Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition of this amendment.

The Founding Fathers designed the House of Representatives to guarantee the preferences and will of the people was represented. They included provisions in the Constitution, such as a 2-year term of office and requiring that vacancies be filled in all events by a special election, to ensure that the Members serving in this Chamber would be held directly accountable to the people.

Although the 17th amendment expanded this ideal of representation by requiring Senators to be directly elected by citizens of their State, it still permitted the use of appointments to fill vacancies. Therefore, the unique nature of the House of Representatives remained intact and to this day no Member has ever entered this body except by the mandate and popular vote of his or her constituents.

The stark realities of the 21st century, where terrorists seek to destroy our Nation and the incapacitation of a large portion of this Chamber is no longer inconceivable, require us to reexamine the continuity of our government. However, I believe that even in a terrorist attack or other catastrophe enough Members would survive to conduct the business of the Congress. The small probability that no Members would survive to serve does not warrant amending the Constitution to circumvent the electoral process. Suffrage is fundamental to the success of our democracy, and it must be protected even in times of crisis and uncertainty.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, last week, I joined several distinguished experts in the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) to commend them for the public release of their very timely, and much-needed study on the oversold and misguided National Missile Defense. It is entitled ``Technical Realities: An Analysis of the 2004 Deployment of a U.S. Missile Defense System''.

Sadly, Congress keeps shoveling ever greater amounts of taxpayer funds into this wasteful, dead-end program that adds nothing to our real national defense. In FY 2003, President Bush requested $7.8 billion, Congress authorized $7.78 billion and appropriated $7.62 billion. In FY 2004, the President requested $9.1 billion, Congress authorized $9.08 billion and appropriated $8.9 billion. Now, in FY 2005, the President has requested $10.2 billion. This bill authorizes that full amount, an increase of $1.1 billion or 13 percent more than the current level. It includes funding for the initial deployment of an untested national missile defense system based in Alaska and California.

To put it bluntly, our country can't afford spending upwards of $10 billion per year for a bogus missile defense program.

First of all, many of our Nation's leading physicists view midcourse defenses as absurd. They have long believed mid-course defenses are easily defeated and won't work for fundamental physics reasons.

Second, the truth is pure politics is driving this deployment. On December 11, 2002, the last intercept test of the missile defense system failed. No tests have taken place since then. Nevertheless, on December 17, 2002, President Bush announced his decision to deploy missile defenses in 2004.

Sometime after the President's announcement, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) cancelled or postponed every test scheduled since the speech. Nine tests have been cancelled.

Despite these cancellations, the schedule for deployment has actually moved up. President Bush simply announced deployment ``in 2004.'' Pentagon official subsequently set a deadline of September 30, 2004. The MDA has stated ``as early as this summer'' for initial operations. Bush Administration officials still maintain that this is an ``eventdriven'' program, where results of tests and simulations determine how the program progresses.

Instead, it seems to be schedule-driven. a return to the ``rush to failure'' approach that Lt. Gen. Larry Welch warned about during the Clinton Administration.

The current focus of the SDI Program is wrong. As we have witnessed in other national security matters, the Bush Administration appears hell-bent on deploying missile defense, regardless of whether it works. Before taking office, George W. Bush campaigned on the issue of missile defense. As has been highlighted in Richard Clarke's book and elsewhere, before the 9/11 attacks, the foreign and defense policy of the Bush Administration

was focused not on terrorism, but on missile defense.

Post-9/11, while it should be clear that the real threat is terrorism, the missile defense program has only sped up, and funding has steadily increased. Regrettably, this bill is now brought to the House under a restrictive and no amendments pertaining to the SDI have been made in order to allow debate and votes to cut funding for missile defense or calling for realistic, operational testing before deploying more interceptors. Apparently, no dissenting votes will be tolerated and this Congress will do nothing to stop the Bush Administration from declaring some system operational some time this year.

Many SDI supporters argue that any missile defense is better than none. However, the current situation we face maybe worse than nothing. While the currently constituted SDI system will offer no real defense, Bush Administration officials often claim it will be highly effective and will give the President ``more options.'' But it will not work well enough to affect our military posture and will only make potential enemies nervous and lead them to take offensive steps to overcome it. It may push Russia and China to maintain, improve and expand their nuclear arsenals.

When weighing the pros and cons of rushing to judgment on SDI deployment, we would do well to remember the advice and counsel of Richard Feynman, one of our Nation's greatest thinkers and most distinguished scientists: ``For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.''

