Floor Statements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

big business. It is about helping small business.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

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

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

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

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

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

It is probably appropriate to remind everyone that we are on the third of four bills, H.R. 2730. It is about the independence review of OSHA's citations. That really is what we are discussing this hour.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), my friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself whatever time I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2730 squarely focuses on the needs to reestablish Congress' intent and the needs to have an effective system of checks and balances on agencies like OSHA when they are given so much latitude to interpret the scope of their own authority.

Mr. Speaker, Congress gave OSHA an unprecedented level of authority to enter the workplace in 1970, and it knew that with this unprecedented level of authority ran the possibilities of abuse, and there are more than a few occasions of that over the last 35 years. As with all matters under American law, there is a fine line between implementing needed protections and overintrusiveness by a government agency. That is very important stuff.

With this in mind, Congress devised a system of checks simply to keep OSHA within the boundaries of the playing field established by Congress. Let me provide a good example.

Many of my colleagues will recall the front page of the Washington Post on January 4, 2000. The headline in the upper right-hand corner of the Post read, ``OSHA Covers At-Home Workers.'' I use this example not to rub salt in old wounds left over from the Clinton administration, but simply to say that OSHA has a rather checkered past, shall I say, when it comes to interpreting the limits of its authority under the OSH act.

Left to its own devices, OSHA has a history of crossing the line and going out of bounds. I am not making that up. There are examples after examples. While OSHA may think they break the rules for the right reasons, others see these attempts to expand the agency's reach as an intrusive, unauthorized government act.

Funny, but the legislative history behind the OSH act seems to suggest that Congress envisioned these power grabs.

You have to be rather proud of the Congress in 1970. And let me call my colleagues' attention to the visual I will now point to as proof.

This visual clearly indicates how the systems of checks that Congress placed on OSHA was intended to work. What you see is lifted directly from the Congressional Record of November 17,

1970. That was the very day that a compromise was struck that removed the threat of a Presidential veto, and it calmed the resistance that had prevented the passage of the OSH Act for years. As Senator Javitz noted at the time, the future of the OSH Act depended on the establishment of OSHRC. Without this system of checks being put in place, the OSH Act might not have passed in 1970, perhaps not at all.

That compromise, without question, structured an independent judicial review agency which, and I quote, ``without regard to the Secretary of Labor can find for or against him on the basis of individual complaints.'' I submit that what Senator Javitz said on the floor of the Senate November 17, 1970, has a direct and clear application to H.R. 2730. That is, under the OSH Act, Congress intended there to be a truly independent review of the disputes between OSHA and employers, and when this dispute centered on OSHA's interpretation of its authority, that OSHRC and not the prosecuting agency, OSHA, was to be the final arbiter.

The review commission is the court. The Labor Department is the prosecutor and the small business owner, generally, is the defendant. And that is quite simply all H.R. 2730 does. In one sentence, this legislation restores the systems of checks and balances that Congress truly did intend 34 years ago. This measure could not be crafted more narrowly to serve a more direct purpose.

Now, my colleagues may not agree with what Congress said in 1970, but the fact remains they did say it. It is only common sense to have an entity that can review unfettered interpretations; and it happens every day, like OSHA's jurisdiction over individual homes. That is why OSHRC was created and why Congress broke with the administrative tradition in 1970.

I want to refer back to the chairman's analogy, because, I say to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), I happen to like it. A police officer writing a citation for a speeding violation does not and should not get the chance to serve as an impartial judge or jury. He simply has a biased opinion on the matter. OSHA should not have that right either.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on passage of H.R. 2730 because it restores congressional intent as it reinstitutes a system of checks and balances and just may prevent the kinds of interpretations that have drastically, drastically expanded OSHA's reach into the workplace in the past.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just point out, we are talking about H.R. 2730. That is on the review commission and OSHA. That is the subject of this hour's debate and this bill.

I once again remind Members, we are talking about working families, ninety-two percent of the working families who own businesses who have friends work for them. They are the working families that we are talking about.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).

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

Mr. Speaker, frequently I watch debates and the point has been made. Everybody has said what they have to say; it is frequently repeated many times, but we never seem to yield back the time and get to the vote. Mr. Speaker, I think it is time to vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

We are going to have the votes on these three bills, then there are a couple of other votes, and then we go back to the final bill and its debate, and we will vote it.

