Floor Statements

I thank my friend for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that we have been working hard to get passed for some time now. I would like to begin by really thanking all the people who have helped us get this bill to the floor. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) and his staff have just done amazing work. A few years ago, I had a bill like this and the gentleman from Kentucky had a bill like this and it shows that we can work together. We merged our bill and came out with a good product today. I do appreciate the efforts of our Democratic cosponsors, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland). I would like to also thank Chairman Barton and Chairman Deal and Ranking Members Dingell and Brown for recognizing the importance of this issue and helping us move forward.

Mr. Speaker, prescription drug abuse in this country is a serious problem. I know it. I have seen it. It is a subject with which I have some experience. I experienced it in Vietnam treating wounded soldiers. I experienced it in my dental practice. Some say there is no such thing as doctor-shopping. That is pure nonsense. I have seen it many times in my own life. I have experienced it personally after a car wreck. I feel strongly that we do not do a good enough job in this country to alleviate pain, and morally and ethically we should. But if we do not deal with this misuse of prescription drugs, we are going to have less pain relief than more.

I also know that the drugs that relieve the most severe pain can always, almost always, be the most dangerous. They can create a dependency. They can be diverted by the abusers. We have a responsibility to find ways to fight drug abuse without in any way dampening the ability of doctors to treat their patients in severe pain.

In fact, the abuse and diversion of prescription drugs is a growing public health issue for this Nation, and we need to recognize it and understand it.

From major cities to the smallest rural towns, we have had to deal with the consequences of prescription drug abuse. Prescription drugs now rank second only to marijuana in abuse. Think about that. Over 31 million American adults and adolescents have at one time abused pain relievers. Prescription medications are emerging as the drugs of choice for abuse by America's teenagers. According to a national study released earlier this year, approximately one in five teenagers, that is over 4 million of our sons and daughters, have abused prescription painkillers. Surveys also show that they abuse them because they can, because access is just simply too easy. Mr. Speaker, those numbers are appalling. But there are human faces behind each headline and report of abuse. Their families and their communities suffer along with those who become addicted.

Those who help divert drugs allow these medications to get into the hands of our children as well as adults who have no medical needs. Most physicians have recognized the tremendous benefit State programs in place today are already having, and they have lined up behind our legislation because we could cross State lines.

In an effort to address the problem of prescription drug abuse, 21 States have implemented prescription drug monitoring programs. They are in place today. But in our case, if we have one in Georgia, right across the river in South Carolina we cannot deal with it. In a prescription drug monitoring program, pharmacists are required to provide a standard set of information to a State database when dispensing a controlled substance. The administrator of the State database can then alert appropriate authorities if data indicates abuse or diversion.

A doctor or a pharmacist can check that database to see if a patient could be abusing a prescription drug. Think about it. There are other great consequences from that. The confidentiality of, and access to, the information is protected to the best of our ability, and we think it has been done very well. We have worked very hard on that to try to get privacy rights. H.R. 1132 is a bill that would allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services to fund more of these State-monitoring programs. In exchange for Federal funding, the States agree to set up these programs if they do not have them or, if they do have them, improve the ones they already have.

But there must be some basic Federal standards. Border States must also be able to communicate. This closes a serious loophole in States' current efforts to fight drug abuse. If an abuser can simply cross a State line to avoid detection, the monitoring system cannot work; or if an abuser is doctor-shopping, as I have seen happen, it is very hard to catch him. Through this bill we are encouraging all the States to get on board with a system that works while respecting States' rights and people's privacy.

I ask and encourage all of our colleagues to join us in supporting this very important bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Specialist James O. Kinlow who died while serving our country in the war in Iraq.

Specialist Kinlow's family resides in Thomson, Georgia and his family resides in Lincolnton, Georgia. This brave soldier was assigned to A company, 2nd Battalion, 121st infantry regiment, Army National Guard, Valdosta, Georgia.

His life was taken by an improvised explosive device that detonated near his vehicle on July 24, 2005.

Our heartfelt condolences and prayers go out to Mr. Kinlow's family and friends. His service and commitment to freedom will never be forgotten.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that probably I do not want to associate myself with either of the opening remarks. This is not political to me. Mr. Speaker, we can sit here all day and argue about what the thousands of pages of CAFTA really mean.

