Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, uninsured working families are looking to

Congress for answers to help give them access to quality health care, and before us today is a bipartisan bill that should give them hope.

The economic picture remains bright, and more Americans are finding work every day. Earlier this month, the Department of Labor reported that 3.7 million new jobs have been created since May of 2003, marking 25 consecutive months of positive job growth for the U.S. economy. Unfortunately, there are still millions of working families without health insurance. They need access to quality health care, and they are asking for our help. The bill we will consider on the floor later today responds directly to their needs.

It is simply unacceptable that more than 45 million Americans lack health insurance today. Studies indicate that 60 percent of these uninsured Americans either work for a small business or are dependent upon someone who does. Many of these Americans work for small employers who cannot afford to purchase quality health insurance benefits for their workers. That is the crux of the problem. More Americans are finding new jobs, but many small businesses cannot afford to offer health insurance because of rising premium costs.

Our primary goal here in Congress, Mr. Speaker, should be creating affordable options to help the uninsured. With health care costs continuing to rise sharply across the country, more and more employers and their employees are sharing the burden of increased premiums. Employer-based health insurance premiums rose by 11 percent last year, following a 15 percent increase in 2003. As costs escalate, the ranks of the uninsured could continue to increase as well.

The Small Business Health Fairness Act before us represents a bipartisan solution to this problem. By creating association health plans, the bill gives small businesses the opportunity to band together through bona fide trade associations and purchase quality health insurance for their workers at a lower cost. In the last year, we have seen how large corporations are now starting to band together to provide health care to their part-time workers. Small businesses and their workers deserve the same opportunities.

This bipartisan bill would increase small businesses' bargaining power with health care providers, giving them freedom from costly State-mandated benefit packages and lowering their overhead costs by as much as 30 percent, which are benefits many large corporations and unions already enjoy. By pooling their resources and increasing their bargaining power, association health plans will reduce the cost of health insurance for employers and allow more small businesses to provide health care to their workers.

Last year, the House passed this measure on a bipartisan basis with the support of 37 of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Unfortunately, the other body has yet to act on this bill. But there remains hope. Senator Enzi, who chairs the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, has expressed a strong interest in working on this proposal, and I am more optimistic than ever that the Senate will address this problem.

This measure is supported by President Bush, the Labor Department, Republicans and Democrats, and, moreover, a poll conducted last year reveals that 93 percent of Americans support AHPs as an option for providing affordable health care for American workers. Small businesses deserve the chance to obtain high-quality health insurance at an affordable price for their workers, and AHPs are a prescription for helping the uninsured.

Mr. Speaker, I think the rule before us today is a fair rule, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me time.

Let me stand today and thank those who have put together this postal reform bill. It is not an issue that I work on. I deal with Education and Workforce issues. But I have watched this issue over the last 10 years be hit from one side of the ballpark to the other, kicked from one end of the field to the other, and yet we never could quite get it over the line.

Mr. Speaker, I really want to stand today and thank the gentleman (Chairman Davis), the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the other members of the committee who were involved in this, for bringing together all of these different moving pieces in order to create a successful legislative package.

The real reason I rise is to thank our colleague and my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), for over 10 years has put in time, effort, blood, tears, to try to hold these pieces together, bring the necessary agreements to bring other parties together, and I think that he has done a fabulous job and deserves a lot of recognition from all of the Members for bringing this package along, staying with it. He could have walked away countless times because it was too hard, it was too difficult, and too many people just never wanted to come to the table, but because of his efforts and the efforts of many others, we are here today with a bipartisan package that deserves the support of all of our colleagues.

I support the bill and certainly support the rule that will bring it to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to H. Res. 379, I call up the bill (H.R. 525) to amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to improve access and choice for entrepreneurs with small businesses with respect to medical care for their employees, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 525.

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

Mr. Speaker, the most pressing crisis we face in health care today is the number of Americans who lack basic health insurance. The number of uninsured Americans today stands at 45 million Americans; 27 million are fully employed. And 63 percent of these working uninsured are either self-employed or work for a small business with fewer than 100 employees. It is tragic that so many employers cannot afford to purchase high-quality health insurance benefits for their workers.

The problem is not going away, and we have a responsibility to confront it. With health care costs continuing to rise sharply across the country, more and more employers and their employees are sharing the burden of increased insurance premiums. Employer-based health insurance premiums jumped by 11 percent last year following a 15 percent increase in 2003.

Clearly, we need to focus on providing affordable health care to the uninsured as well as ensure employers

who provide health benefits to their employees are not forced to drop their coverage because of rising premiums and high administrative costs.

The Small Business Health Fairness Act responds to this problem and can help reduce the high cost of health insurance for small businesses and uninsured working families. By creating association health plans which would be strictly regulated by the Department of Labor, small businesses could pool their resources and increase their bargaining power with benefit providers which will allow them to negotiate better rates and purchase quality health care at a lower cost.

President Bush addressed this point directly last year during his speech at the United States Chamber of Commerce where he said, ``AHPs would provide small businesses the same opportunity that big businesses get, and that is the economies of scale, the economies of purchase, the abilities to share risk in larger pools which drives down the costs of health care for small businesses.''

The President is right, and we should help level the playing field so small businesses can offer quality coverage to their workers.

Americans overwhelmingly agree with President Bush that association health plans are the right plan to help the uninsured. A poll conducted last year showed that 93 percent of Americans support association health plans as a way of providing access to affordable care for American workers who lack coverage. Over the last year, we have seen how large corporations are now starting to band together to provide health care to their part-time workers. Do small businesses and their workers not deserve the same opportunity?

