Bradley Byrne

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, from what I saw in the CBO score of the bill, the AHCA bill actually reduces government spending, reduces taxes, and reduces health insurance premiums over the window of the CBO score. So it does the exact opposite of what the gentleman suggested. It does exactly what the American people sent us here to do. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I certainly agree with my colleague from Colorado that we should avoid silly partisanship, and I hope that that means we won't see silly partisan procedural motions and points of order between now and the end of the week. We have seen plenty of those up until this point in time by our friends on the other side of the aisle, and I hope that his statement means we won't see any more since he believes that silly partisanship is bad for this body and the consideration of these important healthcare bills. We are not here today to talk about the AHCA. We are here today to talk about the Small Business Health Fairness Act. That is what this rule covers. Let me go over again what has happened to small businesses, but, more importantly, what has happened to the people who work for small businesses. An estimated 300,000 small-business jobs were destroyed by ObamaCare; 10,000 small businesses closed because of ObamaCare. Since 2008, 36 percent of small businesses that have fewer than 10 employees have stopped offering healthcare coverage altogether. ObamaCare's compliance costs and mandates have resulted in $19 billion in lost wages for small-business employees. The majority of people in this country work for small businesses. We are trying to give them a fair shake. We are trying to give them their freedom and their choice back. We are trying to give them affordable care because their freedom and their choice and the affordability of their care has evaporated over the last several years. Ask anybody in America. They come up to me all the time in my district and tell me this. We, through this bill and the other bills we are considering, are repairing the damage done to the people of America by ObamaCare. Now, my colleagues can throw up dilatory points of order and other procedural items later on if they want to engage in silly partisanship, or we can get down to the business of taking care of the workers in America. This bill, or a concept like this bill, has been on this floor before and enjoyed bipartisan support. If we are going to drop silly partisanship, let's drop it right now on this rule and on this bill, and adopt it for the good of the workers in these small businesses throughout America. Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 210 and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Joe Deal McEarchern, Jr. for his over forty years of service as Chief Clerk of the Mobile County Probate Court. Born in 1949, Joe has been a lifelong resident of Mobile County, Alabama. After Joe's father passed away when he was young, he worked in various shoe stores in the Mobile area to help finance his college education. He attended public schools in Prichard, Alabama and graduated from C.F. Vigor High School in 1968. During his time at Vigor, Joe was President of the National Honor Society, sports editor for the yearbook, and named ``Student of the Year'' by the Civitan Club. Joe went on to attend the University of South Alabama, where he graduated in 1972 with a bachelor's degree in political science. While in college, he married Wendy Stinson, who also graduated from South. In July of 1972, Joe was hired by Mobile County Judge of Probate John L. Moore to serve as chief clerk of the Recording Division. He later served as administrative assistant of the Court before being appointed chief clerk of the Court in March 1981. He has served in that position ever since under Judges John L. Moore III, Lionel W. Noonan, and Don Davis. Early in his career, Joe oversaw and implemented changes to the Probate Court's pre-computerized indexing system for judicial and land records. His work focused on making these systems more efficient and easier to use. As technology advanced, Joe oversaw and implemented changes to the Court's operations to utilize computer technology in all aspects of the Court's operations, including the recording of documents, word processing, websites, judicial case management, and accounting. Joe is currently the dean of the chief clerks of probate courts in the State of Alabama. He is a founding member and past president of the Alabama Probate Court Chief Clerks Association. He served as a member of the Alabama Law Institute's Probate Code Revision Committee and assisted the Alabama Law Institute on numerous projects involving Alabama probate courts, probate law, and probate procedure. He has been asked to speak and present on these topics countless times throughout his career. When he was not working, Joe has pursued a number of hobbies including photography, astronomy, birding, ham radio, and flying. He is also a long time member of the First Baptist Church of Mobile. Joe has always been a good friend of the lawyers in our community, including a friend of mine. So, on behalf of Alabama's First Congressional District, I want to wish Joe and Wendy all the best upon his retirement. His dedicated service to Mobile County has not and will not go unnoticed.