But the meaning of nearly every provision is debatable. That is the problem with this agreement. If it becomes law, the administration, the American courts, even the United States Constitution will have no effect on the final interpretation of this agreement. That will be left to the CAFTA tribunal, two Central American judges, always pitted against one judge from the United States.

Our Bill of Rights will not apply to these courts, neither will any sunshine laws, and there will never be a right of appeal. That is a direct insult to the sovereignty of the United States. CAFTA should not be approved on this point alone.

But let us go on and look at what is at stake in some of these debates, very briefly. CAFTA undermines the ability of the State medical and dental boards and health planning agencies to set public health standards for licensing of

professions and institutions. I am sure someone will disagree with me about that, and we will decide it in a tribunal.

CAFTA overturns all of our ``buy American'' laws that encourage local jobs and suppliers. CAFTA could legally force States and local governments to outsource jobs, not just to Central American countries, but to India and to Pakistan and to Malaysia, or to any country that wants to set up phone banks.

CAFTA gives foreign business greater legal rights in America than our own businesses. CAFTA could overturn our immigration laws, could overturn our immigration laws by allowing CAFTA tribunals to decide whether those laws fairly or unfairly restrict another country's ability to export cheap contract labor into America.

CAFTA countries today can ship chicken to my State of Georgia duty free, while charging up to 160 percent for the chicken my farmers try to ship in return. That is not fair trade.

Instead of fixing this now, we try to solve it by allowing CAFTA to drag out this fair trade policy for over 18 years, during which my chicken farmers will continue to face unfair trade competition. Eighteen years just to get even.

CAFTA takes away the few current protections available to the American textile workers. There are gaping loopholes in every so-called protection for the American workers and farmers. Mr. Speaker, I just used the words ``could'' and ``can'' a lot in my comments.

The other side will argue, well, it is not certain if CAFTA will do all of this; it will be left up to three judges.

I urge us to reconsider this and get a really good fair trade, not just fair, but free, trade agreement with Central America.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that H.R. 525 is supposed to decrease the cost of health insurance for small businesses that cannot afford it today. Well, I support that. That is a good goal. All of us support that. Yet, unfortunately, I believe that in this bill that

has been undermined a little bit, and my logic is fairly simple.

As I read it, in section 805 of the bill, it allows an AHP to preempt State-level patient protection laws that prevent cherry-picking against small businesses with sick employees. Now, that troubles me a great deal. Look at the bill. Line 8 through 14 gives us the right, and line 21 through 22 takes it away. Sure, everybody can buy an AHP. It is just if you have anybody sick, you are in serious trouble, because the premium is going to be so high you cannot afford it.

After all, H.R. 525 is supposed to allow small businesses to come together to form large pools and purchase affordable health care through an association. That is a good idea. This makes sense, since large employers use this concept under ERISA to provide employees good rates, regardless of preexisting conditions. But in my opinion we, somewhere along the way, allowed this very good idea to be corrupted by a very bad provision, a sort of fly in the buttermilk of health care reform, in the form of section 805.

Mr. Speaker, 49 out of 50 States have instituted at least some patient protections that prevent insurers from using health status to discriminate against patients. Yet in plain English it appears to me that section 805 allows an AHP to preempt those rating laws. This simply makes no sense.

This is the bottom line: A small business owner in remission from cancer likely cannot get health insurance for himself, his family, or his employees if he lives in a State that allows for rating based on health status. Will that small business owner be able to afford high- quality health insurance from an AHP if H.R. 525 becomes law? Based on the language as I understand it, as I believe it to be true, he will not be able to get that insurance. Now, I believe that if H.R. 525 becomes law, it may even be much harder for that employer to get insurance. Why is that? Because all other employers with healthy employees will be in the AHPs.

I do not believe that is the intention of this bill. I hope I am wrong. I am going to vote for this bill. I am going to vote for it to move it forward, and I dearly hope I am wrong, and I hope that my chairman is right. But if time proves my position correct, I want these comments on the record so we will know exactly where to go to fix this when the milk turns sour.

Mr. Speaker, the protection we have enjoyed here at home since we took the fight to the enemy has been purchased with the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform. The very least we can do in return is to show them honor and respect when they come home.

According to the Greensboro Herald-Journal, middle school teacher Michael Lund of Anita White Carson Middle School in Greensboro, Georgia had that intention when he invited his old college roommate, Marine Sgt Zach Richardson to speak to his middle school students about his experiences in Iraq.