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

I will remind us that we are on H.R. 2731, the employer access to justice. That is what we are going to be debating and voting on for the next hour.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to myself whatever time I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2731 is, once again, a narrow measure with a clearly targeted and very specific goal to ensure very small employers the ability to defend themselves against OSHA's superior litigation position when the small employer believes they are right.

When dealing with OSHA, we now know many small employers are forced to just simply fold their tent, give up because they simply cannot afford the price of justice. As we all know, OSHA has a vastly superior ability to play the litigation game. OSHA has a team of highly skilled, well-seasoned lawyers at its disposal to pressure a small employer and a fully stocked staff to support their efforts.

Maybe even more importantly, they do not have to give any consideration to what the cost of this legal activity may be because they know that the taxpayers of America will pick up all of their costs. That is not even a consideration when they determine to take a small business employer to court, and that is the only determination for a small businessman to defend himself.

A small employer, in contrast, has to open up his own personal checkbook, go out and hire legal help, help that most of the time, the kind of employers we are talking about, they simply cannot afford.

What is more, OSHA litigation is complex, as demonstrated by the thousands of pages of standards, rules and regulations that OSHA has on the books. That means small employers are wise to hire an attorney who specializes in this area of law, adding to the cost that most folks and small business simply cannot afford. They just say, I will pay the fine, I plead guilty, I cannot defend myself.

In sum, it all comes down to the most cost-effective alternative. Can a small employer afford to fight or is it a cheaper business decision to simply knuckle under and pay the fine, despite believing that OSHA is as wrong as they possibly could be?

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, we know that the EAJA just does not work when it comes to the OSHA law. For instance, we know that since the enactment of EAJA, in only 1 year have more than 10 applications for attorneys' fees been filed in an OSHA context. In 2003, OSHA collected over $782 million in penalties, but in 12 of the last 19 years, OSHA's total EAJA awards have been less than $10,000.

I think, fairly clearly that demonstrates that it does not work. This does not add up in light of the many complaints Members of Congress hear from our small business constituents every year; and basically it is, I have to plead guilty, I am not guilty, but I cannot afford to go to court; and the cost of going to court is going to be so much more than the fine, I just give in.

In some 180 other statutes, Congress has supplemented the coverage offered by EAJA with other fee-shifting statutory arrangements for attorneys' fees. So we are not suggesting some radical departure from what has been the norm in Congress. What we are offering instead, Mr. Speaker, is a small opportunity to level the playing field for small employers who need all the help they can get, 100 employees or less with a net worth of $7 million or less.

Mr. Speaker, I said this was a narrow measure, and that is exactly what it is. In fact, it reduces the coverage of what is considered a small business under EAJA. Under H.R. 2731, eligibility for coverage is one-fifth the size of EAJA. This measure could only cover employers with 100 or fewer employees and those with a net worth not exceeding $7 million. No other employees are even eligible for recovery. So this is truly a measure for small employers who are the most vulnerable to OSHA's litigation squeeze.

Mr. Speaker, no one wants OSHA to use taxpayer money to pay attorneys' fees instead of enforcing the law. That is not our goal. That is not the purpose of this measure, and that is not what would result from its passage.

The purpose of H.R. 2731 is simply to force OSHA to think twice before pursuing expensive and time-consuming litigation where they do not have to pay anything, but the taxpayers do, in cases of dubious merit, when it is against very small employers who simply cannot afford to defend themselves.

Under H.R. 2731, if OSHA does bring these actions and loses, it does pay attorneys' fees. There is no increased cost. It comes out of OSHA, and it should come out of OSHA. They should think twice before they take cases to court knowing that all they have to do is say, we are going to court and the small business employer has to give in; that is all.

And as I have said before, if OSHA brings only cases with merit against small employers, this bill is not going to cost them one red cent. All they need to do is better evaluate the merits of their actions and stop using litigation as a way to force employers to say, I give in.

I do not believe you, I think I am right, I give in. I just do not have the money to fight you in court.

I urge my colleagues to vote for passage of H.R. 2731.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to point out that probably every Member in here should read the GAO report put out in March 2004. Frankly, President Bush has done an excellent job in workplace health and safety. The numbers have been coming down. As the GAO says, and others, they are at historically low levels. I would say that is probably going in the right direction.