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember the life and legacy of Mr. Justice ``Jay'' Smyth, III, who passed away on February 10, 2017 at the age of 62. Jay was a loving father, son, brother, uncle, and husband. To me, he was a dear classmate, colleague, and friend for more than forty years. Jay attended both undergraduate and law school at the University of Alabama, where he was involved in the Student Government Association and Theta Chi Fraternity. During his time in school, he was inducted into numerous honor societies such as JASONS Senior Men's Honorary and Delta Theta Phi Legal Honorary. After graduating from law school in 1980, Jay practiced law in Montgomery, Alabama for nineteen years before moving to Tuscaloosa. Jay was a skilled and thoughtful lawyer who earned tremendous respect from his colleagues. As a true testament to his personality and legal knowledge, Jay was also beloved by his clients; an anomaly for most in the legal community. Jay was a skilled writer who excelled at telling stories and always took great interest in politics and history. He loved spending time outdoors and grilling out at home. He was a dedicated fan of the Alabama Crimson Tide and greatly enjoyed attending games with his family. Jay was delighted in spending time with his wife and children, whom he loved dearly. Most importantly, he was steadfast in his faith to God and served as a pillar of Christ in his family and his community. So, to his wife, Rushan, and sons, Justice and Jeff, I want to extend my deepest sympathies. May you take comfort in the warm memories of Jay and the lasting impact he had on so many.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.J. Res. 83.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.J. Res. 83, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, America's workers deserve responsible, commonsense, regulatory policies to ensure safe and healthy working conditions. Let me say that again. America's workers deserve responsible, commonsense regulatory policies to ensure safe and healthy working conditions. They deserve a Federal Government that holds bad actors accountable, and a government that takes proactive steps to help employers improve safety protections and prevent injuries and illnesses before they occur. Just as importantly, they deserve to know that Federal agencies are following the law. For years, Republicans have called on OSHA to reject a top-down approach to worker protections and, instead, collaborate with employers to identify gaps in safety and address the unique challenges facing workplaces. Unfortunately, under the Obama administration, our concerns usually fell on deaf ears. In fact, one of the administration's parting gifts to workers and small businesses was a regulatory scheme that reflects not only a backwards, punitive approach to workplace safety, but one that is completely unlawful. Here's why. Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, employers have long been required to record injuries and illnesses and retain those records for 5 years. The law explicitly provides a 6-month window under which OSHA can issue citations to employers who fail to maintain proper records; 6 months. It is written in the law. This approach helps ensure workplace hazards are addressed in a timely manner. However, in 2006, OSHA took action against Volks Constructors for recordkeeping errors that occurred well beyond what the law allows, well beyond 6 months. The errors were from nearly 5 years earlier. That is why a Federal appeals court unanimously rejected OSHA's overreach. The opinion for the Court stated: ``We do not believe Congress expressly established a statute of limitations only to implicitly encourage the Secretary to ignore it.'' Even President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Judge Garland, agreed OSHA's action was ``not reasonable.'' What came next was an outright power grab. OSHA decided to take its unlawful action one step further. This time it would not only ignore the law, but rewrite it. The agency finalized the ``Volks'' rule, unilaterally extending the statute of limitations from 6 months to 5 years. OSHA undertook for itself the power that only this Congress has to write laws. The agency created significant regulatory confusion for small businesses. Many would likely face unwarranted litigation because of unlawful regulatory policies. Of course, further judicial scrutiny also means hardworking taxpayers will foot the bill when OSHA is forced to defend its lawless power grab once again. Simply put, OSHA had no authority to do this. We have a Constitution that grants Congress, not Federal agencies, the power to write the law. But that is not the only reason we are here today. We are also here because this rule does nothing to improve workplace safety. Maintaining injury and illness records is vitally important and can help enhance worker protections. But that is not the goal of this rule. This rule only serves to punish employers. As we have said repeatedly, OSHA should, instead, collaborate with employers to help them understand their legal responsibilities and ensure safe measures are in place to prevent workplace hazards in the future. Fortunately, Congress has the authority to reject this failed approach to workplace safety and block an abuse of executive power that began under the Obama administration. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I hope we can all work together to encourage a more proactive approach that prevents injuries and illnesses from happening in the first place. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 150, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 83) disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to ``Clarification of Employer's Continuing Obligation to Make and Maintain an Accurate Record of Each Recordable Injury and Illness'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read very briefly a quote from the court's decision: ``We find this statute to be clear and the agency's interpretation unreasonable in any event''--in any event. There is no way to rewrite this regulation to comply with the law that is clear. There is no way for the agency's interpretation to become reasonable. It is unreasonable according to the court in any event. My friend from Virginia talked about the fact that OSHA just updated the regulation to impose a continuing obligation. OSHA does not have that authority. Only this Congress has that authority. No agency can unilaterally decide to change a