Importantly, the bill gives AHPs the freedom from costly State mandates because small businesses deserve to be treated in the same fashion as large corporations and unions who receive the same exemptions today. Clearly, these mandates are useless to families who have no health coverage in the first place. If you do not have health care coverage, State mandates requiring health plans to offer specific benefits do you and your family no good at all. This measure includes strong safeguards to protect American workers.

Despite the bipartisan nature of this bill, I would like to correct some of the misinformation that I have heard. The measure protects against cherry-picking because we make clear that AHPs must comply with the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which prohibits group health plans from excluding or charging a higher rate to high-risk individuals with a high claims experience.

Under our bill, sick or high-risk groups or individuals cannot be denied coverage. In addition, AHPs cannot charge higher rates for employers with sicker individuals within the plan except to the extent already allowed by State law where the employer is located. The bill also includes strict requirements under which only bona fide professional and trade associations can sponsor an association health plan, and, therefore, does not allow sham association plans set up by health insurance companies. These organizations must be established for purposes other than providing health insurance for at least 3 years.

We in Congress have a responsibility to deal with a problem of small businesses who cannot afford to provide health insurance because of skyrocketing health care costs. The U.S. economy is getting stronger by the day, and more and more employers are hiring workers each month. Earlier this month the unemployment rate dropped to its lowest level since September of 2001 and the Labor Department reported that 3.7 million new jobs have been created since March of 2003. That is 25 consecutive months of sustained job creation.

We want to make sure that these workers have the opportunity to receive quality health insurance through their employer, and this bill can help make that happen.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), chairman of the Subcommittee on Employer- Employee Relations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia and I have had a disagreement over this particular provision for several years. It is very clear in the bill, as I read it, not the way the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) reads it, and this is where the source of the disagreement comes in terms of how plans can choose groups of employees.

Under current ERISA law, you are allowed to have different rates for different groups of employees as long as there is a reason other than the health status of that group to have a separate group. Maybe you have a plant located in one part of the State, another plant in another part of the State. You could have two different rates at those two different plants, just like you can under most State laws and what you can under ERISA.

So I look forward to continuing to work with my friend from Georgia to resolve our misunderstanding of this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), a physician.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), the chairman of the Employer-Employee Relations Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, small employers today have a difficult problem. They are trying to keep their business alive. They are trying to make enough money to hire and grow their business and at the same time trying to provide affordable health insurance. About 60 percent of the 45 million people who have no health insurance work for small businesses of some sort. But what happens to those small employers in most of these State risk pools? They are in the small group coverage area, and guess what happens? There may be a provider or two that will offer them insurance. They are stuck in a small pool, and they pay the highest rates of any group that is out there, unless, unless, one happens to be self- employed.

Let us say that they were a realtor, and as a realtor they are self- employed, they are not an employee of a company, and they try to buy health insurance for themselves out in the open market again in these small State risk pools. Here it comes, $1,500 a month,

$2,000 a month. And, my goodness, if they are sick, they will not get it at all.

So what we have been proposing now for some 10 years, and the House has passed this on a bipartisan basis at least five times, is to allow businesses and self-employed individuals who belong to bona fide organizations to group together for the purposes of health insurance. Why should a realtor who belongs to the National Association of Realtors not have an opportunity, whether their State association or the national association wants to put together a package of plans and allow them to choose one of those plans that might fit the kind of coverage that they want, why would we not want to do this?

We have heard all this shtick about all these plans are lousy, they are low-cost coverage. No. These plans would look exactly like the plans that big companies and unions offer today. Everybody in America wants to work for a big company or a union. Why? Because they have got great health benefits. And why do they have great health benefits? Because that is what their employees and that is that their members want. People do not want to go out and buy low-cost coverage that does not cover anything. That does not accomplish anything.

So when we look at the opportunity for small businesses to go out and to be able to purchase health insurance for their employees, just like a big company or just like a union under the same set of rules, the same set of rules for small companies that big companies have today, we should not let the perfect become the enemy of the good. This will not solve the problem of all 45 million of the uninsured, but it will help millions of Americans who work for small businesses have a better opportunity at getting good health coverage at competitive prices.

We have heard an awful lot of talk about it does not have this mandate, that mandate, that mandate. And why do big companies who do not have to have any mandated coverages under ERISA, why do they provide those? Why do they have breast cancer screening? Why? Because it makes sense to screen for this to detect it early and to deal with it. Why do they have these benefits that are not mandated? Why? Because they make sense to find out early in the illness.

These small companies are going to have the same types of high- quality plans that big companies have today without State mandates, because what happens is every State has a mandate. Some of them have as many as 30 mandated benefits that drive up the cost of health insurance and drive the number of uninsured up as well. But companies that offer a lot of these benefits, they do so with, as an example, a breast cancer benefit that covers the whole country, one size, not 50 different States done in 50 different ways that they have to find out exactly how it is going to be covered in each of those 50 States.

I have no doubt that the policies that will be offered by these association health plans will, in fact, be high-quality policies at very competitive prices.

As I said before, this bill has passed the House on a number of occasions with broad bipartisan support, and I expect that will occur again today. So I would ask my colleagues to stand up and vote. We hope that the other body will eventually take this bill up and move it and to help reduce the number of uninsured Americans that we have.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time to speak on the substitute that has been offered.

Now, if we think that having States regulate insurance in a small group market is a problem with state-mandated benefits, this is the mother of all complicated programs to offer health insurance, because what are we going to do? We are going to have the Federal Government do it. Now, none of us really believes that the Federal Government ought to be in the business of running big-risk pools and offering plans to small businesses.

