John Boehner

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.

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

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, occupational workplace injuries and illnesses have in fact been coming down in a rather dramatic way over the last few years, and this is because we continue to see more cooperation between employers and with the agency charged with enforcing these laws, OSHA. Looking at this chart here, over the last 4 years, voluntary programs have reduced injuries. If we look at injury and illnesses over the last 4 years, Members will see that the rates per 100 workers have in fact continued to decline, and we believe that is because of the voluntary nature of these agreements between OSHA and the employer community. Looking at workplace fatalities on the next chart, Members will see that they continue to come down rather dramatically. Today, we are trying to increase the cooperation between OSHA and employers. The bill that we have before us, I think we need to understand that almost every other court in the Nation has the authority to excuse understandable procedural mistakes when those mistakes would take away someone's right to be heard in court. While most courts have this authority and use this authority, disputes at OSHA are an exception. There seems to be no flexibility in the OSHA Act. The OSHA Act has a 15-day deadline for filing a legal dispute against OSHA after it issues a citation. This is inflexible; 15 days, no changes. The bill before us is to provide authority for the agency specifically created by Congress to hear OSHA disputes, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, to make exceptions in appropriate cases. Now, appropriate cases for excusing a missed deadline are only those under which the totality of the circumstances surrounding the conduct indicates a good-faith effort to comply, but an inadvertent effort to do so. The bill before us accomplishes that using the time-tested legal language with clear, long-standing legal precedent, the same language used in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. So the bill before us would have no negative impact on the current safety and health protections in place. All it does is permit a case to be heard on the merits rather than being decided on a legal technicality. It does not change the outcome in any way, shape or form. The review commission is there to act as the court in these cases. We ought to give them the flexibility that every other court in the land has. We believe that this small change, this 11-word change in the law, would provide more cooperation between OSHA and employers and assist in protecting the health and safety of American workers. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 2728.

Mr. BOEHNER. 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. 2728.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. 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 today recognizes that improving workplace safety is good for business and it is good for workers. Employers face relentless competition, both at home and from abroad, and they must compete in the face of high taxes, rising health care insurance costs and burdensome government regulations. These four 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 this country today. The U.S. economy is improving and more and more employers are hiring workers each month. Earlier this month, the Labor Department reported that 1.1 million new jobs had been created over the last 8 months, including 625,000 in the last 2 months alone. Eight consecutive months of positive job growth show that the Republican plan for economic prosperity is working. But we want to make sure onerous government regulations do not hamstring the ability of small businesses to continue to hire new workers and to compete in our economy. That is why these bills are important. Mr. Speaker, since the Republicans won control of Congress 10 years ago, we have undertaken considerable efforts to make bureaucracy more responsive and more accountable to workers and taxpayers. Let me just give you 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 overreaching 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 pass the buck to State and local governments. This decade of progress on regulatory reform should give Americans confidence that Congress is making positive steps every year to improve government accountability. Today, we take one more positive step, to improve workplace safety, I think a goal that 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 across the country. I am pleased to report these voluntary programs have proven successful in reducing workplace injuries and illnesses. In fact, workplace injuries and illnesses have declined significantly during the Bush administration. If we look at these facts on this chart, I think we will see that over the last 3 years, injuries in the workplace have, in fact, declined significantly to their lowest point in history, to a rate of just 5.3 injuries or illnesses per 100 workers. I think that is significant progress. Moving on to the next chart, we can see that workplace fatalities have made similar declines, again to the lowest amount in history. In fact, the 6.6 percent reduction in workplace fatalities in 2002 is the single largest annual decline ever. Why have we made such significant progress? It is 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 on March 30 said voluntary partnerships between OSHA and employers ``have considerably reduced their rates of injury and illness and have fostered better working relationships with OSHA, improved productivity and decreased worker compensation costs.'' Now, we strongly support OSHA targeting 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 result. 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 the investment. Employers will use these resources because safety pays. Employers in America know that their number one asset is their employees, and every employer, I know, wants to do everything to protect the health and welfare of their employees. 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 complex OSHA laws and provide a safe working environment for their workers while facing increasing competitiveness from the 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 common-sense bills will help ensure that they receive that opportunity. The first reform bill on tap today, the Occupational Safety and Health Small Business Day in Court, 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 either by a mistake or for good reason. This change ensures that appropriate disputes are resolved based on merit, rather than legal technicalities. I think it is a common-sense proposal and deserves every Member's support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think all of us in the Chamber and all of my colleagues understand that OSHA has been a good agency and very good law that helps to protect the health and safety of American workers. No employer and, certainly, none of us in the Congress want to see workers placed in a position where their health or safety is questioned. As I said before, I think employers, by and large, across the country understand that their greatest asset, their greatest value in their business is the value of the good men and women who work for them. Certainly, what we are doing today in no way denigrates OSHA. As a matter of fact, I would argue that it will enhance OSHA's ability to work with employers in a voluntary way to increase the health and safety of American workers. The underlying bill that we have before us is real simple. It says that the arbitrary 15-day response time to an OSHA citation can be reviewed by the Review Commission and make a decision about whether the company needed more time, whether there was a mistake made and the deadline was missed. That is all it does. It does not denigrate the law in any way, shape or form. I believe it creates more voluntary cooperation between the employer community with OSHA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), one of our senior colleagues on the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 645, I call up the bill (H.R. 2728) to amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to provide for adjudicative flexibility with regard to an employer filing of a notice of contest following the issuance of a citation by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Schrock).