And I say it is going in the right direction because we finally understand the way you get a healthier and safer workplace is having cooperation between the employer and the employee and the OSHA. But when OSHA uses the litigation tactic to force a small employer to admit to something they do not believe they are guilty of, that does not promote cooperation.

This is simply about justice and fairness to small business owners. They are workers too, and they do want to see this legislation passed. In fact, they involve most of the workers in America today and the people that work for them. So I would like for us not to sit here and say that workers do not want to see this legislation passed. That is simply not true. The majority of workers, the 92 percent that are not in the unions today, yes, they do want to see this passed. It is unfair to say they do not. They are working families as much as anybody that is organized.

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

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

I think it is time again to remind the body we are discussing H.R. 2731, the Small Employer Access to Justice Act. What that means is that working families, the majority of the working families in my colleagues' districts that happen to be in small businesses deserve access to justice.

It is clear to everyone that OSHA's attorneys know well when they have a weak case. Nobody has to tell them. They know it. And they know under current law they might as well pursue the case and push the employer into settlement, even if they know they may lose the case in court. So what they are basically saying to that working family who owns a small business is, you either pay this fine and say you are guilty, or we are going to make sure you pay a lot more in defense fees, regardless of who wins in court.

Mr. Speaker, only in these cases and only when an employer is very small does H.R. 2731 suggest that OSHA use some degree of discretion before instituting litigation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my opinion is it is shameful that there would be anyone in here who would not want to support working families who happen to be small business owners, which are the majority of people in our districts, so they can have equal access to justice when the big arm of the Federal Government slams down on them.

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

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

As usual, when the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) takes the floor, he gives Members pause to think a moment. I have wondered if he is asking the right question, however. When this bill becomes law, it seems to me the question that OSHA should ask is not will we win the case, but are we right. Do we actually have a case where a citizen violated the law, and do we actually have substantial proof to take into court whether that citizen violated the law?

I would hope that when this bill becomes law that OSHA will take cases that they deem meritorious, cases in which they think and believe strongly that they are right. What we are after is having them think carefully about cases that do not have a lot of merit but it is just a good way to win.

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

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

I think it is probably important at this time to remind the Members that this debate and this bill is very narrowly tailored. It is H.R. 2731, the Occupational Safety and Health Small Employer Access to Justice Act.

It is just this simple: If you have working families in your district that are running small businesses, we are trying to give them an equal playing field, a level playing field with the Federal Government. If you have a district where there is no small business, then you do not have to worry about this. It will not matter how you vote. But I ask all of my colleagues to level the playing field so little people have a little chance against the Federal Government and OSHA when they come down with all their battery of lawyers.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 3722, and I would note if safety and security is the main concern of our country, then perhaps we ought to start at the borders and enforce the laws that we have on the books. Were we doing that, this legislation would not be needed.

Between 1990 and 2000, the number of illegal aliens in Georgia rose 300 percent. That was from 33,000 to 226,000 according to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Nationwide, the estimates of how many illegal aliens live in our country range from 8 to 11 million, it sort of depends on who one talks to. Those that do work do not have health insurance, and technically the law forbids them access to Medicaid.

However, document fraud led many to question how many illegal aliens are fraudulently obtaining Medicaid today where we have a problem for our own citizens in every State having enough money to take care of Americans.

Last month, the Atlanta Business Chronicle reported that Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta is on the verge of closing its doors. Grady treats more illegal aliens than any other hospital in the State of Georgia. It only gets 7 percent of its revenues from patients with private insurance.

In 2002, the State of Georgia paid $58 million in emergency Medicaid reimbursements to hospitals that treated more than 15,200 illegal aliens, according to the Georgia Department of Community Health. About 75 percent of the funds went to pregnant women delivering babies. The total was a 33 percent increase from 2001 when the State paid $43.4 million for the care of 12,000 people.

Mr. Speaker, I will have to say, if we do not pass this bill, it is absolutely going to break our hospitals. We do have a billion dollars that was put into the Medicare bill for reimbursement to our hospitals for illegal alien care. That means, to obtain those dollars, and all hospitals, particularly rural, desperately need those dollars, hospitals have to ask the question: Are you or are you not a citizen? It is that simple.

I do not happen to think that we have a pot full of money that is so big that everybody can get everything that they want. We do not. I see it in Medicaid today for U.S. citizens. There is not enough money in there now. We have to be particular about how we spend that money. And first and foremost, it must be spent on the American citizen, not someone who started out the day breaking Federal law.