Secondly, the bill is estimated, and it has changed from last year; last year there was a $50 billion authorization, but it is still going to cost an awful lot of money to do this bill.

One of the most damaging parts, though, is that each employer who would take part in this plan that is being offered would still be subjected to the State mandates on health insurance in their particular State. There are 1,500 State-mandated health benefits around the country. It also requires that the employer must pay at least 50 percent of the premium. In most cases, I would imagine the employer would pay far more than that of the premium; but maybe it is a small company, maybe it is five or six employees, and maybe together they decide, we want to qualify for this, but we will each pick up our own share of the cost. Why would we want to prohibit them from including themselves in this by this type of a requirement?

It also says that every employer must offer this to every employee who has worked at the company for 3 months. That seems like a very short period of time, especially in some industries where you have an awful lot of turnover where they would typically require that you wait 6 months before you would qualify. All this would do would be to drive up the cost.

But one of the most amazing parts of this substitute, we would subsidize this from the Federal Government and, for employers with 25 or fewer employees, we would give them a subsidy to help entice them into this program. And, if you qualified, you qualify for a 10-year period. Now, some small company with less than 25 employees may qualify, may get the subsidy and may, over a course of several years, become highly successful. But under this particular substitute, they would still qualify for the subsidy.

I do not think any of us believe that the Federal Government ought to be operating a health insurance company. There are a lot of mechanisms in the private market for this association health plan program to work. And, again, why do we want to make the perfect the enemy of the good?

The underlying bill that we have will, in fact, work. It will allow millions of Americans to get better-quality coverage at much more competitive prices than what they get today.

So let us allow the underlying bill to go forward. Let us defeat the substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's motion.

Mr. Speaker, the most coveted health insurance available to Americans is offered by big companies and unions. All we are trying to do in the underlying bill is to give small employers the same opportunity to provide high-quality health insurance to their employees at competitive prices.

The motion to recommit would require every AHP to cover every mandate known to man, driving up the cost of those policies and making sure that no new employees would ever be covered by an AHP. There are 45 million Americans with no health insurance. While this will not cover all 45 million Americans, it will help some Americans who have no access to health insurance today have access to high-quality, competitively priced health insurance. You can have all the mandates in the world; but if you do not have health insurance, you get no coverage at all. No doctors' visits. No nothing. It is a bad motion. Support the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I stand before you to recognize the retirement of Mrs. Kathleen Klink, Superintendent for the Lakota Local School District, and to express my appreciation for her dedication and commitment to education. For more than forty years, Mrs. Klink contributed her talents to the educational field, and for this, I offer her my utmost congratulations and thanks for her efforts.

After graduating from the University of Heidelberg in Germany, receiving a masters in education from the University of Virginia and a post graduate degree from Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, Mrs. Klink began teaching in the Hamilton City Schools. From there, she traveled to Lewiston, Maine, Charlottesville, Virginia, and Wright State University in Dayton, until she arrived in the Lakota School District. Her extensive teaching career, in which she specialized in English, German, and Counseling Psychology, provided her with valuable experience and expertise. In 1981, Mrs. Klink became Assistant Principal at Lakota High School where she served for two years until taking over as Assistant Superintendent. Then, in 1994, Mrs. Klink advanced to Superintendent where she remained until her recent retirement.

Throughout her professional career, Mrs. Klink received substantial recognition for her work including being named as the Ohio Superintendent of the Year, the Sam Walton Business Leader for Southeastern Butler County, and the Buckeye Association of School Administrators Exemplary Education Leader. Furthermore, she attended the Harvard Institute for School Leadership, the Ohio School Leadership Institute, and the Michael Fullan Leadership Seminar through the University of Toronto.

Mrs. Klink's participation in numerous professional organizations, as well as her devoted service to community positions, exemplifies the strength of her leadership. For example, Mrs. Klink served on the West Chester Chamber Alliance Board of Directors, the Fitton Center for the Arts Board of Directors, and the Executive Board for the University of Cincinnati's Center for Economic Education. In addition, she is involved in the Ohio Association of Local School Superintendents, the Phi

Delta Kappa Educational Society, and the American Association of School Administrators. Mrs. Klink's long list of publicized articles and also her guest presentations at the University of Cincinnati, Xavier University, Miami University, and Mt. St. Joseph College showcase her commitment to educational success.

Mrs. Klink, I offer my congratulations and gratitude for your long and successful career in the field of education. I wish you well in your future endeavors, and I hope you continue to achieve happiness and success wherever your life journey chooses to lead you throughout your retirement.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to discuss four important bills that make modest reforms to the Occupational Safety and Health Act. These bills will help enhance business competitiveness, encourage further job creation, but most importantly, they will help improve worker safety by promoting a cooperative climate between employers and OSHA that focuses on results.

Last week, the Department of Labor reported that more than 3.7 million new jobs have been created since May of 2003, marking the 25th consecutive month of sustained job creation. But we want to make sure that onerous government regulations do not hamstring small businesses' ability to hire new workers and compete in our economy. That is why these bills are important, and that is why they are on the floor today.

OSHA regulations are amongst the most complex and difficult legal requirements imposed on employers today. For many employers, especially smaller employers, compliance with OSHA regulations is a challenge even with help from experts. Many smaller work sites could make significant progress in reducing injuries and illnesses if OSHA would just lend them a helping hand through cooperative partnerships. These voluntary partnerships take nothing away from strong enforcement. They supplement traditional enforcement programs to help achieve the best results.

