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 5522, the Worker Protection Against Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Act of 2008. It directs the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to issue rules regulating combustible industrial dust that can build up to hazardous levels and explode.

Combustible dust has caused deaths and injuries to workers in our Nation, deaths and injuries that could have been prevented. Most recently, everyone can recall the enormous explosion in February at the Imperial Sugar refinery in Savannah, Georgia, which claimed the lives of 13 workers and injured over 60. Many of these workers remain hospitalized today, receiving care for the severe burns they received on that awful day.

While OSHA has marginally improved dust inspection procedures, this legislation goes further to bring combustible dust emissions under control by establishing stronger standards. Included are engineering controls, hazardous inspection, security assessments, housekeeping and explosion protection standards.

Specifically, the Worker Protection Against Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Act requires OSHA to issue an interim final standard to control the risk of combustible dust explosions. The standard would contain provisions for housekeeping, engineering controls, and worker training.

Mr. Speaker, in 2003, there was a series of similar explosions at various factories due to combustible dust. The U.S. government undertook a study carried out by the Chemical Safety Board to determine the causes and make recommendations to OSHA. That report came out 2 years ago in 2006. OSHA has yet to issue standards to control the risks to workers and companies on the hazards of combustible dust.

For this reason, the bill requires an interim standard to be issued. OSHA would then be required to issue a final standard within 18 months through its regular procedures. OSHA would be required to ``include relevant and appropriate provisions of National Fire Protection Association combustible dust standards.''

H.R. 5522 would also direct OSHA to explicitly list combustible dusts as a ``physical hazard'' in the Hazard Communication Standard, which requires employers to train workers about the chemical hazards that they are exposed to.

Mr. Speaker, every worker in this country deserves a safe and healthy work environment. The AFL-CIO, the UAW, the International Association of Firefighters, the American Industrial Hygiene Association, the SEIU, the Teamsters, and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union all strongly support this important legislation.

By establishing stronger protections and safer standards, this legislation better ensures thousands of workers in refineries, mills, and plants from risk of death or injury.

I urge my colleagues to support the rule, and I support the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I would ask the gentleman if he has any other speakers.

I will reserve my time and let the gentleman close.

Mr. Speaker, let me remind my colleagues that the underlying bill that we are dealing with is a bill that would actually protect workers in the workplace, the Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Prevention Act of 2008, and it's a bill that responds to a terrible tragedy that has killed a number of workers and injured a number of workers. We need to pass this bill, and I hope we will pass the rule and pass the underlying bill.

But I have to say, Mr. Speaker, it is almost laughable to hear a member of the minority get up and talk about energy prices. The Republicans have controlled the White House for 8 years. They controlled the Congress for 12 years, and we have seen energy costs rise and rise and rise under their leadership; and we have seen their policy, which is to give more subsidies and more tax breaks to Big Oil, and they have fought us consistently in trying to invest resources into alternative sources of energy, into forms of energy to help make us more independent from foreign oil.

Speaker Pelosi called on President Bush to suspend purchases of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve temporarily. You know, filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, Mr. Speaker, takes 70,000 barrels of oil off the market each day even though the reserve is 97 percent full with enough to meet our national security needs. That's a good idea. Republicans opposed that.

At a time of record gas prices, suspending these government purchases, as we have done in the past, could reduce gas prices by 5 to 24 cents a gallon, a critical first step for America's families, businesses and the economy.

For years, Mr. Speaker, Democrats fought to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and bring down gas prices and launch a cleaner, smarter energy future for America. Yet with Republican obstructionism, American consumers and businesses have had more pain at the pump paying a record $3.56 a gallon.

President Bush and congressional Republicans have spent all of their time in power doling out billions and billions and billions of dollars in subsidies to big oil companies instead of working for energy independence plans for America.

We have had a number of important pieces of legislation that we have brought to the floor such as H.R. 1252, the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act, to crack down on gas price gouging, something that is a reality in this market.