The children in Mr. Lund's class had been pen pals with Sergeant Richardson and several of his fellow Marines in Iraq, so everyone was excited about finally getting to meet in person.

Imagine the surprise when he and Mr. Lund were intercepted outside the classroom by School Principal Ulrica Corbett. She demanded Mr. Lund escort Sergeant Richardson off school grounds immediately.

Principal Corbett later told the media that Mr. Lund did not have approval for a guest speaker to come on campus.

Mr. Lund produced documentation to prove that he had indeed filed the necessary paperwork well in advance, and that Principal Corbett refused to act on it.

Regardless of the reason, this treatment of one of our heroes returning from Iraq is unacceptable and inexcusable.

Under no circumstances should Sergeant Richardson have been denied the opportunity to speak to the students with whom he had been corresponding.

But just as damaging as the disrespect shown to Sergeant Richardson was the impact of this disrespect on the 6th grade students who were waiting to welcome this veteran.

They witnessed their Principal kick a Marine just back from the front off school property, giving our children a real-life lesson in disrespecting our military.

We have a lesson to teach at Anna White Carson Middle School--and across this country. That lesson should be that disrespect for America's service men and women by public officials will simply not be tolerated by the people of this country.

But before we scream too loudly about the speck in the eye of Greene County public schools, we need to take a look at the log in the eye of this Congress.

Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois stood on the floor of our Senate and compared our military prisons to those of Nazi Germany.

Members of this Congress have whined about whether a book was mistreated at Guantanamo, while the comrades of those Guantanamo prisoners cut the heads off innocent, unarmed, civilian prisoners in their custody.

Any reasonable person can see that comments such as these plant seeds of disdain against America, here and abroad.

Are these comments and actions against our military forces now actually encouraging new attacks by our enemies in London and Baghdad?

Madam Speaker, we cannot win this war if we continue to allow a handful of public officials to undermine our efforts with irresponsible comments and actions without paying a price--here and all across our country.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the lifelong dedication to our Nation's service of one of my constituents, Major General Janet E.A. Hicks of Augusta, Georgia.

This week, Major General Hicks retires after 30 years of service in the U.S. Army Signal Corps. She ends her Army career as Commander of the Army Signal Center and Fort Gordon, in which position she has served since 2002.

General Hicks graduated from Simpson College in Iowa, and received her Masters Degree from Georgia Southern University in Statesboro. She was granted a direct commission in the Army in March 1975, and attended the Women Officers' Orientation Course at Fort McClellan, Alabama.

Her first assignment was to the 41st Signal Battalion in Korea. She was subsequently assigned to the 25th Infantry Division at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, where she taught the Signal Officer Basic and Advanced Courses. She next served at Fort Richardson, Alaska as logistics officer, followed by an assignment with Central Command MacDill Air Force Base, Florida.

She was promoted to command the 125th Signal Battalion, 25th Infantry Division in 1992. After attending the Army War College, she assumed command of the 516th Signal Brigade with concurrent duties as deputy chief of staff for information management of the U.S. Army, Pacific at Fort Shafter, Hawaii.

She assumed command of Fort Gordon in 2002.

Major General Hicks has been awarded the Legion of Merit, Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Joint Service Commendation Medal, Meritorious Service Medal with three oak leaf clusters, Army Commendation Medal with two oak leaf clusters, and the Humanitarian Service award.

Mr. Speaker, after 30 years of distinguished service to her Nation, Janet Hicks would be perfectly justified in taking some time off to serve herself for a change.

But I am pleased to note that her service to others will instead continue uninterrupted, as she assumes new duties as Headmaster of Augusta Preparatory School.

Mr. Speaker, as representative of the people of Georgia's 9th Congressional District, I thank Major General Janet Hicks for her decades of service to her Nation in uniform, and for her future service to our community and its young people.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but add or repeat so our Members know, the amendments that were not accepted from the Democrats had nothing to do with these bills. They were simply not germane, and I know that upsets them, but those are the rules of House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule which provides the House an opportunity today to address four very important bills. These measures in my view are very modest reforms. They have been narrowly drafted to make needed changes in our law, actually for about 34 years, while avoiding the possibility of any reduction in the current levels of workplace protections.

Now, I believe that our committee, at least most of our committee, believes that. As such, a structured rule providing for consideration of these four

measures on their merits in my view is entirely appropriate.