These four bills remove the arbitrary and unintentional legal traps in current OSHA law that help hamstring better trust and voluntary cooperation between the agency and employers. While fairly modest in substance, these reforms are important to small business owners who struggle every day to comply with complex OSHA laws and provide a safe working environment for their workers while facing an increasingly competitive worldwide economy.

Employers who make good-faith efforts to comply with OSHA standards deserve to be treated fairly and have their day in court. These commonsense bills will help ensure they receive that opportunity. These commonsense bills passed the House last year with bipartisan support, and they deserve every Members' support today. The rule before us is a fair rule, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 351, I call up the bill (H.R. 739) to amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to provide for adjudicative flexibility with regard to the filing of a notice of contest by an employer following the issuance of a citation or proposed assessment of a penalty by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 739, the bill now under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, today we will debate four important bills that make modest reforms to the Occupational Safety and Health Act. These measures ensure that small business owners who make good faith efforts to comply with health and safety laws are dealt with fairly and equitably by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Nearly every employer recognizes that improving workplace safety is good for business, and it is good for workers. Employers are subject to fierce competition both at home and abroad and must compete in the face of high taxes, skyrocketing health costs, escalating litigation, and burdensome government regulations. These OSHA reform bills are designed to improve worker safety and enhance the competitiveness of small businesses that are the real engine of job growth in our country.

The U.S. economy continues to grow, and more and more employers are continuing to hire workers each month. Last week, the Labor Department reported that more than 3.7 million new jobs have been created since May of 2003, marking 25 consecutive months of sustained job creation. But we need to make sure that onerous government regulations do not hamstring small businesses' ability to continue to hire

new workers and compete in our economy. That is why these bills are so important.

Madam Speaker, since Republicans assumed leadership of Congress 10 years ago, we have undertaken considerable efforts to make bureaucracy more responsive and more accountable to workers and taxpayers. Let me give just a few examples:

We stopped unwarranted and invasive OSHA regulations proposed by the Clinton administration that would have held employers liable for the safety of their employees who work from home. We stopped one of the most over-reaching attempts at regulation in our Nation's history by repealing an irresponsible and unworkable ergonomics regulation that would have cost employers billions of dollars and killed millions of jobs. We have dealt with the problem of costly unfunded mandates by ensuring that Congress does not pass expensive legislation and then place it onto the backs of State and local governments.

This decade of progress on regulatory reform should give every American confidence that Congress is making positive steps every year to improve government accountability. And today we want to take one more step, one more positive step to help improve workplace safety, I think a goal we all share.

OSHA, under the Bush administration, has made significant efforts to supplement traditional enforcement programs with cooperative partnerships between the agency and employers. I am pleased to report these voluntary programs have proven successful in reducing workplace injuries and illnesses. In fact, if we look at this chart, workplace injuries and fatalities have declined significantly during the Bush administration. And as this chart shows, workplace injuries and illnesses have declined significantly under the Bush administration to their lowest point in history, to a rate of just five injuries or illnesses per 100 workers.

Moreover, workplace fatalities have made similar declines. There has been a 5.8 percent reduction in workplace fatalities since the Bush administration took office, and that is significant progress.

Why has such progress been made? Because under this administration, OSHA and employers have started to work together more cooperatively and more proactively to solve workplace safety problems before injuries and fatalities occur. A GAO report released last year said voluntary partnerships between OSHA and employers ``have considerably reduced the rates of injury and illness'' and have fostered ``better working relationships with OSHA, improved productivity, and decreased workers' compensation costs.''

We strongly support OSHA targeting the bad actors that defy the law and compromise the safety of their workers, but we also need to recognize that most employers are good actors who work hard to address job safety concerns. No employer wants to deal with unnecessary OSHA- related litigation and escalating attorneys' fees that would result from that enforcement. Most employers want to comply with the law, and the offer of assistance from OSHA is enough to provide the incentive they need to make this investment. Employers will use these resources because safety pays.

The reform measures we will consider today are proposals that, while fairly modest in substance, are important to small business owners who struggle every day to comply with the complex OSHA laws and provide a safe working environment for their workers while facing an increasingly competitive worldwide economy. Employers who make good faith efforts to comply with OSHA standards deserve to be treated fairly and have their day in court, and these commonsense bills will help ensure that they receive that opportunity.

The first bill on tap today, the Occupational Safety and Health Small Business Day in Court Act gives the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission additional flexibility to make exceptions to the arbitrary 15-day deadline for employers to file responses to OSHA citations when a small business misses the deadline by a mistake or for good reason.

This bill essentially codifies administrative action taken by the Labor Department last year and ensures appropriate disputes are resolved based on merit rather than legal technicalities. It passed the House with strong bipartisan support last year, and it deserves every Member's support.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), a member of our committee.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, let me remind my colleagues what this small, innocuous bill does. It says to the Secretary of Labor and to OSHA that the arbitrary, 15-day deadline that is in the statute for complying with an OSHA citation or to respond to OSHA can, in fact, be waived under special circumstances, if OSHA believes that the employer missed it by accident or had other extenuating circumstances, they have the option of extending the 15-day deadline. That is all this bill does.

Now, some of my colleagues on the other side have suggested, well, no, they already have this authority. But the fact is, they do not. The ability of the commission to waive a deadline on a case-by-case basis when circumstances warrant it have been drawn into increased legal uncertainty by the recent decision of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Chao v. LeFrois Builder, Incorporated, and indeed, as recently as 2003, OSHA has argued that OSHRC does not have the authority to apply this rule.