statutory provision that the court has said is clear. He said this applies to only a few categories of employers. It applies to nearly every category of employers that has 10 employees or more. So you could have an employer with 50 employees, and they are subject to this regulation. This applies to virtually any employer. OSHA has 6 months to enforce this law--6 months--from any violation. Now, why 6 months? Because it is important to investigate these things quickly and determine whether there has been a violation because things get lost and people leave their employment. Congress made the decision for 6 months because that was a period of time in which OSHA could perform its duties reasonably, and we could get justice the way it ought to be done. We can amend OSHA, but we have not chosen to do so. Until this Congress chooses to change OSHA, the agency has to comply with the clear wording of the statute as it has been passed by this Congress. The agency does not have the right to do this. It would be a waste of taxpayer money and time to force an employer to go challenge this in court when we already know what the result is going to be. It is not up to the committee or to the Congress to go back and review an agency interpretation we know, as a matter of law, is wrong. So this is a responsible act to take, and I would suggest to the agency and to my fellow Members of Congress that if we want to reconsider a statute of limitations we do it on this floor and not in that agency. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) who is the chairwoman of our committee.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Virginia referred to continuing violations. There is no provision in this law for continuing violations. Looking again at the court's decision. They said this: the statute of limitation provides that ``no citation may be issued . . . after the expiration of six months following the occurrence of any violation.'' They go on to say this: ``Like the Supreme Court, we think the word `occurrence' clearly refers to a discrete antecedent event--something that `happened' or `came to pass' `in the past.' '' By any common definition, there was no occurrence; i.e., no discrete action, event, or incident, no coming about, and no process of happening within the requisite 6 months. You can't take that wording and slip into it a continuing violation requirement unless you change the statute. The agency can't change the statute. The court, in its decision on the Volks rule, also looked at something very important, and that is: Why do we require this agency to do its work in a good period of time? It says: ``Nothing in this statute suggests Congress sought to endow this bureaucracy with the power to hold a discrete record-making violation over employers for years, and then cite the employer long after the opportunity to actually improve the workplace has passed.'' In other words, we gave the agency 6 months to do its job, and it should do its job. Now, other people have looked at this, people who are experts in workplace safety. I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to a letter that was written on October 27, 2015, by the American Society of Safety Engineers, which I include in the Record. American Society of Safety Engineers, Park Ridge, IL, October 27, 2015. Re ASSE Comments on OSHA Notice of Proposed Rule Clarification of Employer's Continuing Obligation to Make and Maintain an Accurate Record of Each Recordable Injury and Illness [Docket No: OSHA-2015-0006]. Hon. David Michaels, Assistant Secretary, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA Docket Office, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC. Dear Assistant Secretary Michaels: As you well know, the more than 37,000 member safety, health and environmental (SH&E) professionals of the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) intimately know the details of collecting workplace injury and illness data, recording that data for employers, and the careful work needed to report that data to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Perhaps more than any stakeholders, our members understand the value of this data in managing workplace safety and health risks as well as its appropriate use by OSHA in developing better means to focus the agency's resources on the most difficult risks facing American workers. Our members use injury and illness data to help them protect workers. They expect no less of an effective OSHA. That being said, ASSE cannot support the requirement that employers have a duty to record an injury or illness continues for the full duration of the rccord-retention-and- access period--five years after the end of the calendar year in which the injury or illness became recordable--that OSHA proposes in its July 29, 2015 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) Clarification of Employer's Continuing Obligation to Make and Maintain an Accurate Record of Each Recordable Injury and Illness [Docket No: OSHA-2015- 0006]. ASSE respectfully opposes the adoption of a Final Rule as proposed in this rulemaking for the reasons that follow. nature of violations ASSE members do not look at the issues raised in this rulemaking with the same viewpoint of the occupational safety and health bar that, no doubt, will provide substantive legal arguments against the case OSHA makes for addressing the Volks II decision through this rulemaking. Rather, our members' view is a practical one that comes from years of experience on the job as the professionals charged with meeting OSHA's recordkeeping requirements. Our members know the inadvertent mistakes they themselves can make in recordkeeping and reporting. They also know what they typically find when they are hired by a company to help improve workplace safety and health. As they assess the workplace's risks and past safety performance to help them develop safety and health management plans, the reporting