Mr. Chairman, I support the provision in this bill which would at least postpone the 2005 BRAC Round until 2007.

Since September 11, 2001, the national security and defense needs of our nation have been changing and are still changing. We are still uncertain as to what resources we will need in the future.

First, U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan and Iraq for an uncertain period of time. Just look at Bosnia and Korea. In fact, after considerable effort to keep Congress from increasing end-strength, DOD is not reducing the number of military personnel in Iraq as planned, and Congress is increasing end-strength by 39,000 over 3 years.

Second, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is still in the process of being established and the facilities and resources needed for its diverse challenges, including any current military infrastructure that might be needed, are unknown.

Third, difficult decisions are yet to be made about the number of troops needed in Europe and Asia and where they should be located.

Fourth, there are efforts underway to raise or remove the caps on the number of troops in Colombia, and we have 2,500 Marines in Haiti. Similarly, we also see moves to shift at least 3,600 troops from South Korea to Iraq.

Fifth, congressional oversight of the re-deployment and re- positioning of American troops is needed now more than ever. Yet, there has been no structured, deliberate, and timely effort on the part of DOD to work with Congress to prepare our nation to confront additional and unprecedented challenges in the post-9/11 world. In fact, as reported in the National Journal last month, ``The department [DOD] has no plans to share the study [global posture review] with Congress, although Pentagon officials say the study will inform the BRAC process.''

Sixth, the BRAC process is estimated to cost approximately $15 billion. Savings above the cost of implementing BRAC are not required until 2011. These funds could be used now for our troops now.

Seventh, we are confronting very different circumstances in 2005 compared to the BRAC Rounds conducted in 1988, 1991, 1993 or 1995. Savings from previous BRAC rounds were derived almost entirely from substantial reductions in force structure and end strength. But now, we are increasing end strength and considering increases in force structure.

Mr. Chairman, the following reports are required from DOD between January 1, 2006, and March 15, 2006, or the BRAC process dies:

a. The Pentagon's Integrated Global Basing Strategy, including basing locations, rotational plans and policies, and overseas and domestic infrastructure requirements associated with that strategy;

b. A study of the infrastructure requirements associated with force transformation efforts; a report on infrastructure requirements related to changes to the active and reserve personnel mixtures of the services;

c. A study of the infrastructure requirements resulting from the Secretary of Defense's ``10-30-30'' objective; a reassessment of excess infrastructure capacity that is based upon infrastructure, facility, and space requirements of current, future, and surged military forces; and

d. A definition of, and infrastructure requirements associated with, ``surge requirements'' as determined by the Secretary as required by section 2822 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136).

It is prudent for implementation of BRAC to be put off 2 years (1 year if you start at the final due date of the reports) to allow Congress the opportunity and more time to review these reports in light of our nation's evolving defense needs. Realistically, even if Congress was to obtain the reports I've cited during the current BRAC timeline, there would not be enough opportunity for Congress to fully review and debate the merits before we would be required to vote on closure and realignment choices.

We should postpone the 2005 BRAC Round for at least 2 years.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of providing a child tax credit. I am supporting the Rangel substitute because it, unlike the underlying bill, is paid for and does not drive our country deeper into debt.

The Democratic substitute, like H.R. 4359, calls for permanent extension of the $1,000 per child credit, but would index the credit for inflation and fully pays for this extension through 2010. It would also accelerate the increase in the refundable portion of the credit, from 10% to 15%, starting in 2004. The Democratic substitute also provides the tax credit to low income individuals--it is simply unfair that they are left out of the child tax credit.

Because the GOP bill proposes no offsets to their version of the expanded and extended child credit, their proposal costs $228 billion over 10 years.

Mr. Speaker, today the national debt is largest in history. Americans now collectively owe more than $7 trillion--$24,304 for every man, woman and child. We have borrowed an additional $280 billion so far this year. The Majority would now like to borrow another $228 billion with the passage of this bill. Someone needs to remind them that we are also fighting a war, a war that has already cost us $150 billion and will cost another $4 billion a month.