As I will detail later in the debate on these bills, we need to implement these changes because small employers ought to be devoting more of their time and attention to creating new jobs and less on dealing with government lawyers intent on manipulating legal technicalities. And that, in fact, is going on. With that, I will briefly summarize each of these bills for my colleagues.

The first measure for consideration under this rule is H.R. 739, the Occupational Safety and Health Small Business Day in Court. In almost every other court in this Nation, a party that acts in good faith but nonetheless misses a lead deadline that results in a legal default can ask the court to have the case heard on its merits. Currently, there is doubt over whether the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, the agency specifically and importantly created by Congress to hear each legal dispute between an employer and OSHA, has the statutory flexibility to grant this type of relief.

All H.R. 739 does is to provide flexibility that almost every other court in the Nation exercises. We use identical terminology to that used in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 60(b), a rule used by nearly every other court in the Nation.

The second bill provided for under the rule is H.R. 740, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission Efficiency Act of 2004. Under current law, two members of a three-member panel are needed to constitute a quorum. For 20 percent of its existence, this agency has lacked even a quorum of two. OSHRC has had a full complement of members seated and active for only about one-third of its history. That does not work. That does not work for anybody.

Even now, the commission can be paralyzed only with two members if there is not complete agreement as to all points. To remedy the situation, H.R. 740 proposes, increases the membership of OSHRC from three members to five. This change is modeled on other government agencies and, in particular, the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission.

H.R. 740 also incorporates a new provision that permits the President to invite an incumbent member of OSHRC whose term has expired to hold over until a replacement can be confirmed by the Senate.

Now, this just makes sense if you want OSHRC to work, and I do. There are some cases that have been over there for 8 years, for pity's sake.

Now, my friends on the other side may say, oh, all they are trying to do is to pack the commission because there is a Republican President. Well, these commissioners do not serve for life. You will have an opportunity sometime in the future maybe to put your own commissioner on there, but we need to get these things resolved. This will solve that.

The next measure to be considered under the rule is H.R. 741, the Occupational Safety and Health Independent Review of OSHA Citations Act of 2005. This one is important, in my view. H.R. 741 simply reinstates congressional intent, and we will say that over and over in the next 4 hours, because an activist judge changed the law of 1971.

The legislative history of the OSH Act clearly indicates that back in 1970 Congress realized that in granting extraordinary and unprecedented authority to OSHA, the agency would need some mechanism to make sure that the authority was not abused. If you study the history on this a little bit, Senator Javitz noted the future of the OSH Act depended on this compromise that created an independent review at the time it was passed, with a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate and a Republican President.

This bill never would have passed had not this review been put in there. H.R. 741 simply restores congressional intent by ensuring that this review is, in fact, an independent one and not dictated by OSHA.

The last measure considered under the rule is H.R. 742, the Occupational Safety and Health Small Employer Access to Justice Act. This measure simply levels the playing field for small employers by encouraging OSHA to better assess the merits of the case before bringing the full force and power of government litigation against small businesses.

To empower small business employers to seek their day in court, H.R. 742 simply provides that if OSH loses, very small employers can recover their attorneys' fees and costs. This remedial measure is important because it has become crystal clear that failings in current law prevent almost any recovery of attorneys' fees in the OSHA environment. I think there has been one and a half a year for the last 24 years.

Mr. Speaker, the rule under consideration provides for ample debate on each of these measures. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support both this rule and each of the bills we will consider under it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think we all want to make sure that the record is clear. Every court in this country allows for some leeway other than 15 days, and that is simply all this bill actually is doing. We are trying to give these small business owners the same right as litigants in every Federal court in the country. It is not very hard to figure out, and it is not very hard to understand why sometimes some people might lose the letter they get from OSHA. There are good reasons. And to say to them, Oh, gosh, you did not make 15 days? You do not get any justice. You do not get any day in court.

And I just want to put that in the record immediately following the previous speaker so if anybody ever reads it, they might get all the facts.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Madam Speaker, I cannot help but think that all has been said that needs to be said about all four of these bills during the rules debate; the problem is just not everybody has said it.

If we can perhaps confine our thinking and remarks to the bills before us, we could probably get through this pretty nicely. And those who want to talk about things that are not germane to these bills have a great opportunity to do so during special orders. Maybe for once we could simply talk about the four bills that we have.