Mr. Speaker, we ought to be talking about that more than anything else. This Congress is responsible for that. We passed a law saying that people cannot sneak across our borders. If Members do not believe that ought to be the law, if they think that is not important, then stand up and repeal that and we will look at this whole scenario, including health care, in a different vein.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in order to voice my strong and unwavering support for the conference report on H.R. 3018, the Pension Funding Equity Act, and also to express my sincere appreciation for the hard work and dedication of Chairman Boehner in bringing this important legislation to the floor this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, protecting and strengthening the retirement security of American workers is a top priority for my Republican colleagues and I. Indeed, since coming to Congress in 1995 I have sought a solution to the pension-funding shortfall that will soon face countless American workers.

The Pension Funding Equity Act Conference Report before the floor today is critical to protecting the pension benefits of millions of workers and their families. I strongly believe it will provide an effective and temporary replacement to the current 30-year Treasury interest rate, while at the same time allowing Congress the opportunity to craft a long-term solution to this issue in the weeks and months to come.

I was pleased to support the Pension Funding Equity Act of 2003 upon its original introduction and passage in the House of Representatives last year, and look forward to working alongside my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to develop permanent solutions to this issue that effects millions of American workers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Arnold Palmer for his service to our Nation, the game of golf and the Masters Tournament. In the world of sports there are few events that epitomize the beauty and grace of sport more than the Masters Tournament in Augusta, GA. And there are no other individuals who have done more for the game of golf and the Masters Tournament than Arnold Palmer.

Quite frankly, Arnold Palmer has forever changed the complexion of sport and golf. Golf was considered to be the sport of the privileged few until 1955 when Arnold Palmer won his first PGA tournament. But, Arnold Palmer showed the world that golf truly is a sport for the masses. Today, golf is played and enjoyed by millions of people.

Not only did Arnold Palmer inspire millions to play the game of golf, he also excelled at it. He has gone on to amass a record that would be the envy of any man alive. Arnold's victory total stands at 92 World Wide, 61 PGA Tour, and 10 Senior PGA Tour events. He was the first to ever win four Masters titles. He did this in 1958, 1960, 1962, and 1964. This April 8, 2004, Arnold Palmer will tee the ball up in his 50th Masters Tournament.

But Arnold Palmer's achievements and contributions to the game remain greater than his victory total. Arnold Palmer's magnetic personality and unwavering kindness have created a legion of loyal followers. He has never failed to acknowledge his ``army'' while waiting on the tee, fairway, or green. Be it an autograph, smile, nod, or eye-to-eye contact, he never fails to make the effort to let everyone know: I am here because of you.

Arnold Palmer has also given a great deal back to the community. Arnold helped create The Arnold Palmer Hospital for Children & Women in Orlando, FL, and the Latrobe Area Hospital Charitable Foundation. Even today, he often visits the hospital where he takes the time to talk with the children, take pictures and encourage them.

As Arnold Palmer once said to ``Iron Man,'' his Augusta caddie, ``the game is on.'' Mr. Speaker, let's hope it will forever be. I rise today to thank Mr. Palmer on behalf of all American citizens, the residents of Augusta and fans of golf worldwide. He has meant a great deal to more people than he will ever know.

Mr. Chairman, first, I thank the chairman for the time and commend him on the job that he has done on the budget process. It is very difficult to please 435 people and nobody is ever happy in the end. It was not exactly like they thought it would be. So I think the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) has done yeoman's work on this.

Mr. Chairman, I rise on the floor today to strongly urge my colleagues to consider the path of fiscal responsibility and debt reduction at this critical juncture for our Nation. I rise to offer my support for the fiscal year 2005 budget resolution to get this Congress and our Nation on the right path.

Mr. Chairman, we are all too painfully aware of the tragic events of September 11, 2001, and our Nation's and the free world's war on terrorism that has ensued. It has been a war that the American people did not ask for. It has been a challenge to the people of this country, the greatest and most free nation on Earth. But the costs, Mr. Chairman, the costs have been great in virtually every single way.

On the fiscal side of the ledger, the cost that this Nation has incurred could never have been foreseen. This body has agreed and enacted, rightfully so in my opinion, to pay that price and fight this war.

But, Mr. Chairman, the time to address the growing debt is also at hand,

and this resolution, the fiscal year 2005 budget resolution, gets us on that path of fiscal responsibility and beginning to pay down our debt without compromising our effort in the war on terrorism or any other of our Nation's critical priorities, without raising the taxes of hardworking Americans.