It was opposed by 140 Republicans.

We had a bill, H.R. 2264, the No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act, to hold OPEC accountable for oil price fixing. That was opposed by 67 Republicans, including almost the entire Republican leadership.

We have had a bill to repeal the subsidies to profit-rich big oil companies and invest in renewable energy, which was H.R. 5351, the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008. It passed on February 27, 236-182. One hundred seventy-four Republicans opposed that, including the President of the United States. Now, get this, Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have opposed a measure that would take away the taxpayer-funded subsidies from the five biggest oil companies in this country that are making record profits, historic profits, it would take those subsidies and put it into renewable energy to help us become more energy independent, and they opposed it, and the President said he would veto it. And they have stopped progress on that measure.

They opposed the Energy Independence and Security Act, which would be an energy independence law with a market manipulation ban and new vehicle mileage standards. Again, the majority of the Republicans stood up and opposed these commonsense measures to help us become more energy independent and to help bring these gas prices down.

So their record is clear. It has been one of obstructionism. And it has been a record that has always been in the corner of Big Oil and against investing properly in some of these new technologies.

So President Bush and the Republicans have blocked our efforts virtually every step of the way. I hope that that will change after the next election. I expect that will change after the next election. But it is time for the Republicans to change their habit of saying ``no'' to consumers and American business on gas prices and always saying ``yes'' to Big Oil.

Enough is enough. It is time for House Republicans to provide the critical votes needed for a veto-proof majority for the legislation that I have outlined here today.

Americans are paying a heavy price for the obstructionism of the Republicans in this Congress and the President of the United States. They don't want to give any more taxpayer subsidies to the big oil companies. They want us to redirect those resources into commonsense, clean, renewable, alternative sources of energy. If we do that, Mr. Speaker, then we will get these gas prices under control, and we will also take a big step forward in cleaning up our environment.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

Amendment To H. Res. 1157 Offered By Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balarat of

Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this

resolution or the operation of the previous question, it

shall be in order to consider any amendment to the substitute

which the proponent asserts, if enacted, would have the

effect of lowering the national average price per gallon of

regular unleaded gasoline. Such amendments shall be

considered as read, shall be debatable for thirty minutes

equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an

opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be

subject to a demand for division of the question in the House

or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against

such amendments are waived except those arising under clause

9 of rule XXI.

Sec. 4. Within five legislative days the Speaker shall

introduce a bill, the title of which is as follows: ``A bill

to provide a common sense plan to help bring down

skyrocketing gas prices.'' Such bill shall be referred to the

appropriate committees of jurisdiction pursuant to clause 1

of rule X.

(The information contained herein was provided by

Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the

109th Congress.)

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous

question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.

A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote

against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow

the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an

alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be

debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of

Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the

previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or

control the consideration of the subject before the House

being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous

question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the

subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling

of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the

House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes

the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to

offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the

majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated

the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to

a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to

recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:

``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman

from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to

yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first

recognition.''

Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic

majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is

simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on

adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive

legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is

not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of

the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual

published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page

56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using

information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American

Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous

question is defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading

opposition member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who

then manages an hour of debate and may offer a germane

amendment to the pending business.''

Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,

the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a

refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a

special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the

resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,

section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the

motion for the previous question on a resolution reported

from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member

leading the opposition to the previous question, who may

offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time

for debate thereon.''

Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does

have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only

available tools for those who oppose the Democratic

majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the

opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

On February 7, 2008, a terrible explosion occurred at the Imperial Sugar Company refinery in the community of Port Wentworth, Georgia. The explosion killed 13 people, injured over 40 refinery workers. That explosion at the Imperial Sugar Company refinery pointed to the danger of combustible dust in the workplace. It's a very serious concern, and we must take every possible step to protect workers from those dangers.