We are starting out with H.R. 739, the Occupational Safety and Health Small Business Day in Court Act of 2005. At the outset, I would like to stress that this legislation in no way diminishes the worker safety protections of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. I believe that. I think most members of our committee believe that. It is not our intention and I do not believe it will be the outcome of any of these bills that we consider today, most especially the one we are discussing now, H.R. 739.

The Occupational Safety and Health Small Business Day in Court Act amends the OSH Act to resolve a conflict between section 10 of the act and the Federal rule of civil procedure 60(b). The bill is designed to make sure that an employer who fails to respond to an OSHA citation in a timely fashion is allowed to do so and have his or her day in court, and how reasonable of us to allow that, if the reason for missing the deadline was excusable neglect, a mistake or inadvertence. That is what rule 60(b) allows, and that is frankly all this bill does.

Until recently, if an employer filed a late notice of contest to an OSHA citation, OSHA had limited flexibility in accepting the notice because of a conflict in the law that was written 34 years ago. OSHA would not accept late notices of contest even if the employer could prove an excusable neglect. The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, however, would allow a late notice of contest to be filed under rule 60(b). This makes no sense.

On December 13, 2004, the Solicitor of Labor issued a memorandum to regional solicitors announcing a change in the Department's legal interpretation. This change will allow the Department's attorneys to excuse late notices of citation if it can be determined

that the lateness was due to an inadvertence or excusable neglect. The solicitor cites case law, OSHRC's longtime interpretation, and rule 60(b) as the reasons for this change. This is the right policy in my view, and I include for the Record the aforementioned memorandum.

Department of Labor,

Washington, DC, December 13, 2004.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the previous speaker. I know he is really busy today and had to go ``no'' on all four bills, but maybe I can refocus us just a little bit and explain that we are on one bill right now, and it is a very simple bill. It is H.R. 740, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission Efficiency Act of 2005. Maybe we can concentrate just on this bill now for this hour and understand that this is a badly-needed change in OSHA unless you do not believe OSHA ought to work, unless you do not believe that the OSHA Commission should be in place.

This legislation is especially timely. In April, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission's term expired, placing the Commission in the same position it has been in for almost two-thirds of its existence; now, listen to me: almost two-thirds of its existence for the last 34 years undermanned and unable to function properly. Well, why is that important? It is not. It is only important to someone who has a citation hanging over their business, hanging over their head, and you cannot get the review commission to operate. It is clearly, after 34 years: No, we understand it does not work. Half of the time they cannot do business.

H.R. 740, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission Efficiency Act, increases the size of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission from three members to five. My goodness. We really need to spend a lot of time debating this.

We are actually going to change this commission, like most commissions in the Federal Government, and change it to five members so it finally can do the job that the Congress in 1970 wrote into the law they wanted it to do. What an extreme bill this is.

The bill changes the quorum requirements from two members to three members, and allows the President to consider legal training, in addition to education and experience, as criteria in selecting an individual to serve on the board.

Finally, H.R. 740 allows a confirmed member of the commission to continue to serve for up to 365 days to prevent the breaks in service that occur when a Senate confirmation is not concluded in a timely manner. Does that mean every time somebody retires this commission goes out of business, because we cannot get the Senate to do its job? That does not matter to anybody except the small business who has a citation hanging over their head that the government will not deal with.

The committee heard testimony in the 108th Congress that because of the vacancies, the commission has been nonfunctioning for two-thirds of 30-plus years of its existence. Now, listen to that, for pity sakes. The commission that you are trying to protect has been nonfunctioning for two-thirds of the 30 years of its existence. Why in the world would you want to protect the present-day system?

Given that the creation of the commission was the catalyst for the passage of the OSH Act in 1970, there never would have been an OSHA had not this particular provision been in this review commission. And now you do not want it to work. We are trying to change that.

I believe it is important to prevent the commission from being stalled and unable to rule on cases when there is a gap in appointees. That does not serve employees or small employers well at all.

Let me make one final point. My colleagues on the other side have been very critical of the inclusion of legal training as a qualification for commissioners, criticism that I cannot understand.

Mr. Speaker, OSHRC is an adjudicative body. Legal training is therefore important because the commission writes opinions that will be reviewed by the courts if a finding is challenged. I would certainly think our Democratic lawyers would agree and understand that. But I would note that legal training is but one of three criteria the President could review before appointing a commissioner, that would mean a Democratic President or a Republican President.