The numbers tell the story. Under this budget, the deficit falls to $377 billion in the 2005 fiscal year and it is cut in half in 4 years.

Mr. Chairman, the hardworking folks I represent in northeast Georgia have to make a tough decision around their kitchen tables every day to live within their fiscal means. It is time this Congress followed the lead of Georgians and all Americans, hardworking taxpayers, in getting our financial house in order. But, Mr. Chairman, it is absolutely not time and it never will be time to saddle those same taxpayers in Georgia and all over this great Nation with higher Federal taxes in the name of government-knows-best budgeting.

Mr. Chairman, as the folks in Georgia also know, we can slap some lipstick on a hog and dress it up, but at the end of the day it is still a hog. And any budget proposal that sticks it to the working man through higher taxes, funds government pet projects, and pretends to be something that it is not, well, that certainly smells a little bit like a hog to me.

I urge my colleagues to do the right thing, get this Congress and America on the path of fiscal responsibility. Reject the notion that raising taxes is the answer to everything and vote in favor of this budget resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.

After listening to some of this debate, and I am sure it will get worse during the day as we deal with this politically, from a policy point of view, I would just like to take a minute and review what really we are talking about here. We are talking about a resolution that I cannot imagine any American, frankly, could not support. I mean we are simply saying that we affirm that the United States has made the world safer by the removal of Saddam Hussein. Well, I believe that pretty strongly.

We are commending the Iraqi people for their courage and going through all they have gone through. We are commending the Iraqi people because they actually have an interim Constitution and a Bill of Rights. That ought to have been on the front page of some paper somewhere. And we are commending our troops. What is there to be against, against that? All of it is true.

Do we want something else added to it? Well, I do too. And my colleagues will vote no because they did not get it exactly like they wanted it. I would like for this resolution to have commended the Commander in Chief of the United States. I would like for us to say to President Bush, thank God we have a man who has come along with enough backbone to stand up to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction around the world and is willing to stand up to the terrorists. Thank goodness we do that.

My colleagues spend all of their time talking about weapons of mass destruction. What this President has said to us about weapons of mass destruction is precisely what the previous administration said to us also. The difference is, we have a 9/11. And the difference is, we had a President that was willing and ready to act as we should have acted.

Just think about it a minute. We knew he had weapons of mass destruction. We knew he had the ability to make weapons of mass destruction, did we not? We knew he used weapons of mass destruction. When I voted yes for the President, I thought he had weapons of mass destruction, but I was not by myself. Israeli Intelligence thought so; British Intelligence, German Intelligence, French Intelligence, the U.N., even Saddam Hussein thought he had weapons of mass destruction. Get off of that.

We are doing the right thing to protect this world, and we are doing the right thing to protect our security here at home.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage my colleagues in the House to do the right thing--to stand up in defense of expectant mothers and their unborn children against violent criminals--and support the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

In the day leading up to this debate, ultimately to the vote on this very important bill, I have to admit--I've struggled.

However, it's not the troubling facts or my position that I've struggled with Mr. Speaker--instead, I've struggled to find one good reason (any good reason) why this Congress and this Federal Government would continue to tell expectant mothers (mothers who have chosen childbirth and have every intention of seeing it through) that we can protect you against violent crime--but when it comes to your child . . . all we can say is, ``sorry, we can't help you.''

Mr. Speaker, as folks back in my home state of Georgia say, ``that's as wrong as the day is long'' . . . It's high time we did something about this and passed this legislation.

Yet, despite the facts and the very strong support of the American people for this bill, we continue to hear from a band of critics on the other side of the aisle insisting that this debate is really somehow about abortion . . . that even though this bill says absolutely nothing about any abortion law anywhere in our nation--that's really what this bill is all about.

Well, the reaction of this country dentist from Georgia to that kind of nonsense is pretty simple: hogwash! This bill is about one thing and one thing only--letting America's expectant mothers know that the child they have chosen to give birth to is protected by this Federal Government against the dastardly acts of violent criminals.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not struggling anymore. The answer is clear: there is no good reason that our government should allow this tragic double- standard to continue.

