Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the remarks that have been given so far by the gentleman from Florida as well as the gentleman from Massachusetts. Saying there were 70 amendments proposed happens to be rounding up the number, but of those that were not allowed in the process, six were withdrawn by their sponsors. The majority of the others were either duplicative or not germane. And may I remind this body that why we are talking in a structured rule is because the bulk of the issues should have been done in the hearing and in the committee level. The committee who did hear these issues did pass this bill, I remind you once again, unanimously from both sides of the body. The issues that have been addressed so far will have a chance because there is also another amendment that deals with Colombia, so the gentleman from Massachusetts will have a chance once again to give some dramatic rhetoric one more time on this particular issue. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 365 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as I said at the introduction of this particular rule, this bill covers a wide range of issues. As you can see from the discussion we have had so far, there are a wide range of issues that are covered in this particular bill. That is why it is also remarkable, one more time, that this particular bill came through its committee in a uniquely bipartisan way, in which there were hearings and then a markup, over 62 amendments presented, bipartisan, discussed, and once again with a bipartisan result were submitted to us. The committee process that we have in the House is of a unique and supreme importance. Without trying to make any kind of value statement on what is done on the other side of this particular Capitol, former Senator McCarthy of Minnesota once said that the Senate has rules, but it does not matter because no one over there follows them. We on the House side though, have an orderly process in which to discuss issues and bring them in a timely and consistent manner, and the specifics of those are the importance that we put on the committee, and especially the hearing process in the committee. It is the committee process in which issues of specifics as well as long-range importance should be debated and discussed and allow that hearing process to go forward, so that what is brought to the floor becomes a significantly refined model, and that therefore on the floor we can narrow our process and narrow our discussion into those particular areas and into certain particular areas. This bill is still a significant issue. It is a significant bill. It is a 2-year authorization, and within that authorization is a blueprint for the reform of the State Department. It is significant that that move forward, because we are talking about how we fully authorize and fully purport to have a well-balanced and strong core of diplomatic personnel representing us in every institution. Within this bill are specific and important issues that fully authorize the safety and security of that personnel. Those are significant issues, and though we may differ with specifics of what is happening today, we must also look to the fact that this bill deals with long-term results, long-term goals, long-term aspirations of our State Department and our foreign policy. Mr. Speaker, what I am trying to say is this bill has had significant debate on a wide variety of issues within the committee process, and that is the way the House tries to function, by also authorizing 38, which is a majority of the resolutions. Once again, the majority of the amendments not offered were taken away either from withdrawal or from redundancy or from germaneness issues. But by authorizing 38 and providing a process for that discussion means that, once again, we are going to take these issues in a wide range and a wide variety and move forward with those with that type of discussion on the floor. My only hope at this stage is that as a floor, we can be as wise as the Committee on International Relations was when they came up with a bipartisan product and a 44-0 vote and presented it here for our further considerations. Hopefully we will maintain the same kind of collegiality and standards that particular committee did, because I think it sets a standard and a goal for us to try and emulate as we go through with the floor discussion. I am proud of the underlying bill and I am proud of the rule because it provides the fair representation for this bill as a continuation of the committee process, but does not supplant the committee process, which is what we do here on the House floor for an orderly discussion of those particular issues. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, once again, I have enjoyed the articulate and emotional discussion that has gone forward on this rule so far. Eventually, we may actually have a bill that meets the debate. I would remind my colleagues that these four packages are how we help small business negotiate through the stream of Federal regulation. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) to once again reemphasize that point.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, last term, when I was a freshman here, having had some State legislative experience, I remember sitting back there by the rail talking to some other freshmen saying one of the things we need to do desperately in this body is have the rule that there should be one bill and one issue. If we did that, it would create better transparency and actually better legislation that people would understand. I think our discussions today illustrate that point. I have a great deal of empathy for the gentleman from Texas who spoke a few moments ago, a good friend, a good legislator, and he said, the bills we have before us would not solve the problem that he introduced. He was totally accurate, because the topic of his amendment is not the same as the topic of the bills we have before us today, which is why they were ruled nongermane and not put in on the rule itself. I think we have had some fascinating words that I have enjoyed. I am going to call it fascinating rhetoric today, not really debate, because like ships passing in the night that never touch, so has our discussion from both sides of the aisle gone forward, but never really discussed the same topic at the same particular time. The four bills we have before us are very narrow in their approach, and they are very good bills, because they help small businessmen and small business women to try and negotiate the rule process with OSHA. They deserve our support, as they deserve the support they got last year when they were discussed in committee; last year when we passed them with bipartisan support on the floor; this year, once again, as they were discussed in committee, because the goal of those bills is to eliminate the conflict between the Federal Government and small business and, instead, to enhance cooperation. And that enhanced cooperation will make a better atmosphere for the business community in America and make a better country for all of us. That is the point of these four very good, very narrow and very specific bills. I urge the Members to support this rule. It is a fair rule. I urge the Members to support the four underlying bills. They are good bills.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to note that, though I appreciate the very articulate remarks of the gentleman from California about the issue at hand, which is a significant issue we should somehow debate, I remind him that we are talking here about reform of a regulatory process of OSHA. The gentleman's comments are not germane to this particular bill. There will be a point in time for that discussion, but we should not cloud what this bill is actually doing. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis) to hopefully clarify this.