Nothing in this bill suggests or requires that every member of the commission be a lawyer. The simple fact of the matter is this: when the commission is unable to rule on cases, resolution does not occur in a timely manner. That is unfair and that is wrong.

This is unfair to all parties and drastically undermined congressional intent from 1970. In the 108th Congress this bill passed the full House with bipartisan support by 228 to 199.

I urge passage again this year. And I will say, if you live in a district where there are no small businesses in that district, then I would vote ``no'' on this. But if I had any small businesses in my district, I would give it some serious consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I would just like to mention to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) that this bill is not about death. It is simply about making OSHA work, making the commission work. It is as simple as that.

If you want to be against making OSHA actually work, and the review commission doing the job that the Democratic Congress wrote in the bill in 1970, then vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), my good friend, and believe me he is, I want him to be well aware that I am not certainly trying to hire two lawyers. You can be certain of that.

But we do think some legalese is advisable on the commission. But being a lawyer is only one of three criteria. I know that you know that. The other part that I just want to mention to you is that when we changed this commission to have five members so it actually will work, if you have got a better idea how to make a commission work that is totally useless right now, with three members, of course I have always been open to hear that, but we think five may well do it; but it will take three members to form a quorum, not two.

That is for sure. I appreciate you bringing that up so I can clarify that.

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have left on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

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

I do wish my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), would get the AFL-CIO to send him talking points just on this bill. That is what we have this hour for, to discuss this one bill, where we actually are trying to make OSHA work.

Now, I will go over it again. This is about an agency called OSHA that has a review commission made up of three people. This review commission was written into the law in 1970, written into the law by a Democrat House and Senate that simply said OSHA did not get to be the judge and jury. They do have the right to set the standards. They can write the regulations and enforce the regulations, but they are not to be the final judge and jury. OSHRC is. The review commission is.

Now, what we find is the commission is not working. It does seem to me that some people do not want it to work. I am not sure I know why, but to stay with a bill that is 34 years old and just like it is, thinking it is perfect, when we absolutely know that it is not. For more than two-thirds of its existence, this commission has been paralyzed by frequent vacancies and often been unable to act. Two- thirds of the time in 34 years this commission has been unable to act. For more than half of its existence, it has had two or fewer members. For 20 percent of that time it lacked even a quorum of two.

Now, why does the AFL-CIO or the labor bosses not want this to change? I do not know, but you misread it if you say working families do not want this kind of change. Because most working families in this country are in small business. And tell you the truth, many labor union members also have small businesses with their wives and sometimes themselves as a second job.

You take it on yourself to tell us what the majority party wants. Well, this is simple what we want in this bill: We want a review commission at OSHA that works. It is just that simple. We do not want any more or any less. That is all this bill is about. We believe having five commissioners will help aid that process.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all our Members to just simply come to the floor and remember what this is about. This is a small tweak in a 34-year-old bill that is not working, and it does not help anybody. It does not help workers, and it does not help employers to not pass this little thing to help this agency work.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying that neither this bill nor the other three weaken OSHA. We designed these bills to help OSHA. Part of the problem is that this 34-year-old bill has been changed by activist judges, it has not been reviewed or looked at in 34 years in any sense, and these simply bring fairness back into the equation. As you can imagine, 34 years ago, we had an OSHA bill that was drawn up by a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate that was very fair, just a little tilted in one direction, and we are trying to undo that tilt just a little bit so finally, finally, maybe we can get OSHA to work with the small business community to benefit the workers.

The Occupational Safety and Health Independent Review of OSHA Citations Act restores congressional intent where the operation of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission is concerned. It just puts it back like it was 34 years ago. It got knocked out of whack with activist judges. When the Occupational Safety and Health Act was passed, the only reason it passed was a last-minute compromise to create an independent review commission. If you do not believe me, you do not have to. Go read the testimony. It is exactly what happened in the seventies.

It is clear in the legislative language of the OSH Act that Congress empowered the commission to interpret ambiguities under the act. This, however, has been undermined by legal interpretations that did not consider congressional action at the time. I would think all of us would want them to consider what we in Congress did.