So we think that voluntary cooperation between OSHA and the employer community will, in fact, lead to a safer workplace. And as the chart showed that I displayed earlier, workplace injuries and fatalities have continued to decrease in each year of the Bush administration.

Let us make this commonsense change to help employers and their workers achieve a safer workplace.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 351, I call up the bill (H.R. 740) to amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to provide for greater efficiency at the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 740.

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

Mr. Speaker, the second bill we will debate is another narrowly- crafted bill that addresses a specific problem we found in the OSHA law.

For nearly two-thirds of its 30-plus years of existence, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission has been undermanned and unable to function properly. Now, because a quorum of two out of the three total commissioners is needed for timely decision-making, the Commission has in the past been unable to act simply because a quorum was not present.

There are a number of reasons for this. The appointment process is sometimes controversial, leading to vacancies, and sometimes commissioners must recuse themselves from considering cases, meaning even if there is only one seat open, there is often no working quorum. For too much of its history, the Commission has been unable to gain a working quorum and, as a result, is simply unable to function, despite being otherwise fully staffed. The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission Efficiency Act increases the membership of the Commission from three to five members to ensure that cases are reviewed in a timely fashion.

Increasing membership to five commissioners will help ensure that cases are reviewed in a more timely fashion, improving the current system of judicial inactivity that only results in government waste. In short, it will allow the Commission to complete its job by reducing the case backlogs that are as much as 8 years old. Now, the Commission's sister agency, the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, has 5 panelists, and we have found has worked well in reviewing cases more efficiently. Lastly, the bill permits incumbent members whose terms have expired to stay on until a replacement can be confirmed by the Senate, and most vacancies occur during these turnovers.

The U.S. economy is improving more and more, and employers are hiring new workers each and every month. Last week, the Labor Department reported that 3.7 million new jobs have been created since May of 2003. We want small businesses hiring more workers and contributing to our economy, not facing years of OSHA-related litigation if they cannot resolve it simply because the Commission has an endless backlog of cases. This bill simply ensures that OSHA cases are resolved in a timely and efficient manner, a goal that we all should support. Employers who make good-faith efforts to comply with OSHA standards deserve to be treated fairly and have their day in court, and this measure will help ensure that they receive that opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 351, I call up the bill (H.R. 741) to amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to provide for judicial deference to conclusions of law determined by the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission with respect to an order issued by the commission, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 741, the bill now under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, the third bill we will debate today is another narrowly crafted bill that addresses a specific problem we found in the OSHA law.

In 1970, when it created OSHA, Congress also created the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission to independently review all OSHA citations. The commission was intended to hold OSHA in check and ensure that it did not abuse its authority. Congress passed the OSHA law only after being assured that judicial review would be conducted by ``an autonomous independent commission which, without regard to the Secretary, can find for or against the employer on the basis of individual complaints.''

Congress even separated the commission from the Department of Labor. It was truly meant to be independent. The bill before us, the Occupational Safety and Health Independent Review of OSHA Citations Act, restores the original system of checks and balances intended by Congress when it enacted the OSHA law, and ensures that the commission and not OSHA would be the party who interprets the law and provides an independent review of OSHA citations.

Now, let me try to put this in simpler terms. If you are stopped by a police officer and issued a citation for speeding, would you want the same police officer to be your judge and jury and decide whether you are guilty? Of course you would not. And unfortunately for small businesses today, the law is ambiguous and it is vague. Since 1970, the separation of power between OSHA and the review commission has become increasingly clouded because of legal interpretations, mostly argued by OSHA in efforts to expand its own authority.

Congress intended there to be a truly independent review of disputes between OSHA and employers, and when a dispute centers on OSHA's interpretation of its authority, Congress intended the independent review commission, not the prosecuting agency, OSHA, to be the final arbiter. H.R. 741 restores this commonsense system of checks and balances.

Small businesses are the real engine of job growth in this country, and we should be helping them, not hindering their progress. Last week, the Department of Labor reported that more than 3.7 million new jobs have been created since May 2003. We want to make sure that onerous government regulations do not hamstring small businesses' ability to continue to hire workers and compete in our economy. That is another reason why all of these OSHA reform bills are important.

The measure before us is a narrowly crafted, commonsense bill that address a specific problem in the OSHA law. It passed the House last year and deserves the support of all of our Members.

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

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

My colleague from Toledo clearly laid out what was a tragedy in her community with regard to the four gentlemen who lost their lives in this accident. This accident continues to be under review by OSHA. We hope that OSHA will get to the bottom of what did happen, and, more importantly, who was responsible. I do not think it serves those families, the community or any of us to point fingers and to lay blame without facts. To my knowledge at this point, this particular case is still under investigation. There are still lots of details to be gleaned. And when this picture becomes clearer, we can then take a course of action that in fact may be appropriate. But I am waiting for this review and this investigation to continue.

But the point here is that the bill that we are debating would actually, I think, assist in making the determination about who is guilty, because by making it clear that the review commission should hear these cases and can adjudicate these cases, you can make a determination about who was right and who was wrong by an independent commission, not by OSHA itself.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), a member our committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, having been an employer, I realized early on that the greatest asset in my business were the people who work for me. And having worked every job known to man growing up, I know that the people I worked for realized that the greatest asset they had in their business were their workers. When it comes to the protection of workers, I believe that all employers are interested in trying to protect their employees.