The underlying legislation, the Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Prevention Act, would require OSHA to issue an interim final combustible dust standard within 90 days and a permanent standard within 18 months. It also

lists a specific number of items that would be required under the Interim Final Standard including a written dust control program, hazard assessment, worker training and employee participation in the development and conduct of the dust control program. OSHA would also be required to include combustible dust in the definition of physical hazards in OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard.

It is quite disconcerting, Mr. Speaker, that on an issue as important as workplace safety, the majority is only allowing the House of Representatives to consider one amendment by the minority, one Republican amendment. The majority campaign platform said they would run the House of Representatives in an open and bipartisan manner, yet they systematically and consistently block the minority time and time again from offering amendments.

All Members of this representative institution wish to do the most they can to provide workers a safe working environment, Mr. Speaker. And it is most unfortunate that the majority blocks Members from offering their proposals. Instead of offering such a tightly structured rule, the majority should be allowing every Member the opportunity to offer their thoughts and proposals to the House for consideration.

As important as the underlying legislation may be, I believe there are other issues that are on the minds of Americans at this point that are pressing to Americans: For example, confronting the rising cost of gasoline.

On Monday, hundreds of truckers drove through the streets of this capital city to protest in desperation the rising cost of diesel fuel. They are not the only ones desperate due to the rising oil prices. All consumers are paying more for gasoline, which also causes price increases in virtually every consumer product, including food. A recent policy found that 44 percent of Americans find paying for gasoline to be their top personal economic problem.

Since Democrats took control of Congress in January of last year, the cost of a gallon of unleaded gasoline has skyrocketed. According to AAA, the national average for regular unleaded gas has gone up $1.20 during that time. The cost of gas has gone up more in 15 months than it had gone up in the prior 6 years.

But oil prices don't have to be so high, Mr. Speaker, because I understand the majority claims to have a plan, a plan to reduce oil prices. Just over 2 years ago, April 2006, now-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, then the Democrat minority leader, issued a press release claiming that House Democrats, ``have a commonsense plan to bring down skyrocketing gas prices.'' Two weeks after that press release, then- Minority Leader Pelosi said that Democrats have ``real solutions'' that would lower the price at the pump. That was 2 years ago.

Democrats have controlled Congress for a year and a half, and we have yet to see them act on their ``commonsense plan to bring down skyrocketing gas prices.''

Instead of empty promises, Republicans are working on providing relief to consumers faced with the constantly rising cost of gasoline. For example, last week, I, along with several of my colleagues, introduced H.R. 5905, the CARS Act, the prime sponsor of which is Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart. That legislation would give commuters a tax break on their commuting expenses. That important legislation will actually help taxpayers with the rising cost of gasoline, unlike the majority's ``mystery plan,'' the mystery plan, Mr. Speaker, that we have not yet seen.

At this time, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, again, I would like to thank Mr. McGovern for the time. Back in April of 2006, as I just said, over 2 years ago, the now distinguished Speaker, Ms. Pelosi, issued the following statement, ``With skyrocketing gas prices, it is clear that the American people can no longer afford the Republican rubberstamp Congress and its failure to stand up to Republican big oil and gas company cronies. Americans this week are paying $2.91 a gallon on average for regular gasoline, 33 cents higher than last month and double the price than when President Bush first came into office.''

Mr. Speaker, most Americans would be happy if they were paying $2.91 for a gallon of gasoline.

In the same press release, the distinguished Speaker went on to say, ``Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices.''

Well, while I hear they have a plan, I haven't seen the mystery plan, Mr. Speaker. Instead, while we wait for the majority to act, the cost of fuel continues to rise with the average cost of a gallon of gasoline now being over $3.60, hitting consumers at the pump every time they go to fill up their cars, reinforcing the fact that the majority has yet to confront the high price of gasoline.

Today, Investor's Business Daily in an editorial said that this Congress is ``possibly the most irresponsible in modern history. This is especially true when it comes to America's dysfunctional energy policy.''

Mr. Speaker, I insert into the Congressional Record that editorial from Investor's Business Daily.