mistakes our members typically find are not very often the worst cases that, unfortunately, seem to be creating this rulemaking. The errors in reporting they see are, by far, minor, isolated, and, if continuing, it is only in the sense that a typo can be repeated day after day. They also see mistakes that come from a widespread lack of understanding of OSHA's detailed reporting requirements. When seasoned safety and health professionals consistently use ASSE's educational conferences, our social media, and opportunities to meet with OSHA staff through the ASSE-OSHA Alliance to get the best and latest information about OSHA recordkeeping requirements, we know that, even for them, the task of meeting those requirements can be too often confusing. Given that the vast majority of employers report to OSHA without the help of a safety and health professional, it is not difficult to see that the significant increase in records retention that OSHA is attempting to require of employers here will not succeed in a significant impact on safety and health among American workers. unintended consequences No reporting error is excusable. But a company's errors to which OSHA is determined to have access to for a period that can be up to six years through this rulemaking will not very often correlate to the risks facing workers, especially the risks a safety and health professional is trying to address for the company in the present. The statements OSHA makes about the value of data collected through current injury and illness recordkeeping are merely conclusory and are counter to our members' experience. Measured against our members' belief that the additional data will provide little help to them or OSHA, they are particularly concerned that this rulemaking can only succeed in driving more employers towards greater expectations that safety and health professionals will focus energy and resources on collecting and reporting the lagging indicators that OSHA requires, taking them away from risk assessment and management tasks and their efforts to move their employers towards performance measurements based on leading indicators that we know can better measure a company's safety and health performance. Many of our members, especially those who work in or for mid-sized and small companies, face a difficult uphill climb in selling their employers risk management and moving from lagging to leading indicates. We know OSHA values these approaches also. But when OSHA uses its limited resources to focus on measures that do not reflect cutting-edge safety principles and push our members' efforts backwards, OSHA is making their job more difficult. Our members value OSHA but want an OSHA that works with them to advance the best ideas for advancing workplace safety and health. Requiring this data to be available for OSHA's use for nearly six years does not meet our members' hope for an effective OSHA. direct burden ASSE is also concerned that the OSHA's estimates of the direct burden this rulemaking will place on employers are inadequate. The economic analysis states that there will not be a new cost burden. This was based on a 2001 analysis that it takes 0.38 hour to record an injury or illness, with a total cost per case of $17.75. From an informal survey of involved ASSE members, a more realistic estimate is that an hour is needed for each case over the five-year period, taking into account the variety of tasks involved, including determining if there was medical treatment beyond first aid, verifying lost and restricted day counts, and adjusting for changes in the status of a case. An updated economic analysis is needed, which we urge OSHA to conduct before a Final Rule is proposed. a measure of the problem Related to our members' concern over the rulemaking's direct burdens on employers is OSHA's failure to discuss in the NPR why OSHA faces such difficulty in obtaining adequate data from employers. No doubt, employers are responsible for meeting OSHA's reporting requirements. Our members suspect that OSHA's reporting rules and. deadlines are not effective and cost employers unnecessarily. Before requiring more extensive reporting, it would be helpful both to OSHA and the safety and health community to know more about why employers do not report. How many employers blatantly disregard the requirements and how many are simply making errors? What do employers and their workers not understand about the requirements? What training or level of expertise would help fill the gaps in reporting that OSHA believes exist? We urge OSHA to examine these issues as an. extension of its economic analysis. With more knowledge, there may be better ways to address recordkeeping that can support better employer reporting. conclusion As we say above, our members want a strong and effective OSHA, But their view of an effective OSHA is an OSHA that can embrace the best our members already understand about how to achieve safe and healthy workplaces. An OSHA injury and illness prevention plan standard that is truly risk-based would help make OSHA more effective. Greater reliance on control banding to achieve better protection limits, as we have recently suggested to OSHA, would. Establishing professional competencies to define ``competent person'' in OSHA standards would. Finding a better way to update consensus standards in OSHA's standards would. Rethinking OSHA's reporting requirements to help move employers towards leading indicators and more advanced ways to measure safety performance certainly would. The areas where OSHA and our members agree on making OSHA more effective are many. Adding lengthier reporting burdens that will do little to help OSHA, employers or occupational safety and health professionals better manage workplace safety and hcalth will not. As always, ASSE is more than willing to discuss these concerns further. Thank you for listening to our members' views. Sincerely, Michael Belcher, CSP, President.