More tax cuts without offsets will not only jeopardize critical public services now, but will also hurt Americans well into the future. Massive deficits now lead to increases in the debt and will create high interest payments that crowd out spending on public investments for future generations. Moreover, these deep deficits threaten to increase interest rates well into the future, making it harder for Americans to buy homes and afford higher education and making it harder for businesses to raise capital. We are literally squandering the wealth of this country by not paying for our tax cuts. This bill further contributes to a glaring problem--the breathtaking fiscal irresponsibility that is going on here in this town.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the substitute and defeat the $228 billion dollars of debt in the underlining bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, as the House of Representatives pauses for a moment of silence in honor of our fallen service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan, I rise in memory of Lieutenant Seth Dvorin, a member of the Army's 10th Mountain Division and a lifetime resident of East Brunswick, New Jersey.

An avid athlete, Seth played high school baseball and football before attending Rutgers University. In 2002, he joined the Army and was commissioned as an officer of the 10th Mountain Division's Battery B, 3rd Battalion, 62nd Air Defense Artillery Regiments.

Like many men and women in the armed forces and Reserves, Seth was deployed to Iraq. On February 4, 2004, he was killed when a device exploded on a road near Iskandariyah, Iraq. Seth died in the service of his country and his fellow soldiers. As a result of his bravery, others are alive today.

News of Seth's passing spread quickly throughout my Congressional district. Even those who never knew Seth personally still knew that we had lost someone special. Yesterday, more than two hundred students from John Witherspoon Middle School in Princeton gathered at Arlington National Cemetery to lay a wreath in honor of fallen service men and women. I was heartened to talk with these patriotic students today and understand the depth of their appreciation for the brave people who serve. Seth Dvorin was an American soldier and a respected member of our community. His loss is a tragedy--there is no other word.

Mr. Speaker, I want the record to show that Seth's country appreciates and mourns the sacrifice he made on our behalf. Men of his character and courage are rare. New Jersey has lost one of its sons, and we will miss him.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of making permanent the 10% tax bracket for low-income families. I am supporting the Tanner substitute because it, unlike the underlying bill, is paid for and does not drive our country deeper into debt.

The Tanner substitute, like H.R. 4275, makes permanent the change in our lowest tax bracket from 15% to 10%, and exempts from taxation the first $7,000 for single taxpayers and $14,000 for married couples. The Tanner substitute, however, requires that the funds needed to pay the tax cut do not come from Social Security and Medicare trust funds. Passing the Tanner substitute would help low-income families protect Social Security and Medicare while also helping eliminate the need to borrow from foreign banks to fund the federal government.

Mr. Speaker, today the national debt is the largest in history. Americans now collectively owe more than $7 trillion. That is $24,304 for every man, woman, and child. We have borrowed an additional $280 billion so far this year. The Majority would now like to borrow another $218 billion with the passage of this bill.

Here we have another tax cut that is not being paid for, even as the Bush Administration and the leadership of this Congress spend more than the American government has ever spent on homeland security and on all the other expenses of running the government--especially the huge costs of the war in, and occupation of, Iraq. The resultant borrowing places the burden of repaying our debts on our children.

I want the people of this country to realize that, right now, we owe collectively, in hard money, about $4 trillion to foreign countries. We owe Japan $607 billion; China (including Hong Kong) $205 billion; the U.K. $137 billion; Taiwan, $50 billion; Germany, $45 billion; OPEC countries, $43 billion; Switzerland, $41 billion; Korea, $37 billion; Mexico, $32 billion; Luxembourg, $26 billion; Canada, $25 billion--the list goes on and on.

More tax cuts without offsets will not only jeopardize critical public services now, but they will also hurt Americans well into the future. Massive deficits now create large debt and will create high interest payments that will crowd out spending on public investments for future generations. Moreover, these deep deficits threaten to increase interest rates in the future--making it harder for Americans to buy homes and afford higher education and making it harder for businesses to raise capital.

The President is pretending that we can have war without sacrifice. Eventually, someone has to pay. I believe Chairman Greenspan's recent comments are appropriate: ``Our fiscal prospects are, in my judgment, a significant obstacle to long-term stability because the budget deficit is not readily subject to correction by market forces that stabilize other imbalances. The free lunch has still to be invented.''

Now, we, all of us Americans, have to pay interest on the debt. We are literally squandering the wealth of this country by not paying for our tax cuts. The underlying bill is a good idea--keeping the lowest tax bracket at 10% helps all taxpayers equally. Unfortunately, by not paying for the tax cut, we are contributing to a far greater problem-- the breathtaking fiscal irresponsibility that is going on here in this town.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2432. Like so many other bills that have come the House floor recently, this one has a good title that belies its real substance. The paperwork and regulatory burdens on businesses could certainly use improvement, but this bill is actually an underhanded way to weaken so many important regulations that protect American citizens by giving us clean air, clean water, protected public lands, and safe workplaces.