[From Investor's Business Daily, Apr. 30, 2008]

Congress Vs. You

We've said it before, but we'll say it again: This Congress

is possibly the most irresponsible in modern history. This is

especially true when it comes to America's dysfunctional

energy policy.

The media won't call either the House or the Senate on its

failures, for one very obvious reason: They mostly share an

ideology with the Democrats that keeps them from

understanding how free markets and supply and demand really

work. Sad, but true.

So we were happy to hear the president do the job, calling

out Congress for its inaction and ignorance in his wide-

ranging press conference Tuesday.

``Many Americans are understandably anxious about issues

affecting their pocketbook, from gas and food prices to

mortgage and tuition bills,'' Bush said. ``They're looking to

their elected leaders in Congress for action. Unfortunately,

on many of these issues, all they're getting is delay.''

Best of all, Bush didn't let the issue sit with just

generalities. He reeled off a bill of particulars of

congressional energy inaction, including:

Failing to allow drilling in ANWR. We have, as Bush noted,

estimated capacity of a million barrels of oil a day from

this source alone--enough for 27 million gallons of gas and

diesel. But Congress won't touch it, fearful of the clout of

the environmental lobby. As a result, you pay at the pump so

your representative can raise campaign cash.

Refusing to build new refineries. The U.S. hasn't built one

since 1976, yet sanctions at least 15 unique ``boutique''

fuel blends around the nation. So even the slightest problem

at a refinery causes enormous supply problems and price

spikes. Congress has done nothing about this.

Turning its back on nuclear power. It's safe and, with

advances in nuclear reprocessing technology, waste problems

have been minimized. Still, we have just 104 nuclear plants--

the same as a decade ago--producing just 19% of our total

energy. (Many European nations produce 40% or more of their

power with nuclear.) Granted, nuclear power plants are

expensive--about $3 billion each. But they produce energy at

$1.72/kilowatt-hour vs. $2.37 for coal and $6.35 for natural

gas.

Raising taxes on energy producers. This is where a basic

understanding of economics would help: Higher taxes and

needless regulation lead to less production of a commodity.

So by proposing ``windfall'' and other taxes on energy

companies plus tough new rules, Congress makes our energy

situation worse.

These are just a few of Congress' sins of omission--all

while India, China, Eastern Europe and the Middle East add

more than a million barrels of new demand each and every

year. New Energy Department forecasts see world oil demand

growing 40% by 2030, including a 28% increase in the U.S.

Americans who are worried about the direction of their

country, including runaway energy and food prices, should

keep in mind the upcoming election isn't just about choosing

a new president. We'll also pick a new Congress.

The current Congress, led on the House side by a speaker

who promised a ``common sense plan'' to cut energy prices two

years ago, has shown itself to be incompetent and

irresponsible. It doesn't deserve re-election.

Today, I will be asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question for this rule, Mr. Speaker. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to make it in order for the House to consider any amendment that would actually do something to reduce gas prices for consumers, such as H.R. 5905, the CARS Act, which would give

commuters a tax break on their commuting expenses and actually help alleviate the price of energy for the consumer. It will also give the majority the chance to introduce, Mr. Speaker, the ``mystery plan'' that they claim to have.

By voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members can take a stand against these high fuel prices and demand that the majority act on their plan. The majority said they had a plan. Let's see the mystery plan, Mr. Speaker. Let's see the mystery plan.

I encourage a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment made in order under the rule.

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

While I share the majority's commitment to ensuring workplace safety, I believe the underlying bill fails to provide for the most effective means to ensure that safety.

Currently, there are several initiatives concerning dust under way at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA. Since October, the agency has implemented a combustible dust National Emphasis Program. This agency has sent high hazard alert letters to over 30,000 businesses emphasizing the need to prevent dust from accumulating.

Most importantly, OSHA is in the midst of the investigation of the February disaster at the Imperial Sugar refinery. The Imperial Sugar refinery in Georgia is located in a community adjacent to the Second Congressional District of South Carolina, which I have the honor to represent.