Mr. BYRNE. What it says is that this regulation does nothing to enhance workplace safety. That is from the American Society of Safety Engineers. Also opposing this regulation is the Coalition for Workplace Safety. I include in the Record a letter from them dated February 17 of this year. Coalition for Workplace Safety, February 17, 2017. Hon. Paul Ryan Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Kevin McCarthy, Majority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Steve Scalise, Majority Whip, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Virginia Foxx Chairwoman, Committee on Education & the Workforce, Washington, DC. Hon. Bradley Byrne, Chairman, Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, Washington,

Mr. BYRNE. To the point, there is nothing in this statute that allows for continuing violations, and there is nothing in this regulation that provides for workplace safety. This is a power grab by an agency in violation of its authorizing statute and by a clear decision of this circuit court of appeals. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman that the experts on this, the American Society of Safety Engineers, have said that this regulation does not enhance workplace safety. So if we are about workplace safety, this regulation isn't it. Let's talk about something that will help with workplace safety, not something that is a lawless power grab by a Federal agency. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from California. He said that, if we pass this resolution, we will be granting amnesty to bad actors. We are not granting amnesty to bad actors. They will have no amnesty if OSHA does its job in a timely fashion. Five years is not timely under anybody's commonsense definition. They need to do their job within the 6 months that we have allowed for them to do it, and they have the tools to do their job within 6 months. So there is no amnesty being granted here. We are expecting a Federal agency that has a lot of money and has a lot of power to simply do its job within 6 months, and they come forward and try to make a new statute of limitations because they don't do their job within 6 months. I say to this body, I would say to people outside this body, it is time for OSHA to get its job done in the time allotted by the United States Congress and not come running out with some unilateral change in the statute which they have no power to do because, for some reason, they don't think they can do it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter dated February 28, 2017, from the Associated General Contractors of America; a letter dated February 28, 2017, from Associated Builders and Contractors; a letter dated February 27, 2017, from the National Association of Home Builders; and a letter dated February 28, 2017, from the United States Chamber of Commerce. The Associated General Contractors of America, Arlington, VA, February 28, 2017. Re AGC Key Vote--Support Joint Resolution Disapproving of ``Volks Rule.'' Hon. Paul Ryan, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Ryan: On behalf of the Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) and its 26,000 commercial construction company members, I strongly urge you to support the Congressional Review Act (CRA) joint resolution of disapproval to stop the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) expansion of the statute of limitations for recordkeeping violations in the ``Volks Rule.'' AGC will score this vote as a key vote for the education of its members on its congressional candidate scorecards. This resolution repeals a rule that was issued by OSHA as a challenge to the judicial branch and congressional authority. Section 9 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act subsection (c) says ``No citation may be issued under this section after the expiration of six months following the occurrence of any violation.'' That seems pretty clear and the courts agreed. In 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held in AKM LLC dba Volks Constructors v. Secretary of Labor that section 8(c) of the OSH Act (the section that requires accurate recordkeeping) does not supersede 9(c) and therefore does not permit a continuing violation for paperwork errors and that the agency is overstepping its authority. Additionally, in 2016 the Fifth Circuit endorsed the Volks decision in Delek Ref. Ltd. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission. When OSHA issued its rule, it deliberately and specifically designed the rule to counter the ruling in the Volks case. Because the final rule directly contradicts both clear statutory language and two U.S. Courts of Appeals rulings, it must not be allowed to stand. The rule is designed to be punitive. It is a regulatory attempt to expand opportunities to cite companies for paperwork violations. It was issued in the waning days of the Obama Administration as an attempt to get around the existing statute of limitations for recordkeeping violations and expand that limitation to sixty-six months. It creates no new recordkeeping requirements. It does not change the data required under recordkeeping requirements. It does not exempt smaller companies from this regulation or these investigations. It does not create any new, safer work practices. The rule tells OSHA inspectors and company employees to fix typos from years ago rather than walking the jobsite, providing safety training or otherwise preventing tomorrow's accidents. We take worker safety very seriously and, unfortunately, OSHA's rule would require a colossal misallocation of resources. That is why we urge you to support the Congressional Review Act resolution. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Jeffrey D. Shoaf, Senior Executive Director, Government Affairs.