Mr. Speaker, the OSH Act empowers OSHA to inspect and propose citations for violations of safety and health standards. The commission's responsibility is to review contested citations and render judgment. OSHA's responsibility is to make up the rules and enforce the rules. But they should not sit in judgment of their own rules. That can never be fair to anybody. The Congress in 1970 understood that, and we are going to fix that in OSHA sometime very soon. Congress did not intend for OSHA to create the regulations, enforce them, and then turn around and interpret them. I would compare OSHA's role to a prosecutor, and the commission's role to a court. Congress never intended that OSHA should also be the judge and jury. This is the commission's role.

Unfortunately, that position has been undermined by other court cases, cases that did not directly deal with safety and health law, for pity's sake, which suggested that deference should be given to OSHA instead. In my view, this must be corrected, and as long as I am in this town and in this body, I am going to try to correct it.

H.R. 741 simply states that deference shall be given to the reasonable findings of the commission in accordance with the governing court precedents as Congress originally intended. In the 108th Congress, most of us understood this was important: 224 voted for it; 204 against. I know that the union bosses are against anything we do, anything that might possibly help the majority of citizens in this country who are in small business. Lord, they are always against it. But those of you who care about union members, think about them on these votes. Don't worry about the union bosses. They are going to contribute to you, anyway. Think about the workers. They are the folks who would appreciate this kind of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Fortuno).

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

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy following my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). I love to hear his debate, and I respect it. But I just think he is wrong about this.

We are not chilling anybody. What we are telling OSHA is you be darn careful before you drag people into court or force them to pay the citation because they simply cannot go to court.

They can take anybody to court anytime they want to under this bill. But they better be right more often than they are wrong, and that is not necessarily the case. So many of the cases we never hear about because the poor small business owner simply has to pay the citation because he knows that the attorneys' fees are going to be 10 times more than the citation.

In hearings before my subcommittee in the last Congress, we heard testimony from several witnesses about settling citations with OSHA rather than contesting citations, even though the employer felt the citation was dead wrong.

Why is this a continuing theme? I do not even have to be in Congress to hear this. I know about this kind of thing going on in my area all of the time. I would argue that since it is too hard to challenge OSHA and its attorneys, and the fact that you are challenging the entire taxpayers of the country and the use of their dollars, an employer simply cannot afford to go to court to prove that they are right because of the cost.

Does this remind any of you that have been in business about hearing from any of your friends with the IRS? They do the same thing. They just beat you to death and make you pay whatever they want you to pay and you cannot go to court to defend yourself.

The Occupational Safety and Health Small Employer Access to Justice Act, would award attorneys' fees to small businesses that successfully challenge an OSHA citation. They need to know what they are doing before they drag people into court. They need to be right.

They will not be every time. It may cost them sometimes. But that is better than not ever allowing a small businessman to be able to defend himself in court. The legislation defines a small business as one with 100 employees or less and with a net worth of not more than $7 million.

This is a very limited definition. This very limited definition will award attorneys' fees to the very small employer who is often pressured into settling with OSHA despite the fact that the company believes it has done nothing wrong.

This legislation is needed because the Equal Access to Justice Act has not been effective in redressing unfair citations for small business owners. Some people think that is not true. We think it is true. The numbers of cases filed under EAJA are few and far between. Why? Because OSHA can easily claim that the citations were justified. Under EAJA this is all they need to do.

In fiscal year 2004, small businesses were awarded only $11,585 by OSHRC. Witnesses before the Committee on Education and the Workforce have described the economic calculus small businesses make where settling OSHA cases is concerned. What was the common theme? It is cheaper to settle with OSHA than it is to fight, win and file for attorneys fees. That is wrong. Occasionally, some businessmen cannot stand it. They just cannot stand what OSHA is doing to them, and they are willing to pay a lot of money to go to court, a lot more money than the citation to prove that they were not wrong. But not everybody can do that.

Mr. Speaker, my bill is simply not a new concept. I would like to point out that in 180 other areas Congress has provided fee-shifting statutory arrangements for attorneys fees. This includes the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and numerous other laws. H.R. 742 simply levels the playing field for small employers by encouraging OSHA to better assess the merits of the case before bringing the full force and power of the United States government in their litigation against a small business. If you think that is not scary, you ought to try it some time.

This measure passed the House, thank goodness, last year in the Congress with bipartisan support, 223 to 194. I urge my colleagues, in particular my Democratic friends who have small businesses in their district, I urge them to vote for all four of these bills. I know it has been hard to tell what we have been talking about today because there has been so much superfluous conversation going on not concerning these four bills. But these are four simple, commonsense, fair bills that small business in this country need.