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2731.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) talks about how employers can recover the cost of their legal fees if in fact they win. But the fact is, and the gentleman knows and we well know, in the last 23 years, 23 years, exactly 37 employers had their attorney's fees returned to them. I will tell Members why that is the case, and that is because under the Equal Justice Act and the law around OSHA, unless OSHA was completely out of bounds, employers tend to lose. So here is what happens: employers do not even try. To give another example of why employers are not seeking legal fees from OSHA, it goes to the fact that if I am a small employer, which I was, am I going to put my capital, my assets, on the line, even if I think I am right, to take on the Federal Treasury and the Federal Government? I am probably just going to suck it up, go to court, pay the fine, and go on because I am not going to put my company at risk. I am not going to put all of my employees at risk, which is exactly what most small employers in America face today. That is why over the last 23 years only 37 employers ever got any attorney's fees from OSHA. Members can put themselves in the position of that small employer looking up at the Federal Government and the Federal Treasury and mountains of lawyers. I would not take that risk. I do not blame them for not taking the risk. All we say in this bill is if OSHA brings litigation against a small employer of 100 employees or less with a capital of less than $7 million, and OSHA loses, the small employer ought to have his attorney's fees covered. I do not believe that this will reduce the enforcement of OSHA in any way, shape or form; but I do believe it will cause OSHA to consider the strength of that agency, the power of the Federal Government, consider all of that before they come down on some poor small employer who is trying to do his best to protect the health and safety of his employees. But I do not think it is fair under the current system and the current structure that we have to look up, and to take 2002, for example, one employer, one employer in all of America got his attorney's fees returned to him. One. There were 80,000 citations issued by OSHA, one employer got some attorney's fees returned to him. It is not fair. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 645, I call up the bill (H.R. 2731) to amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to provide for the award of attorney's fees and costs to very small employers when they prevail in litigation prompted by the issuance of citations by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

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

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the third bill that we will debate today in this series of four is another narrowly craft bill that addresses a specific problem that we found in the OSHA law. The Occupational Safety and Health Independent Review of OSHA Citations Act restores independent review of OSHA citations by clarifying that the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission is an independent judicial entity given deference by courts that review OSHA issues. In 1970 when they created OSHA, Congress also created this 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 him on the basis of individual complaint.'' Congress even separated the commission in the Department of Labor. It was truly meant to be independent. The bill before us restores the original system of checks and balances intended by Congress when it enacted the OSHA law and ensures that the commission, in other words, the court, and not OSHA or, in other words, the prosecutor, would be the party who interprets the law and provides an independent review of OSHA citations. Now, let me put this in simpler terms for everybody. If you are stopped by a police officer and you are issued a citation for speeding, would you want the same officer who gave you the ticket to be your judge and jury and decide whether you are guilty or not? Well, of course you would not. And, unfortunately, for small businesses today the law is ambiguous and 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 an effort to expand its own authority. Congress intended there to be a truly independent review of the disputes between OSHA and employers; and when this dispute centers on OSHA's interpretations of its authority, Congress intended the independent review commission, not the prosecuting agency, OSHA, to be the final arbiter. H.R. 2730 restores this commonsense system of checks and balances. Employers are facing enough competition in the workplace. They are facing high taxes, rising health care costs, burdensome government regulations. All of these bills that we have brought to the floor today are intended to help small businesses that are the engine of economic growth in America be all that they can be and to survive in this very difficult economic climate. I would encourage my colleagues today to support this measure. It is another commonsense bill that would help increase the amount of worker safety and health safety that we see in the workplace each day. Mr. Speaker, I include the following letters for the Record: House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC, May 17, 2004. Hon. John Boehner, Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Boehner: On May 13, 2004, the Committee on the Judiciary received a sequential referral of H.R. 2730, the ``Occupational Safety and Health Independent Review of OSHA Citations Act of 2003'' through May 17, 2004. In recognition of the desire to expedite floor consideration of H.R. 2730, the Committee on the Judiciary hereby waives further consideration of the bill with the following understanding. I believe the bill as introduced might have been read to change the standard of appeals court review of Occupational Health and Safety Review Commission decisions, a matter that would fall with the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. I understand, however, that the intent of the drafters was simply to make the policy choice that courts should, in exercising normal agency deference under established precedent, defer to the Commission rather than the Occupational Safety and Health Administration itself--not to change the standard of review. I understand that you are willing, during floor consideration of H.R. 2730, to add the following language to the bill: Insert after ``all questions of law'' the following: ``that are subject to agency deference under governing court precedent'' and that you will offer an amendment to do so. With that understanding, I will not seek to extend the sequential referral of the bill for a further period of time. The Committee on the Judiciary takes this action with the understanding that the Committee's jurisdiction over these provisions is in no way diminished or altered. I would appreciate your including this letter and your response in the Congressional Record during its consideration on the House floor. Sincerely, F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2730.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us, H.R. 2729, makes two very small changes in the OSHA law. One, it says that the OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission panel be expanded from three to five members. We have gone through the various reasons why that is important. We believe that having virtually 8 years without a quorum and these cases languishing there for some time are really unfair to the employers and to the agency. And by expanding the commission from three to five members, we believe we will speed up the efficiency of that review commission. The second issue in the bill outlines the type of background of people who belong on this review commission. These are commonsense bills that we believe will help worker safety, help improve the cooperation between OSHA and the employer community. Again, commonsense bills that deserve our support.