Congress, in 1970, passed the OSHA Act, putting in statute a set of laws, rules and regulations about the protection of American workers. And over the last, really the last 7 or 8 years, we have made great progress in reducing workplace accidents, illnesses and deaths, because OSHA, at the prodding of many of us, began to work more cooperatively with employers around the country. I have been to many work sites in my own district where voluntary protection programs have been instituted and have been signed off by OSHA that allow employers and their employees to work cooperatively in order to have a safer workplace. And the results, the results are pretty clear. If you look at, over the last 5 years, the rate of illness, workplace injuries, and deaths has continued to decline precipitously. We are making real progress. So I would continue to urge OSHA to work with employers and their employees to help create the safer workplace that all of us want.

Now, the bill before us simply says that there ought to be this independent review of the decisions that OSHA makes, that OSHA as the policeman, as the prosecutor, as the judge and the jury, is not fair to American workers or their employers. And we believe that when Congress created OSHA in 1970, they believed, and it is clear in the legislative language and in their intent, that they believed that there would be an independent review commission making these decisions. All we do in this bill is to make clear that it is Congress's intent and that OSHA will, in fact, abide by the law as it was written.

So I would urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill today.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 351, I call up the bill (H.R. 742) to amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to provide for the award of attorneys' fees and costs to small employers when such employers prevail in litigation prompted by the issuance of a citation by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 742.

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

Mr. Speaker, the fourth bill we will debate today is another narrowly crafted bill that addresses a specific OSHA problem. In short, we strongly believe that small businesses that face meritless OSHA enforcement actions should not be prevented from defending themselves simply because they cannot afford it.

The Occupational Safety and Health Small Employer Access to Justice Act levels the playing field for small businesses and encourages OSHA to better assess the merits of a case before it brings unnecessary enforcement actions to court against small businesses. Under current law, the Equal Access to Justice Act allows small business owners to recover attorneys' fees if the owner successfully challenges a citation. However, if OSHA can establish that its enforcement action was ``substantially justified'' or the result of ``special circumstances,'' small businesses can be refused attorneys' fees even if OSHA loses the case in court. Historically, the law's ``substantially justified'' and ``special circumstances'' standards have made it easy for OSHA to prevent recovery under this broad standard, so attempts by small business owners to recover costs often exacerbate the financial harm caused by OSHA's dubious enforcement actions.

Let us look at some of the facts. In 2004, OSHA cited 86,708 violations based on its nearly 40,000 workplace inspections. Yet, how many applications were filed for attorneys' fees against OSHA in 2004? That number is four. Yes, exactly four. How many were granted? Three. Three. Moreover, for the last 25 years, only 1 year has seen more than ten applications filed for attorneys' fees against OSHA. Now, when you compare that number to the more than 80,000 OSHA violations cited every year, you start to wonder. We heard testimony in our committee on this issue, and what we found is that the law's ``substantially justified'' and ``special circumstances'' standards have made it easy for OSHA to deny small businesses the ability to recover attorneys' fees.

What these numbers tell us is that small businesses can already see the writing on the wall. They know that OSHA has the upper hand, and if the prospect of recovering attorneys' fees is as bleak as it appears, then why fight the citation at all? Small employers should not be forced to knuckle under to OSHA citations and settle up front when they know and believe that they are innocent. This measure simply forces OSHA to carefully evaluate the merits of its cases against small employers before they bring the case. If OSHA's case is weak, and they bring the case anyway, then the agency will have to pay attorneys' fees, and rightly so.

Employers face relentless competition every day in the face of high taxes, rising health care costs and burdensome government regulations. The last thing they need is a meritless OSHA-related litigation that could take years to resolve. Last week, the Labor Department reported that more than 3.7 million new jobs have been created since May of 2003. We want to make sure that onerous government regulations do not hamstring small businesses' ability to continue to hire new workers and compete in our economy. Frivolous litigation kills jobs, and this measure will help ensure that OSHA carefully considers the merits of its case before they bring an enforcement action.

The measure before us is, again, narrowly crafted and a commonsense bill that addresses a specific problem in the OSHA law. It passed the House last year and deserves the support of all of our Members.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) who has spent a lot of years trying to make OSHA work better for those in the workplace and those who employ them in the workplace. He has done a great job in bringing these four bills out of the subcommittee and to the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to help promote a climate of cooperation between OSHA and employers. The focus is on improving workplace safety. In so doing, we have the opportunity to enhance business competitiveness and further job creation.

Now these bills are important and here is why. No small business should be penalized for missing a deadline because of an honest mistake. No small business should have to wait 8 years to have their case reviewed by the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission simply because it cannot get a quorum.

Thirdly, no small business wants to go up against an OSHA that is the prosecutor, judge and jury all in one.

Lastly, no small business should be required to spend years and significant money trying to recover attorneys' fees after defending itself against a meritless enforcement action by OSHA. These OSHA reform bills can make a real difference in the lives of small businesses that face fierce competition at home and abroad. We truly do believe that these bills will help the effectiveness of OSHA and help improve the workplace safety for millions of American workers. I encourage all of my colleagues to support all four bills.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the soldiers of the Ohio National Guard's 1487th Transportation Company. I would also like to pay my respect to their families and their employers who remained strong and supportive during their absence.

The 1487th Transportation Company was mobilized in January 2004 and spent a year supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, providing truck transportation in the theatre of operation. The company logged over 230 missions, traveling over four million miles.

The Iron Camels earned eight Purple Heart Awards, ten Bronze Star Medals, two Meritorious Service Medals, five Bronze Star Medals with Valor Devices, forty-three Army Commendation Medals, twenty-three Army Achievement Medals, 121 Drive Badges, and twenty Mechanic Badges.