Again, I urge my colleagues in this body to do the right thing and vote in favor of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in support of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. It is imperative to ensure those ``most vulnerable'' in our society are, in fact, protected from criminal assailants, and that we impose a penalty when acts of violence against these unborn victims fall under Federal criminal law. Some claim this measure will infringe on a woman's right to choose. But currently, 29 States have statutes that criminalize the killing of a fetus or ``unborn child'', and none of these laws have affected States' practice of legal abortion. Criminal defendants have brought many legal challenges to the state unborn victims laws, based on Roe v. Wade and other constitutional arguments, but all such challenges have been rejected by State and Federal courts. We cannot turn our backs on mothers, fathers, and grandparents across our Nation who lose unborn babies due to heinous acts of violence every year. This will serve as an additional deterrent to crimes against pregnant women. I commend the sponsors and leadership for bringing this to the floor and I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank and commend the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for what I think is excellent work in the House and in the conference. This is landmark legislation. I think it absolutely defines the word comprehensive.

It is going to decrease dependence on foreign oil. It enhances the electricity grid ensuring reliability and protecting native load. It is a boon for our consumers. After dozens, upon dozens, upon dozens of hearings over the last 3 years, and a few empty trips to the red zone, we are now on the goal line today.

Vote yes to score a victory, ladies and gentlemen, for the American consumers.

Mr. Speaker, with the balance of my time I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).

I have a couple of questions regarding the native load provision of section 1236 that I was hoping that the distinguished chairman might be able to answer.

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the provision requires FERC to allow utilities with service obligations to reserve sufficient transmission capacity to serve the power supply needs of existing native load customers as well as the future growth needs of those customers and that the commission regulations must conform to this intent. Is that correct, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, how about section 217(c), does that allow FERC to compel load-serving entities to give up any transmission rights that are not covered by section 217(a)?

And lastly, Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the gentleman about the section 1242, the participant funding. Would this provision allow a transmission provider to charge all of his transmission customers, including the party requesting an upgrade, the same embedded cost transmission charges?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that clarification. Once again, let me not just thank the chairman, but the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the hard work of all our staffs. This is fine work. I encourage everybody to vote for this rule and the final bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and congratulate him for bringing this bill to the floor, and especially to my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), who has labored long in the vineyards to try to get the bill before us so we could debate it.

Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor of the Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act, I rise in strong, strong support of this legislation. I could take this time perhaps to tell my colleagues about all the merits of the legislation, but the Chairman basically has done that and the author of the bill. I could also list for my colleagues a long list of groups supporting this bill, but that will be in the Record, too.

I would like to tell my colleagues just about the manufacturers in the State of Georgia alone that could benefit from this legislation. Manufacturers and workers have been hit hard in tough times in our economy and because of some of our trade policies. Yes, that is another fight for another day, but H.R. 1829 could help now.

Would my colleagues believe that there are 625 companies with over 30,000 employees in Georgia alone who need this bill? There are 80 of these companies in my district alone. One of these is Habersham Metal Products in Cornelia, Georgia. Ironically enough, they make prison cell doors.

In August, I toured this plant; and a few weeks ago, we were lucky enough to have Ms. Angie McClure, who is a vice president, testify before the Committee on Small Business in strong support of this bill. She told us how Habersham Metal worked on a design build project for several months in Pollock, Louisiana. This project would have meant work for the employees of Habersham Metal Products for 3 months. However, when the specification and request for pricing hit the streets, the FPI had taken all the prime doors and frames and left them with very little to do. This reduced the possibility of Habersham Metal employees working for 3 months down to 3 weeks.

This is not an isolated incident. It has happened in this company alone many other times. But beyond the money and the employment concerns, where in the world is the logic for allowing inmates to build their own prison doors? It makes no sense.

I have heard on this floor people say, well, if we leave everything just like it is, it does not affect the taxpayer. Well, I will tell my colleagues, ask the taxpayer who does not have a job and is not paying taxes anymore if it affects them because the government factory has a monopoly. I have heard people on this floor saying that, well, prisoners will not be trained, prisoners should not work. There is not a Member here who does not believe they should not be worked and should not be trained, and there is not a word in this bill that says they cannot work. In fact, there are provisions in this bill to improve training for the inmates. It is not work that we are after. It is what the work is that they do.

I ask all of my colleagues, please support this bill. This is legislation that is way overdue.

Mr. Chairman, tonight I will cast a vote in support of the Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 2004--to provide $87 billion in supplemental funding for military operations (making up roughly $66 billion) and reconstruction efforts (accounting for an approximate $21 billion) in Iraq.