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), another of our subcommittee chairmen.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, it gives me absolute pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), my friend and neighbor, who lives right up the road from me in Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), and just say we still are on H.R. 742.

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

It has been a long 4 hours on four bills. We stayed on the subject for about 2 hours. These four bills are very important, I believe, for the small business community in the country. I realize that the labor union kingpins do not like these four bills, but I promise labor union workers who are out there in small businesses will like these bills.

There have been some outlandish statements that need to be corrected for the record.

Number one, there is nobody on our committee, including myself, any of us who made these bills, that believe for one minute any of these bills are going to harm the workplace safety or health factor. It is simply not going to do that. Somebody said, oh, gosh, if we pass these bills, workers will have more injuries. Members can have that opinion; it does not make it right. That is simply not true.

Somebody said, if you pass these four bills, you are going to weaken OSHA. That is not true either. We are going to help make OSHA work a little better.

Lastly, I want to mention to my friend who said OSHA is a Federal cop. That is the problem. If you believe they are a bunch of police over there, we never will get anywhere with OSHA because until we get this Federal agency working with people in small businesses who want to have a safer workplace rather than a bunch of cops who come around and beat people up, this is never going to work. I had this happen just yesterday in my own district where this female came in, and her badge was bigger than her brain. It was just ridiculous. Until we get a different attitude and not feeling that OSHA is a Federal cop, it is not going to get better.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, next week I will introduce legislation that received wide bipartisan support in the last Congress, the Clear Law Enforcement for Removal of Criminal Illegal Aliens Act, better known as

44. Lance Corporal Russell P. White

45. Private First Class Daniel B. McClenney

46. Lance Corporal Juston Tyler Thacker

47. Staff Sergeant Robert K. McGee

48. Specialist Julie R. Hickey

49. Specialist Juan Torres

50. Sergeant Bobby E. Beasley

51. Staff Sergeant Craig W. Cherry

52. Sergeant Daniel Lee Galvan

53. Staff Sergeant Robert S. Goodwin

54. Staff Sergeant Tony B. Olaes

55. Specialist Wesley R. Wells

56. Staff Sergeant Alan L. Rogers

57. Staff Sergeant Brian S. Hobbs

58. Specialist Kyle Ka Eo Fernandez

59. Corporal William M. Amundson Jr.

60. Airman First Class Jesse M. Samek

61. Corporal Billy Gomez

62. Specialist James C. Kearney III

63. Sergeant Michael C. O'Neill

64. Corporal Dale E. Fracker Jr.

65. Corporal Jacob R. Fleischer

66. Lieutenant Colonel Michael J. McMahon

67. Chief Warrant Officer Travis W. Grogan

68. Specialist Harley Miller

69. Specialist Isaac E. Diaz

70. Sergeant First Class Pedro A. Munoz

71. Sergeant Jeremy R. Wright

72. Specialist Richard M. Crane

73. Petty Officer First Class Alec Mazur

74. Staff Sergeant Shane M. Koele

75. Captain Michael T. Fiscus

76. Master Sergeant Michael T. Hiester

77. Specialist Brett M. Hershey

78. Private First Class Norman K. Snyder

79. Sergeant Major Barbaralien Banks

80. Master Sergeant Edwin A. Matoscolon

81. Sergeant James Shawn Lee

82. Captain David S. Connolly

83. Specialist Chrystal Gaye Stout

84. Sergeant Stephen C. High

85. Chief Warrant Officer Clint J. Prather

86. Chief Warrant Officer David Ayala

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a second to speak to my friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings), and he is my friend, but I think he is wrong when he says human rights issues are something that we just do not get.

Well, that is wrong. I think we do get it. I think it is fairly clear to the Members of this body, it is fairly clear to the people of this country, that many of you Democrats are very interested in human rights of the prisoners down in Guantanamo Bay, people who would kill your children, who would kill your families and destroy your homes. And we are interested in getting information in a reasonable manner from prisoners or terrorists in order to save the lives of American people, to save the lives of our military.

So it is a simple matter. It comes down to whose side are you really on?

Are you on the side of the terrorists so you can be against President Bush, or are you on the side of the American people and the American families?

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the Special Order time of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).