Although their friends, family, and community celebrated the company's return stateside earlier this year, the 1487th will be honored this Saturday, July 2, 2005 as Preble County celebrates ``1487th Day.'' The residents of Preble County have organized ``A Tribute to America and Her Veterans,'' and in addition to honoring our veterans from Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, Preble County will also be honoring veterans from World War II, the Korean War, the Cold War era, and Desert Storm.

Mr. Speaker, all of us here in Congress are grateful and humbled by the magnificent work our men and women in uniform have accomplished in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Southeast Asia. Their professionalism, dedication, and patriotism are shining examples of our American values, and we are grateful they stand between us and our enemies. The soldiers of the 1487th Transportation Company performed outstanding service for our country, and I am grateful for their service and for their return.

I would also like to acknowledge the strength exhibited by the family and friends of our deployed soldiers, who have endured quiet moments of fear and uncertainty while they present a brave front to their loved ones who are separated from them by distance and danger. I am grateful husbands and wives, parents and children, fiances, siblings, and friends are reunited to celebrate our Independence Day together.

In addition, I would like to acknowledge the employers in my district who bore the burden of their employees' absence without complaint and who supported their families with material support throughout the length of the 1487th's deployment.

To the 1487th, my message to you is simple and heartfelt: Thank you. Thank you for your service, your patriotism, and your professionalism. God bless you and your loved ones in your future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my deepest respects and congratulations to Mr. Marinus Albert Bosma, his parents Mr. Albert Bosma and Mrs. Helena Bosma-V.D. Pol, and his sister Mrs. Alberta Bosma-Iseli. Mr. Bosma and his family will be receiving the Yad Vashem Righteous Among the Nations Award on June 29, 2005.

The Yad Vashem Award is the Jewish people's memorial to the six million victims of the Holocaust. Its name derives from the Book of Isaiah, ``And to them will I give in my house and within my walls a memorial and a name (a ``yad vashem'') . . . that shall not be cut off (56:5).'' In 1963, Yad Vashem embarked upon a worldwide project to grant the title of Righteous Among the Nations to non-Jews who risked their lives to save Jews during the Holocaust.

Mr. Bosma and his family are natives of Arnhem in the Netherlands. During World War II, the Bosma family helped find shelter for thirty Jews and housed twelve Jews within their own home. Between the ages of twelve and nineteen, Mr. Bosma showed great valor through his assistance in the Dutch resistance.

Yad Vashem honors both the heroism and tragedy of the Holocaust for those generations where World War II is a distant history lesson. It gives a memorial and a name to the millions of men, women, and children who lost their lives for their religion and culture. Yad Vashem provides an opportunity to pay tribute to the men and women who represent the best of the human spirit; living by principles and convictions, acting heroically in the face of adversity, and finding value in all human life.

Marinus, I offer you and your family my respect for your actions during World War II. Congratulations on receiving this prestigious award.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) that the Pell grant program plays an essential role in helping disadvantaged students pursue a college education.

And for more than 30 years, the Pell grant program has served as the foundation of Federal need-based student aid.

I further applaud my colleague and a member of our committee from Florida (Mr. Keller) for his strong leadership in supporting the Pell grant program, and as Chairman of the Pell Grant Caucus, and for his sharing with us his personal experiences as a former Pell grant recipient.

The gentleman is correct to point out that the Republican Congress has provided unprecedented support for Pell grants. Funding for Pell grants doubled in the last 10 years, and today we are proposing to add more than $1 billion in additional funding. The number of students receiving Pell grants has risen significantly, and today about 5.3 million students are attending college with the help of a Pell grant.

So I want to thank my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the dean of our delegation, for his leadership as chairman of the Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee. He has been a strong advocate on behalf of education programs, and it has been a privilege to work with him in support of our priorities.

Given the constraints that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) is working with, I fully understand. I agree with my colleague from Florida (Mr. Keller) that we should do all we can to increase the maximum award.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman from California's (Mr. Honda) amendment.

The gentleman talks about two distinct and particular points in his amendment. First, schools routinely share students' information with various vendors. And whether they sell that information or share it, there are a lot of different forums. And during the consideration of No Child Left Behind, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and I worked closely to try to protect students' privacy. And what we developed at the end of the bill was an opportunity for parents to have their children's names opted out of the information that would be sold or shared with outside vendors, thereby giving parents the right to protect their children's privacy.

But a second point, a more important point, is that some schools were sharing this information with private vendors, but would not share it with the U.S. military. And the agreement that we came to on the floor of this House in a very broad bipartisan way was that to the extent that a school sells or shares student data, they must treat military recruiters in a nondiscriminatory way, or, in other words, treat all people who would want access to this data to have access to it in the same way.

Now, if schools do not want to share the data with military recruiters, that is fine. They cannot share the data then with anyone. But to the extent that they want to sell that data to publishers and others who would seek that, they must give the military the right to that information as well.

I think students across America ought to have access to information to the United States military. It has been a wonderful career for tens of millions of Americans, and the fact is that the practice is going on in far too many schools discriminates against the needs of our military.

So I would ask my colleagues to reject the gentleman's amendment. We have dealt with this issue in a comprehensive way in No Child Left Behind, and we did it in a broad bipartisan way.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, last year Congress took action to shut down these excess subsidies that are paid to lenders through the 9.5 percent floor loans. That led to the Taxpayer-Teacher Protection Act, which was crafted to immediately halt the practice while ensuring that this issue would ultimately and permanently be addressed in the Higher Education Reauthorization Act.