I believe giving our troops in the field the financial support they need to finish the job in Iraq and providing this critically strategic nation with the resources needed to rebuild its infrastructure and establish a free government is the absolute right thing to do.

However, Mr. Chairman, while I will ultimately support this legislation, I do not believe providing the approximately $21 billion for Iraq to complete its reconstruction efforts should be carried out completely by way of a grant--as the legislation states. Instead, I believe 50 percent of this funding should be made through a grant and the other 50 percent through a loan to Iraq. This, I believe, would still accomplish the same goal, and also help ensure that Iraq will remain a financial stake-holder in helping bear the costs for its reconstruction.

Sadly, Mr. Chairman, it's true that Saddam Hussein has already left Iraq with $200 billion

in debt. And I agree with those who have pointed out that saddling Iraq's infant government with more debt so soon in the reconstruction process could put their young government in serious peril and endanger the work that has been done to free the Iraqi people, create an important ally in an unstable region of the world, and fend off terrorist thugs before they have an opportunity to ``set up shop'' on this fertile ground.

Yet Mr. Chairman, I believe this can be adequately addressed by following the recommendations contained in the Pence Amendment that was offered earlier tonight. In short, by providing the first 50 percent of this funding through a grant to be made available immediately--the more critical needs in these reconstruction efforts can be met. Then, once a democratically elected government is in place and has been given time to take root, the additional 50 percent in funding could be made available through a loan.

Additionally, I believe that if France, Germany, Russia, and other creditors to Iraq would forgive that nation's debt owed to them, then our President should have the ability to then convert the 50 percent in funding represented by a loan into a grant.

Unfortunately Mr. Chairman, the Pence Amendment was ruled ``out of order'' and not offered as an alternative on the floor for a vote. If it had been, I would have supported it and continue to believe its premise presents the best solution to accomplishing our goals in Iraq, bringing our troops home as soon as possible, and doing both in a more financially responsible manner.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the motion to instruct conferees which would prevent the Department of Labor from implementing regulations to update complex and outdated, the key word is outdated, wage and hour regulations and provide additional overtime protections to millions of this country's workers.

Numerous hearings have been held in my Subcommittee on Workforce Protections of the Committee on Education and the Workforce in the last several Congresses, and they have demonstrated the need for the current regulations to be updated after 1938 to meet the needs of today's American workforce.

The Department's proposed regulations, Mr. Speaker, will guarantee overtime pay to 1.3 million workers who do not presently get overtime now. Now, remember, 1.3 workers are going to get an increase in the amount of money in their pocket. It has been of interest to me as I watched on national television some of the leaders of the opposition of this say, oh, just a few people are going to get overtime pay. Oh, just a handful. Well, it is not a handful if you are part of that 1.3 million.

This also will ensure that 10.7 million workers who are eligible for overtime continue to get it. A vote to accept the Harkin amendment is a vote against giving overtime to those 1.3 Americans and a vote to truly threaten overtime pay for the 10.7 million working families.

I think it is imperative we take a minute and try to get the record straight as to what the proposed regulations do not do, because Big Labor and their friends in the Democratic Party have been playing fast and loose with the facts. These regulations do not take overtime away from 8 million people. In fact, those 8 million people do not make overtime now. They are made sure that they do not make overtime, but they could make more

money, which is what they are interested in, because they work on their production and their production could yield a lot more money if they could work the hours they choose to work.

These are numbers which have been spread around not by economists but by lobbyists in a Democratic labor think tank. They simply do not add up. Check these numbers. They are plain and simple an untruth, the numbers that have been thrown around.

These regulations would not strip overtime pay from policemen, firefighters, nurses, and other first responders. Listen, these regulations would not strip overtime pay from policemen, firefighters, nurses, and other first responders. Whoever says that is not telling the truth. Workers in these jobs who get overtime pay today will continue to do so, and more of them will get overtime pay under these new rules.

These regulations do not affect a single union member who gets overtime under his or her collective bargaining agreement. These regulations do not affect a single union member. For workers whose rights to overtime pay is in their labor contract, these regulations simply have no effect.