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

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the second bill we will debate today is another narrowly crafted bill that addresses a specific problem which we find in the OSHA law. The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission Efficiency Act, H.R. 2729, increases the membership of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission from three to five members to ensure that cases are heard in a timely fashion. Because a quorum of two out of the current three 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 consideration of cases, meaning a situation is created where even if there is only one seat open, there is often no working quorum. For some 20 percent 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. Increasing the membership to five commissioners will 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 the job it was created to do by reducing case backlogs that are as much as 8 years old. The commission's sister agency, the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, has five panelists, and we found it 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. Most vacancies occur during these turnovers. We want small businesses hiring more workers and contributing to our economy, not facing years of OSHA-related litigation that they cannot resolve 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 I think we all support. Employers who make good-faith efforts to comply with OSHA standards deserve to be treated fairly and have their day in court. This measure will help ensure that they receive that opportunity. Nearly every employer today recognizes that improving workplace safety is good for business and it is good for workers. Employers face relentless competition both at home and abroad and they must compete in the face of high taxes, rising health insurance premiums and burdensome government regulations. All of 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 this country. The U.S. economy is improving. More and more employers are hiring workers every month. Earlier this month, the Labor Department reported that over the last 8 months, 1.1 million net new jobs were created, 625,000 in just the last 2 months. But we want to make sure that government regulations, and especially onerous government regulations, do not stand in the way of small businesses hiring more workers and getting our economy back on its feet. This bill is narrowly crafted and addresses a specific problem in the OSHA law. I believe it deserves our Members' support and would ask our Members and encourage them to support it today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. 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. 2729.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 645, I call up the bill (H.R. 2729) 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. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the bigger proponent of protecting workers' rights are employers, because American employers understand that the single greatest asset they have are the men and women who work for them each and every day.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman realizes that here in Washington we do two things every day: We do public policy which represents the work we are bringing to the floor today; and, unfortunately, we also do politics. This being a presidential election year, much less a congressional election year, means there is an awful lot of politics being played by some of the opponents of political opponents that we might have; but I think if my colleagues were to look at the four underlying bills, my colleagues will see today that we will have broad bipartisan support for all four of these bills. Why? Because they are merely money sense.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today during prom and graduation season to recognize The Century Council and the distilled spirits industry for their efforts to fight underage drinking this month and throughout the year. As we focus on public health and safety issues during prom and graduation season, we must pay close attention to the challenges facing our nation's youth. While many youth under the age of 21 obey the minimum drinking age law and do not drink, other youth unfortunately make irresponsible decisions about beverage alcohol. The consequences can be tragic. In addition to countless non-fatal injuries, statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration show there were 516 alcohol-related traffic fatalities among youths under the age of 21 in May and June 2002. The Century Council, funded by America's leading distillers to fight drunk driving and underage drinking, is kicking off its fifth annual National Prom and Graduation Safety Months Initiative consisting of a series of initiatives aimed at educating students, parents, educators and lawmakers throughout the upcoming months. This includes the nationwide distribution of prom and graduation safety kits and gubernatorial proclamations in more than 30 states. The Council's programs have been implemented across the country in numerous public/private partnerships to educate parents, educators, youth, lawmakers, law enforcement, and community groups about the problem of underage drinking. The Council's programs are developed by experts to provide the public with educational tools and programs aimed at reducing underage drinking. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join more than 30 governors from across the nation who have recognized the efforts of The Century Council in declaring May and June Prom and Graduation Safety Months.