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

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am appreciative of being able to talk about the four bills dealing with regulatory reform, all of which have had full debate in the committee this year, as well as full debate in the committee last year. And the Committee on Rules did approve every amendment that was germane. Unfortunately, of the three amendments that were present, none of them were germane to the topic of regulatory reform. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), the subcommittee chairman, to address this rule.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. The resolution before us is the rule for the consideration of a package of four bills, H.R. 739, 740, 741, and 742. They are pieces of legislation which passed with a significant bipartisan majority in the 108th Congress and are once again being brought to the floor today to help reduce the impact of unduly burdensome regulations for American small businesses and thereby enhancing American competitiveness, and to restore fairness in applying workplace safety regulations to small business. The rule before us, House Resolution 351, provides for the separate consideration of each of these four bills. Under the rule, each bill will have its own debate time and the opportunity to be thoroughly debated and voted on by this body. Finally, the rule also provides that at the close of consideration of these measures, the Clerk of the House will be directed to combine the text of each of these bills that do pass the House under this rule as one engrossed bill, and send that bill to our friends on the other side of this Capitol, where they will have a better opportunity this time to be both deliberative and, hopefully, active at the same time. While this may seem to be a complicated rule, the effect is quite simple. The bills brought up for consideration under this rule will allow small businesses to focus more of their energy on competing in the marketplace, providing their customers with better goods and better services and creating new jobs across America, rather than spending their time paying questionable fines, wrangling with regulators, worrying about the uncertainties created by an inadequate dispute process, created by staffing shortages, or having to pay for lawyers' fees to help fight a just cause with occasionally insensitive, but most often distant, Federal bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) and the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), as well as the hard work by both Republican and Democratic Members of this committee, are to be commended in bringing a well-balanced small business fairness package to the floor today. The first of these four bills, 739, which is the Occupational Safety and Health for Small Businesses Day in Court Act, tries to provide flexibility to employers filing responses to OSHA citations. We currently have a hard and very arbitrary standard of 15 days to respond to an OSHA citation, even though in the 1980s, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure granted employer relief to file a late notice if there was a mistake, inadvertence, a surprise, or excusable neglect. This bill simply codifies this commonsense practice. Hard and fast deadlines in instances sometimes work an injustice, but in any case they provide only a safe standard for the bureaucrats, but lack the common sense to help small businesses which were clearly recognized in the Federal Rules on Civil Procedure. There is no good reason why we should not codify for all what is occasionally given to some and allow for some discretion in granting relief to innocent employers for, as the law says, mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. There should be no controversy over this commonsense bill. The second bill, H.R. 740, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission Efficiency Act of 2005, provides for the addition of two additional members to the review commission, and the additional human resources will allow it to complete its work in a timely fashion for the benefit of both employers and employees. For two-thirds of the life span of the review commission's existence, the commission has frequently been paralyzed by vacancies that have resulted in several critical and well-documented inefficiencies and rendered the entire regulatory scheme devised by Congress to resolve OSHA disputes as unworkable. The byproduct of this breakdown delays final adjudication. It harms real business. It hinders real job creation. There is a simple and easy way to resolve this particular problem. The third bill, H.R. 741, the independent review of OSHA citations, by legislative history and practice, OSHA was designed to be responsible for rule-making, enforcement and adjudication. But Congress also established a review commission. Its intention was to give an independent review of OSHA functions as a check on prosecutorial excesses by OSHA. A 1984 court decision extended the concept of administrative deference to the agency and subsequent court decision which have been conflicting, have compounded the problem, and conflicted the process of checks and balances Congress intended. This bill simply restores responsible checks and balances to the current system by making it clear that it is the commission's legal interpretation that should be given proper judicial deference. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the fourth bill, H.R. 742, deals with small employers' access to justice. This simply provides for a small employer to have payment of attorney fees when that small employer prevails in litigation that was prompted by the issuance of a citation by OSHA. The legislation is simple in its rationale: Small business people should not be intimidated into blindly following mandates because they do not think they can afford to fight a case in court in which they would otherwise prevail. This levels the playing field so that small businessmen and businesswomen have an equal chance with powerful government bureaucracies that have virtually unlimited legal resources of the Federal Government behind them. This bill helps the mom-and-pop businesses to be able to have the courage to speak up for themselves when they are right. Small businesses still provide a majority of the jobs in this country, and they feel the economic pressure brought by government regulations and taxes every day. It is only fair that through these four bills in these very specific areas that we take care to remove any economic incentives for the fostering of an insensitive Federal regulatory bureaucracy. Mr. Speaker, these are four commonsense good bills which, once again, enjoyed a bipartisan majority of Members' support in the 108th Congress. Our country has had 35 years of experience with OSHA. As documented in testimony before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, modest improvements are needed to restore balance to the regulatory scheme through these bills as they relate to small business. Last year, the Office of Management and Budget reported to the Congress the annual cost of major Federal regulations for the decade from 1992 to 2002 was somewhere between $38 and $44 billion which means that, for every dollar we spend for regulation, we also as a government spend $1.50 for compliance costs and the private sector spends $45 in compliance costs. The over-regulation of business puts us at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of the world, places unlimited, unnecessary limits on our economy and harms the consumer. I am proud the congressional leadership is continuing to look at ways to pare back the overwhelming growth in regulation and bureaucracy, and I urge my colleagues to support the rule for these four bills to keep American businesses competitive in a global marketplace, to keep jobs here in America. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bills. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 351 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), subcommittee chairman.

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

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it may be in order at any time on Tuesday, July 19, 2005, for the Speaker to declare a recess, subject to the call of the Chair, for the purpose of receiving in joint meeting His Excellency Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister of the Republic of India.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a constituent and friend, who after 37 years is retiring as an officer of the largest credit union in my congressional district, the America First Federal Credit Union. Barney B. Chapman's service to constituents' financial needs in my district over the years is impressive, but his work in the community is the reason he deserves the respect and thanks today. The organizations which have benefited from him include: The Air Force Reserves, Boy Scouts of America, Chamber of Commerce, Legislative and Military Affairs Committee, the Federation of Independent Business, several Governors Advisory Boards, Salt Lake Community College, the Junior League, Junior Achievement of Utah, the United Way, Weber School District and Weber State College. Like the good old boy scout that he is, Barney Chapman does his best to do his duty to God and his country and to help other people at all times, but I am particularly grateful for his commitment to the Air Force. A good airman lives by three principles: integrity first, service before self, excellence in all he does. These are the Air Force core values, and as a full colonel retired, they are his as well. They typify the life of Barney Chapman, and for that, I do honor and thank him today.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), one of the leading voices on the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I love history. In fact, this is not necessarily unprecedented. The Kassebaum-Solomon amendment in 1985 asked for change, and meaningful change took place. In 1994, we insisted on an oversight committee and an oversight committee took place. And under the bipartisan Helms-Biden approach, once again we insisted on changes with the United Nations. The United Nations responded to it. This bill is keeping a tradition that is historical going back for at least 20 years in this body. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 319 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the kindness and flexibility of my good friend from Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity for having had a very quality debate here today. It is interesting to note once again that the ranking member and the chairman have said the need for reform is obvious. There is no disagreement on that point. It is seemingly the mechanism of doing that. Once again I point out that in 1985, 1994 and 1999, this House set precedent by doing the exact same concept that is there. And it is true that maybe I have heard a new concept here that I do not need to make all Ten Commandments to get to heaven, but I also know that when I was in my classroom and I put high standards and high expectations, my kids met those standards; and if I wavered, then they wavered at the same time. This is a good piece of legislation. It is an excellent rule, and I urge its adoption and passage of the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.