It is ironic that, even as we operate under one of the most industry- friendly administrations in recent history, the paperwork burden on the average American businessman has actually gone up. In fiscal year 2003, total government paperwork reached an estimated 8.1 billion hours. According to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the paperwork burden rose a record 570 million hours in fiscal year 2002 and another 72 million hours in fiscal year 2003.

So even as the Bush administration and the House leadership dole out special interest goodies to oil and gas companies, HMOs, and many others, the paperwork burden for businesses is going up. The bill we have in front of us will not relieve that burden or do anything to undo the sharp increase in paperwork that we have seen from this White House. Instead, it weakens the process of developing federal regulations that protect the health and safety of Americans and our natural environment.

It is also ironic that the House leadership has chosen to attack environmental regulations as imposing undue burdens on businesses when our laws and regulations still do not fully account for externalities like pollution. Polluting industries may decry the costs of burdensome government regulations, but it is average citizens who pay the real price when they breathe dirty air and drink polluted water.

Some reports have concluded that my home state of New Jersey has the worst air quality in the nation. So it is hard for me, and for my constituents, to tolerate the cries of the power industries when their pollution leads to the premature deaths of so many New Jerseyans. I am outraged when the Bush administration insists on rewriting environmental regulations to pad the profits of polluters and ignores the human costs of pollution.

There is a real danger with the details in this legislation, especially concerning environmental and health regulations. The bill directs OMB to have every federal agency provide an annual report estimating the total costs and benefits of regulations and paperwork pertaining to that agency. So the agency measures the costs, say, of installing pollution controls on a power plant and filling out the relevant paperwork. When it comes to measuring the benefits of a given pollution control regulation, however, are we going to include the value of premature deaths avoided and reduced asthma rates? I sincerely doubt that most federal agencies are going to be inclined, or even be able, to estimate such external benefits.

As a research scientist. I am also concerned that the bill does not require the cost-benefit analyses to be done using rigorous scientific analysis. If we want to seriously look at the real costs and benefits of our regulations, we need to use scientific methods, or we risk using complete speculation. This Administration has already undermined and ignored science numerous times--let's not give them another opportunity.

I understand the burden that many businesses, especially small businesses, face in filling out government paperwork. This bill, however, is more about coming up with excuses to undermine vital health, safety, and environmental regulations than about relieving the evergrowing paperwork burden.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2728. The bill amends the section 10(a) and (b) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act to provide that an employer who has failed to contest a citation and proposed penalty (section 10(a)) or has failed to contest a notification of failure to correct a violation (section 10(b)) in a timely manner (within 15 working days of receiving the notice) may still contest the citation (or failure to correct notice) if the failure to contest in a timely manner was due to a ``mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.''

The bill's authors have used the title ``Occupational Safety and Health Small Business Day in Court Act.'' Once again, they have provided that you can name a bill anything you want, regardless of what it actually does. That is why it is critical to look at what is in the bill and not just the title--it covers more than just small businesses. In fact, H.R. 2728 applies equally to all employers regardless of size. However, because small businesses often get more sympathy, the bill's authors used the title to mischaracterize the substance of the legislation.

One of the principal purposes of the OSH Act is ``to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions'' and to encourage the prompt abatement of safety and health hazards. The timeframes in the OSH Act are intended to ensure that hazards are redressed in a timely manner.

H.R. 2728 creates an exemption to the act's timeframes on the basis of one case. The bill seeks to overturn the 2002 decision of the Second Circuit in Chao v. Russell P. Le Frois Builder, Inc. However, to date no other circuit has ruled similarly and Le Frois Builders is in direct conflict with a Third Circuit decision. Indeed, it is the position of the Occupational Safety and Review Commission that it may grant an excusable neglect waiver in any circuit except the second.

The bill amends subsection 10(a) and (b) to afford an excusable neglect remedy to an employer who fails to contest an OSHA citation in a timely manner or who fails to timely challenge an allegation that he or she has failed to correct a hazard within the abatement period. Not surprisingly, H.R. 2728 does not amend subsection 10(c), which affords workers the right to challenge the abatement period.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to oppose a bill that has been given a deceptive title. This legislation will not help small business but instead will hurt employees. What we really should be passing is legislation that will empower small business by increasing funding for education and training programs to help workers gain the job skills that small business is looking for and that will help America remain competitive.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2729, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission Efficiency Act. The bill expands the size of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, which hears disputes between OSHA and employers, from three to five members, and permits the President to extend the term of a commission member until the Senate confirms a successor.