Finally, these regulations are not a take-back by employers. This is not an effort to trim the payroll by denying workers overtime. In fact, the Department of Labor estimates that under the proposed regulations, businesses will pay almost $900 million more in overtime in next year alone. What employers support a rule that would cause them to pay more in overtime pay? Because, my colleagues, they know that the current system just does not work; and it does not fit the 21st century. It is outdated, it is complex, and it is broken. Employers cannot know who they have to pay overtime, and employees cannot know if they are entitled to overtime, and the Department of Labor cannot effectively and efficiently enforce the law. My colleagues want to keep that?

Who does support a Harkin amendment? Trial lawyers, for one, who have made a killing on gotcha class action litigation, filing lawsuits to try to get overtime pay for corporate executives and rocket scientists; and Big Labor supports the Harkin amendment, not because it has any effect on union members who are already protected under their contracts, but because labor has turned this into a scare tactic and an organizing tool to raise money and to collect more union dues. It is just that simple.

The Harkin amendment would only add to existing confusion, making matters worse for both employees and employers. It would result in fewer hardworking Americans getting overtime. It would result in fewer hardworking Americans getting overtime, and it is nothing more than a big tool of labor and the trial lawyers. That is why the President has vowed to veto the bill if the Harkin amendment, which would result in fewer workers receiving overtime, is included in this bill.

I urge my colleagues to reject this distortion, this misinformation, these outright untruths that have been spread and, I might add, spread very effectively about these regulations and all of us stand up and vote against this motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the floor of the House today to share, sadly, yet another tragic story of another instance where senseless criminal acts, acts that could have been prevented and should have never happened, were allowed to take place because of our badly broken immigration system.

Mr. Speaker, for the last year, South Florida has been terrorized by a serial rapist. Beginning in September of last year, seven females in the Miami area, ranging between the ages of 11 and 79, have been victimized by a vicious, brutal criminal. Needless to say, the year- long attacks have left most women who live in the Miami area fearing for their safety and on guard for these past 12 months.

Thankfully, the local law enforcement authorities in the area believe they now have their man. Earlier this month, Miami police arrested Reynaldo Rapalo. A citizen of Honduras, he is accused of raping the seven women I mentioned earlier, and trying to attack and rape four others during that same time.

The Miami police indicate that they have Mr. Rapalo's fingerprints, his DNA that links him to these dastardly crimes, and finally his confession. Tragically, Mr. Speaker, they also had Mr. Rapalo himself back in October of last year, before six of the rapes had been allowed to occur. He was arrested on molestation charges, and at the time Mr. Rapalo's C-1 visa had expired. He was living here then illegally.

Mr. Speaker, had the CLEAR Act been on the books last October, Reynaldo Rapalo would have been detained and deportation proceedings would have begun and, more importantly, the women who were subsequently brutally attacked would have never fallen victim.

The sad fact is cases like this one are far too common, and our government has turned a blind eye to the criminal alien crisis in America for far too long.

Today within our borders, there are 400,000 illegal aliens with standing deportation orders that we cannot find. Among these are 80,000 criminal aliens like Mr. Rapalo, murderers, rapists, pedophiles and the like. These individuals were in the hands of law enforcement at one time but turned loose because of an immigration system that is unresponsive, unaccountable, and just plain broken.

Mr. Speaker, while our men and women wearing the badge continue to arrest and rearrest the same criminal aliens that our failed immigration system continues to put back on the streets, our Federal Government sends just 2,000 Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, BICE, in

the field to enforce these immigration laws, telling those officers, the victims of crimes like those witnessed in south Florida over the last year, and the 80,000 criminal aliens this government cannot find, one simple thing: we are simply not serious about this crisis. This Congress is not serious about this crisis.

Earlier this summer, along with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd) and the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal), I introduced a bipartisan bill that would get serious about our Nation's growing criminal alien crisis. The bill, entitled the CLEAR Act, is a measure that would make clear that our Nation's 600,000 local and State law enforcement officers have the authority to enforce our Nation's immigration laws, and we would give them the training, access to data, and the resources that they need to get the job done. Finally, it would give some much-needed help to the 2,000 out-manned Federal agents we have enforcing immigration law today.

Mr. Speaker, today's broken and failed immigration system is simply unworkable and for this government and this Congress to stay on the sidelines and let 80,000 criminal aliens create more horror stories like those perpetuated by Mr. Rapalo is simply unacceptable behavior. I urge my colleague to get off the sidelines and support the CLEAR Act, get involved in this game, and let us get serious about America's criminal alien crisis.