Now that bill, the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, is to be before the Committee on Education and the Workforce immediately upon the return of Congress from the July 4 district work period. And we do expect that we will look at this in a comprehensive way.

And while I share some of the concerns of my colleague from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), we have got to be very careful as to how we proceed in this area. There are a lot of nonprofit lenders across the country who were the recipients of these 9.5 percent loans; and if we were to adopt the gentleman's amendment, we could cause many of these nonprofit students lenders to be put out of business. And I think the gentleman realizes that we have been going through a very methodical process of trying to make some determination about how to shut these loans down permanently and how to deal with the issue of recycling. I wish it was as clean and easy as saying, we are just not going to do it any more.

But as I have looked at this and I think others have looked at it, it is just not that easy. But as the committee deals with the Higher Education Reauthorization next month in both the subcommittee and full subcommittee, there is no question that this issue will be dealt with in its entirety.

With that, I would ask my colleagues to oppose the gentleman's amendment. I would really like to ask him to withdraw the amendment and allow the regular process, the regular order, to occur in the committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close.

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

The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) seeks to, as he says, prospectively end the practice of recycling new loans through these 9.5 percent bonds that are out there. But here is the problem: some of these nonprofits student loan lenders around the country have these bonds in place for the next 5, 10, some even 15, years. And if we were to end the practice of recycling new loans through there, we would put those nonprofit lenders literally out of business because those bonds were sold to the public under this 9.5 percent scheme.

Now, I am as disgusted by this scheme as the gentleman from Maryland is, I can tell you; and why this practice went on for as long as it has is really very troubling to me. But having said that, for nonprofit lenders who had gone out and secured bonds with the backing of these 9.5 percent interest rate loans, I think that with the adoption of this amendment we could cause great problems with many of the lenders that are all across the country that help fund student loans for many needy students.

So I would ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment. This is a very dangerous step that could affect the ability of millions of American students to get a student loan to allow them to go to a post-secondary institution. And, secondly, the committee is in fact going to deal with this. The gentleman from Maryland is well aware that the committee is going to deal with this as we reauthorize the Higher Education Act.

Again, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Lieutenant General Richard V. Reynolds. Lieutenant General Reynolds is retiring as the Vice Commander of Air Force Materiel Command after thirty-three years of faithful and distinguished service to our country.

In addition to being an effective Air Force officer, Lieutenant General Reynolds has been a positive contributor to the Wright Patterson Air Force Base community for the past eleven years. I met Lieutenant General Reynolds when I began to serve areas surrounding the base after the re-districting of 2002. I have always appreciated his candor, professionalism, and accessibility. In addition, I appreciated his willingness to educate my staff about both the Air Force and Wright Patterson at our 2003 staff retreat.

I am also greatly impressed by Lieutenant General Reynolds' dedication to our country and his commitment to advancing the competitive edge of the United States Air Force. He has a distinguished service record and has worked with some of the best aircraft and service technologies in our military. His service to both the Air Force and our country will be greatly missed.

To you Dick, I thank you for your service to our country, and I wish you and your family best wishes in your future endeavors. Congratulations for a successful and dedicated career.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to thank Mr. Hyde for his distinguished service in the House of Representatives and to support his work to bring accountability and transparency to the United Nations.

Throughout his career, Mr. Hyde has been a promoter and a defender of conservative issues, including the rights of the unborn and the need for a strong national defense.

While many of my colleagues are committed and dedicated to these issues, my friend from

Illinois has truly led by example in how he has advocated for conservative policies and championed family values.

He is well known for his consistency and tenacity in his beliefs, yet he is well-respected within the House by Members of both sides of the aisle. He has strongly disagreed with Members about issues that evoke emotional responses, yet he has maintained his dignity and gentlemanly conduct.

Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank Mr. Hyde for his work to increase the credibility of the United Nations and to wish him well in his retirement. Unfortunately, I was committed to attend an event in my district, and I was unable to vote for the final passage of the Henry J. Hyde United Nations Reform Act of 2005. I would like the official record to reflect I support this important legislation.

Henry, thank you for your service and best wishes to you and your family.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life and legacy of Army Specialist James H. Miller IV. As our country honors our military personnel, both past and present, this Memorial Day, I want to take this opportunity to remember those who have sacrificed their lives for our freedom and security.

Army Specialist Miller leaves behind a legacy of honor, service, and compassion to his family and friends. He died protecting a polling location which allowed Iraqis the opportunity to decide their own future.

Army Specialist Miller served as a medic with the United States Army and aspired to enter the medical profession and work with trauma patients. He is remembered for his commitment to the well-being of his fellow soldiers and for his sensitivity to the needs of others. In addition, he is remembered for his love of music, and he particularly enjoyed playing the drums and guitar. Based on his reputation for compassion and commitment to the men and women he medically treated, I have no doubt he would have been effective in the medical field.

Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I pay my last respects to a young man who was so full of life; to a young man who had a full and bright future ahead of him. I pray Army Specialist Miller's family and friends find peace in their hearts, knowing his country is grateful and humbled by his sacrifice. I thank our brave men and women in uniform for continuing with our mission in Iraq, which is the ultimate tribute to our fallen soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen.

Jimmy, to you I offer my sincere gratitude and my solemn commitment to continue to support your friends, the members of your unit, and the men and women in Iraq who are continuing without you. Thank you for seeing a vision greater than yourself and for the strength of your commitment to our country. God bless you.