This is a transparent effort to stack the Commission with two new members appointed by the Bush administration. There has been no demonstrated need to increase the Commission from three to five members. The Commission has had three members since it was established in 1970.

Proponents of this bill argue that the Mine Safety and Health Review Commission has five members. The responsibilities of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission responsibilities, however, are not as broad as those of the Mine Safety and Health Review Commission. For example, unlike the mine safety panel, the Occupational Safety and Health Act Commission does not have the responsibility to resolve whistle-blower complaints.

Further, since the bill does not change the statutory definition that two members constitute a quorum, expanding the membership to five would mean that a minority of the commission would constitute a quorum-- allowing the two members appointed by the Bush administration to make unilateral decisions.

Finally, the bill permits members to continue to serve until a new member is confirmed, which may result in an individual serving for years without being subject to reappointment and confirmation, encourages filibusters, and diminishes the incentive to develop consensus between labor and management and Republicans and Democrats with regard to Commission appointments.

Mr. Speaker, for all these reasons I must ask my colleagues to oppose this bill. I hope that in the future the majority leadership will help America's workers with legislation that will increase the minimum wage and protecting overtime rights and not undermine those protections.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York for yielding me this time; and I rise in opposition to H.R. 2730 and also in opposition to H.R. 2728, in opposition to H.R. 2729, and in opposition to H.R. 2731, which we will be considering shortly.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2730 would grant deference to the commission, not OSHA, in interpreting questions of law. Now, this, as in this collection of the other three bills, only serves to weaken the protection of workers. OSHA really is a proud chapter in American history, and we are pleased that a prominent New Jerseyan, Senator Harrison Williams, had a large role in writing this. There are millions of Americans who have their limbs, their eyesight, even their lives because of OSHA; and they do not even know who they are. This protection is critically important, and we need to keep it strong.

This cluster of bills today, in every instance, weakens the protection for workers. One of the pieces of legislation would grant the employer more time to contest, contest the findings. It does not restore the balance, as the gentleman speaking in support of this bill earlier said. No, it tips the balance. It tips the balance against the worker. It puts workers and the enforcers who protect them at a disadvantage. It would allow the employer more time but would not allow any new advantages for the enforcer or the worker.

H.R. 2729 would create a larger, slower, more cumbersome commission, again reducing the protection to workers. And 2731, the Occupational Safety and Health Small Employer Access to Justice Act, would encourage employers to contest and simply delay. So all four of these reduce protections that are critically important.

H.R. 2730 would divide the power to make and enforce standards from the authority to interpret them; and it would result in two different actors, the Secretary and the commission, being responsible for implementing the act's policy objectives. That is inefficient and undesirable, and it may substantially alter the manner in which the OSH Act is enforced by calling into question the authority and the ability of the Secretary to bring OSHA cases before the courts of appeal. If the commission's interpretations are to be given deference, then on what basis may the Secretary appeal a decision with which the Secretary disagrees?

Mr. Speaker, this bill presents more questions than it answers, and it creates conflicts that will only weaken worker protections. I ask my colleagues to oppose this bill and the other three bills in this family. In this globalized economy, and with the threat of outsourcing and cheap labor overseas, it is a mystery to me why the other side would want to risk reducing American workers' rights, wages, and working conditions.

I rise in opposition to H.R. 2730, the Occupational Safety and Health Independent Review of OSHA Citations Act. This bill specifies that the conclusions of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission ``with respect to all questions of law shall be given deference if reasonable.'' The bill requires reviewing courts to grant deference to the Commission, not OSHA, in interpreting questions of law, as long as the commission's interpretation is reasonable.

H.R. 2730 fundamentally weakens the powers of the Secretary of Labor. In 1991, the Supreme Court held unanimously in Martin v. OSHRC that the Secretary, not the Commission, should be given deference with regard to interpreting regulations because interpreting the regulation is a necessary adjunct of the Secretary's rulemaking and enforcement powers.

The Secretary of Labor is best able to regulate and enforce safety standards. As the promulgator of any given standard, the Secretary is better positioned to reconstruct the purpose of the standard. As enforcer, the Secretary comes in contact with a much greater number of regulatory problems than the Commission and is more likely to develop expertise in assessing the effect of a particular regulatory interpretation.