Instead of undermining the progress of existing combustible dust safety efforts, this substitute requires the Department of Labor to gather all necessary information about the Imperial refinery explosion specifically, as well as the broader dust hazard being examined through the National Emphasis Program. Once that information has been gathered and analyzed, the Secretary of Labor will be able to determine whether and what type of combustible dust standard is necessary.

Should the Secretary determine that existing safety requirements can effectively protect against the combustible dust hazard, the Secretary will be required to report to Congress as to why no new regulatory framework is necessary. But if the National Emphasis Program and the results of the Imperial refinery investigation show that additional guidance and regulation are needed, this substitute requires OSHA to complete a rigorous regulatory process that includes all relevant stakeholders within a fixed time frame.

Our amendment will allow for the regulation to be completed expeditiously and thoroughly without circumventing the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Administrative Procedures Act and other laws and regulations that ensure effective Federal regulations.

We have heard concerns from OSHA that the underlying bill will be difficult to comply with and difficult to enforce. This leaves workers at risk. I have trust in my constituent, Monty Felix of Sandy Run, South Carolina, who is the National President of the American Composites Manufacturers Association, to promote safety. We need the expertise of successful manufacturers.

Our goal today should be to move forward with the most effective strategy to ensure a safe workplace. I believe this substitute achieves that goal, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this substitute.

I yield at this time to the ranking member from California (Mr. McKeon).

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I submit for the Record a letter dated April 29, 2008, from the OSHA Fairness Coalition, which is two dozen industry associations, relative to this issue.

OSHA Fairness Coalition,

April 29, 2008.

Madam Chairman, indeed, I would like to commend Chairman Miller and Congressman Barrow. I know that the intent is very positive to address a terrible tragedy that occurred in February at Port Wentworth with the Imperial refinery explosion.

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

Appendix A. Standards Addressing Combustible Dust

1910.272 Grain Handling.

1910.94 Ventilation Standard.

1910.22 Housekeeping.

1910.176 Housekeeping violations in storage areas.

1910.269 Housekeeping violations at coal-handling

operations.

1910.132 Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).

1910.119 Process Safety Management.

1910.307(b) Electrical Violations

1910.178 Powered Industrial Trucks.

1910.252 Welding, cutting, and brazing.

1910.145 Warning Sign.

1910.1200 Hazard communication violations.

Subpart E--Means of Egress 1910.33-37

1910-156-157 Fire protection violations.

F1910.263 Bakery equipment violations.

1910. 265 Sawmill violations.

1928 Agriculture. The only provisions discussed in this

NEP which may be cited in connection with agricultural

operations are the hazard communication standard (see 29 CFR

1928.21) and the general duty clause. Industries in SIC 0723,

Crop Preparation Services for Market, Except Cotton Ginning,

listed in Appendix D, are engaged in agricultural operations.

Additionally, it has been stated that combustible dust maybe doesn't apply to some of the associations that are referenced in the letter that I previously handed in. I would like to point out that in fact it may appear that way, but just a few minutes ago I just met with members of the National Association of Home Builders. I am still a dues-paying member of the Greater Columbia Home Builders Association. And as we were discussing this bill with members who were visiting in my office, they expressed concern that they felt like that this could be negative toward the home building industry. So, indeed, it doesn't appear sometimes that things apply, but they do even where you wouldn't expect it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would like to introduce appendix D, which are industries which may have combustible dust. And, indeed, Chairman Miller and myself are learning that there is a broad array of industries, dozens of them, that could be impacted by combustible dust and I believe that we are actually helping by bringing this to the attention of the American people.

Madam Chairman, I do urge my colleagues to support the amendment. The amendment is really, I believe, quite simple. It provides for a sequence of investigation, development of regulations, and promoting safety in the workplace.

I urge a positive vote on the amendment this evening.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.