Dividing the power to make and enforce standards from the authority to interpret them results in two different actors, the Secretary and the Commission, being responsible for implementing the Act's policy objectives--an inefficient and undesirable result.

The commission is akin to a judicial body, not a regulatory one. Because of the OSH Act's unusual split enforcement structure, the Commission's adjudicatory authority is more aptly compared to that exercised by a court in an agency-review context, than to a unitary agency interpreting the regulations that it had promulgated. Conferring authoritative fact-finding and review powers in the Commission (and ultimately the courts), a body that is wholly independent of the administrative enforcer, ensures employers are protected from prosecutorial bias. H.R. 2730, by granting administrative powers to the Commission, confuses its role.

Finally, H.R. 2730 may substantially alter the manner in which the OSH Act is enforced by calling into question the authority and ability of the Secretary to bring OSHA cases before the courts of appeal. If the Commission's interpretations are to be given deference, then on what basis may the Secretary appeal a decision with which the Secretary disagrees?

Mr. Speaker, this bill present more questions than it answers and creates conflicts that will only weaken worker protections. I ask my colleagues to oppose this bill. In the globalized economy, with the threat of outsourcing and cheap overseas labor, it is a mystery to me why the Republicans want to risk reducing American workers' rights, wages, and working conditions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2731, Occupational Safety and Health Small Employer Access to Justice Act. This bill changes current law to permit the awarding of attorney's fees and expenses to a small employer who prevails in an administrative or judicial proceeding against the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), regardless of whether the position of OSHA was ``substantially justified.''

This bill treats OSHA differently than all other federal agencies. The bill holds OSHA to higher standard with regard to the payment of the opposing party's attorney's fees than any other agency.

Like most Federal agencies, OSHA is subject to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). Under EAJA, if the government's position is not ``substantially justified,'' the government must pay the prevailing party's fees and costs. According to information provided to then- Chairman Goodling in 1999, from FY 1981 through FY 1998, there were 68 applications for fees under EAJA by employers involving OSHA complaints. 41 of those applications were denied and 27 were granted.

In FY 1999, there were 12 applications filed, of which 2 had been denied, 3 had been granted, and 7 were still pending at the time the information was provided. There is no evidence that OSHA has engaged in reckless prosecutions or that it should be singled out for a higher standard than all other Federal agencies.

The likely consequences of this change is that OSHA would be less likely to issue complaints against those employers, more safety and health violations will go uncorrected, and, consequentially, more workers may be injured or killed.

This bill places employers' convenience over the safety and health of workers. There is no private right of action under the OSH Act--if OSHA fails to enforce the law, workers have no other recourse. In effect, H.R. 2731 places a higher priority on compensating employers for legal fees than on protecting the safety and health of workers.

Mr. Speaker, today we should be talking about how to protect our workers not endanger them. 15 workers were fatally injured and more than 12,800 workers were injured or made ill each day during 2002. These statistics do not include deaths from occupational diseases, which claim the lives of an estimated 50,000 to 60,000 workers each year. This bill will cause the number of worker deaths to go up, not down.

We should be discussing giving OSHA the proper funding to do its job. Between FY 1999 and FY 2003, the number of employees who work in workplaces inspected by federal OSHA inspections decreased by nearly 12%. The average number of hours spent per inspection also decreased between FY 1999 and FY 2003, from 22 to 18.8 hours per safety inspection and from 40 to 34.7 hours per health inspection. Adjusting for inflation, the FY 2005 proposed OSHA budget represents a $6.5 million cut over FY 2004 appropriations.

The FY 2005 OSHA budget proposed increasing programs for voluntary compliance and employer assistance while cutting training and outreach programs for workers and freezing standard-setting and enforcement programs. At OSHA, the president proposes to cut worker safety training programs by 65 percent and to shift these funds to employer assistance programs. These are the problems we should be addressing today, rather than debating H.R. 2731. I ask my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate National Police Week, I would like to recognize the bravery of two law enforcement officers from my district whose heroic acts were honored this week by Corrections USA, a leading national voice for correctional officers.

It is said that correctional officers ``patrol law enforcement's toughest beat,'' and nothing could be truer. Everyday, these officers work to keep violent felons behind bars and put their lives at risk to ensure that our families can feel safe in our homes and on our streets. The work they do is critical to the safety of our communities, and their sacrifices exemplify the spirit of public service.

Far too often these sacrifices go unnoticed, but on Monday May 10th, Corrections U.S.A. honored some of these extraordinary public servants at their Medal of Valor Awards Ceremony. Each of the award recipients went beyond the call of duty, putting their lives in jeopardy in order to save the life of another. They all responded admirably to the crises they faced, and demonstrated the true strength of their character. I was pleased and honored to joins Corrections USA in recognizing the courage of these fine officers, and would like to take this opportunity to share the stories of two of my constituents who were honored at this event.

On July 16, 2003, Corrections Officer Chris Wilson quickly came to the aid of one of his colleagues at the Middlesex County Adult Correction Center in North Brunswick, New Jersey, saving him from a severe beating at the hands of an inmate. Mr. Wilson immediately responded to fellow Officer Tim Morris's distress call and found him being attacked by an inmate. Mr. Wilson restrained the inmate and spared Mr. Morris from further injury. Officer Wilson received a Gold Medal of Valor for stopping this brutal attack.

Sergeant Joseph DeMatteo, a 22-year veteran of the Middlesex County Adult Correction Center, demonstrated his strength of character by assisting victims of a car accident he witnessed on his way to work. On July 23, 2003, Sergeant DeMatteo saw an SUV flipping over a small car, and quickly rushed to the scene to help. Because of his experience as a volunteer fire fighter and first aid responder, he assisted the driver in the first car, who was pinned from the chest down under the car's motor. When he noticed flames in the second car, Sergeant DeMatteo left the first driver in the care of another individual assisting at the scene and rushed to the other car. Sergeant DeMatteo and another individual were able to break the windows of the car and move the injured driver to a safe spot on the grass. Once the driver was stabilized, Sergeant DeMatteo went back to the other driver that was still trapped in his car. He stayed with the driver and helped keep him calm until emergency workers arrived to release him. Sergeant DeMatteo received the Life Saving Award for his efforts.

I commend the bravery of these individuals and extend my heartfelt gratitude to correctional officers across the country for their service to our communities.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill and in support of the substitute that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) will be submitting.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the substitute legislation offered by Mr. Kind and Mr. Andrews and in opposition to

Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly condemn the mistreatment of prisoners and detainees in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. These abuses are outrageous, deplorable, un-American, and contrary to the values and ethics that our country espouses. The atmosphere that allowed this to happen shows a level of tolerance for abuse that is intolerable.

The United States has suffered a blow to its credibility and effort to bring democracy to the Iraqi people. Photographs showing the abuse that Iraqi prisoners and detainees have suffered at the hands of American personnel damage the standing of the vast majority of U.S. troops in Iraq, who are performing with honor, bravery, and professionalism.

The response of the Bush administration to reports of systemic abuse has been both problematic and disquieting. Major General Antonio M. Taguba's report detailing these abuses, prepared in late February, should have been recognized as a serious matter. Instead, it was largely ignored. I am also disappointed that the administration chose to keep Congress and the public in the dark about this situation until the national news media decided to run the story last week. The administration has a responsibility to inform Congress and act decisively when volatile situations arise.

The U.S. Congress has a critical responsibility to conduct thorough and bipartisan oversight investigations to ensure that those involved are held accountable for their actions. These investigations must address possible abuse by U.S. civilian contractor personnel or other U.S. civilians, as well as the command structure and systemic deficiencies that contributed to such abuse.

The abuse that has occurred at Abu Ghraib is the latest in a series of very serious failures of leadership from military and civilian leaders. The President and his team were wrong about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They were wrong about the way American soldiers would be greeted by the Iraqi people. They were wrong about how much the war would cost and how long it would last. And they were wrong about the number of soldiers necessary to win the war and secure the peace. Now, in light of serious human rights violations, they did nothing to get to the bottom of it. This mishandling has created an international crisis that could set the Iraqi people against American efforts in the Middle East for generations. The President must recognize these consistent failures and take decisive action.

I ask unanimous consent to include in today's Congressional Record a letter that I sent to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld of February 5, along with six of my House colleagues. This letter inquires about the policy of CPA forces detaining Iraqis without due process and notification to their families. I also ask unanimous consent to include the response that we received from Thomas L. Carter, Senior Counselor to Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, III. Though the response is dated March 22, it was not received until May 3, three months after my initial inquiry. This response testifies that the processes established ``afford all persons in Coalition custody all the rights and safeguards set out in applicable International Humanitarian Law.''

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, February 5, 2004.

Hon. Donald H. Rumsfeld,

Office of the Secretary of Defense,

The Pentagon, Washington, DC

Dear Secretary Rumsfeld: I write to inquire about the

policy of Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) forces in

Iraq detaining Iraqis without due process and notification of

family.

Several news outlets and international advocacy

organizations have criticized the CPA's treatment of Iraqi

detainees. I am concerned that CPA tactics designed to secure

the region are in fact compromising the long-term interests

of Iraqis, other internationals, and even the CPA.

I request your response to the following concerns: What is

the current procedure for communication between CPA forces

and the families of detained Iraqis? Are they able to receive

prompt and accurate information regarding the health and

legal status of their family member; and what is the status

of detainees who were to be freed under the provisional

release program, and have family members of these detainees

been kept abreast of developments?

I believe that CPA forces have the moral obligation to

demonstrate respectful treatment of detainees and, of course,

the legal responsibility to uphold the provisions of the

Geneva Convention. Further, we must make sure that our

treatment of detainees does not sow the seeds of resentment

by Iraqis, subjecting CPA forces, other internationals, and

Iraqis cooperating with the CPA, to great danger.

Seizing suspects in the middle of the night and leaving a

bewildered, uninformed family behind brings to my mind the

``disappeared'' victims of detestable regimes around the

world in the past. No American wants to see the CPA regarded

as being in any way like those discredited regimes.

I understand the need to employ forceful tactics in a

region that is still largely insecure and home to many

insurgents and Saddam Hussein loyalists. However, I am

concerned that CPA forces are not balancing the need to

secure the region and arrest insurgents with their obligation

to fair treatment of detainees and with the need for the

cooperation of the general populace in force protection and

eventual transition of political power to the people of Iraq.

I look forward to your reply. If it is necessary to present

your response in a classified setting, I would be willing to

make such arrangements. I thank you for your cooperation with

this matter.

Sincerely,

Rush Holt,

Member of Congress.

Robert Wexler,

Member of Congress.

Raul Grijalva,

Member of Congress.

Fortney Pete Stark,

Member of Congress.

Dennis Kucinich,

Member of Congress.

Barney Frank,

Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) is a terrible burden on middle class taxpayers and the middle class should be excluded from the AMT.

Once again, however, the Republican leadership is using budget gimmicks to hide the real cost of their tax cut and doing nothing to offset it. While the proposed AMT relief bill carries an official cost of $17 billion, its actual long-term costs are much higher: $549 billion over ten years, or $658 billion if the added interest costs on the national debt are taken into account. Indeed, by proposing a one- year ``fix'' to a perpetual problem, H.R. 4227 purposefully obscures not just the long-term cost of AMT reform. Ignoring these long-term costs irresponsibly undermines our ability to adequately plan for the future. It costs the future generation, as well as the present economy.

More unpaid-for tax cuts will not only jeopardize critical public services now, but they will also hurt Americans well into the future. Massive deficits now create large debt and high interest payments that will crowd out spending on public investments for future generations. Moreover, these deep deficits threaten to increase interest rates in the future--making it harder for Americans to buy homes and afford higher education, and making it harder for business to raise capital.

This is why I support the Democratic alternative to relieve the burden of the AMT on middle class taxpayers. The substitute would provide temporary relief from the AMT that is more broad and simpler than the relief contained in H.R. 4227. The substitute would simply eliminate AMT liability for all taxpayers whose adjusted gross income is less than $250,000 ($125,000 for single taxpayers). Above those income levels, AMT liabilities would be phased in over a $40,000 range ($20,000 for single individuals).

The substitute would provide a framework for total reform of the AMT. It would require the Secretary of the Treasury to promptly submit legislative recommendations to the Congress, and it would require the Committee on Ways and Means to act on those recommendations this summer. It is time for the Congress to be honest with the American taxpayers and proceed with real AMT reform.

Moreover, the substitute would be revenue neutral. Its cost would be offset by restricting certain tax shelters, which has already passed the Senate on a bipartisan basis. The AMT was designed to ensure that all taxpayers pay a minimum amount of tax and, in effect, limited the ability to use tax loopholes. The substitute would directly address those tax avoidance transactions, thereby minimizing the need for the minimum tax and provide relief for the middle class families of my district.

We cannot continue to pretend that the AMT problem will go away on its own and to make major policy decisions based on the reckless unrealistic assumption that it will. We must work toward a long-term, fully paid-for solution that protects our ability to fund critical national priorities and allows us to make realistic plans for the future.