Mr. BYRNE. All of those groups I just mentioned support the repeal of this regulation that would come about by virtue of the bill that is before us. Why? Because we have a right to expect in this country that these regulatory agencies that Congress sets up will do their job with the significant sums of taxpayer money that they are provided by this Congress, the money that comes from the people of America to do their job in a timely fashion. And this agency comes forth and tries to act like it doesn't have the money or the authority to investigate violations and enforce the law within 6 months of a violation. That is balderdash. The American people have a right to expect more from these agencies than that. But more to the point, the reason we are here today is really simple. We are here today to overturn a rule that is blatantly unlawful. We are here to put a stop to a rule that does nothing--I repeat nothing--to improve workplace safety. We are here to put a check on the very top of executive overreach the Congressional Review Act sought to address. By blocking this punitive and overreaching rule, we will affirm Congress' commitment to proactive health and safety policies that help prevent injuries and illnesses before they occur. If we wait until the illness or injury has occurred, we have waited too late. OSHA has waited too late. It is time for OSHA to work with these employers, work with these people in the workplace to make the workplace safe, not show up 5 years after the fact when they don't have the authority and say: now we are going to issue a violation. Mr. Speaker, the approach that we have demanded of OSHA for years is to proactively work in the workplace to ensure that it is safe, and we will continue to do that under this new administration. I urge my colleagues to overturn OSHA's unlawful power grab. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Coach Jim Tate on winning his 100th State Championship. This is a remarkable and impressive achievement, and it highlights Coach Tate's dedication to the young men and women he has coached throughout his illustrious career. A native of Mobile, Coach Tate is a graduate of The Citadel and received a master's degree from the University of Alabama. He is also a veteran who served in the U.S. Army from 1964 to 1969. During his military service, he served in Vietnam with the elite 173rd Airborne Brigade. After brief stints at schools in South Carolina and Georgia, Coach Tate started coaching at Mobile's St. Paul's Episcopal School in 1978. After originally coaching other sports, he settled in as the boys and girls track and cross country coach in 1981. Throughout his career, Coach Tate broke numerous state and national records, including the nation's record for the longest consecutive state championship streak in the nation at 16 (1983 to 1998). He has also been inducted into the Mobile Sports Hall of Fame and the National High School Hall of Fame. On February 4, 2017, Coach Tate's St. Paul's girls indoor track and field team won the Class 4A-5A state championship at the Birmingham CrossPlex. This marked Coach Tate's 100th state title. Mr. Speaker, Jim Tate has had a positive impact on countless student athletes throughout his career. Over 60 of his former athletes have gone on to perform at the collegiate level. Like any good leader, Coach Tate attributes his success to his athletes, parents, and supporters, but there is no denying his remarkable ability to get the best out of the people he coaches. Many high schools can only dream of having 100 state championships in their entire history, but Coach Tate has reached that level himself. This high level of success is a testament to his drive, motivation, knowledge, and character. So, on behalf of Alabama's First Congressional District, I want to thank Coach Tate for his service to our nation and congratulate him on winning his 100th State Championship.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 116 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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. General Leave

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 116 provides for consideration of two joint resolutions designed to protect working families by blocking harmful regulations through the Congressional Review Act process. In 1974, Congress passed and President Gerald Ford signed the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA. This legislation, which has broad and bipartisan support, sets standards for employer- provided retirement plans to protect the workers of the United States of America. This regulatory framework for employer-provided retirement plans has been largely successful at helping working families save for retirement over the last 40 years. Unfortunately, in the waning days of his administration, President Obama put forward regulations to uproot this system that has worked for decades. The Obama administration's rules would pave the way for government-run IRAs--for bureaucrat-run IRAs--managed by States and certain municipalities. Employees in several States would be forced to automatically enroll in these government- and bureaucrat-run IRAs that are not subject to the important protections established by ERISA. In other words, in the waning days of the Obama administration, they sought to take back from workers the protections that were given to them when ERISA was passed 40 years ago. Let me say that again. Workers' ERISA protections will be out the window for those people in these government- and bureaucrat-run plans. These regulations remove important protections for American workers as they relate to their retirement plans. American consumers would be directly hurt by this regulation were it to go forward. Just as bad, workers would have less control over their retirement savings. Withdrawals or roll-over investments to a private-sector account could be restricted and even penalized. These regulations would create disincentives for small businesses to offer their retirement plans and invest in their employees' retirement, resulting in fewer options for workers. Instead, smaller employers will likely simply shift their employees on to these government- and bureaucrat-run plans. These regulations could also create a confusing patchwork of rules that vary State to State or, even worse, city to city. This confusion would directly hurt the consumer. Another concern with pushing people on to government- and bureaucrat- run retirement plans is that taxpayers would end up footing the bill. We have seen how poorly managed many State and city pension plans have been all over this country. If these government-run IRAs are also mismanaged, taxpayers may be asked to pay and to honor the government's promises. Ultimately, these regulations are simply another attempt to exert control over the American people with a ``government knows best'' policy. Mr. Speaker, the American people are not children that need direction from their parents. They should not be forced by the heavy hand of the government and faceless bureaucrats to obtain certain plans the government likes that they may not need or want. People are free today to decide whether they want their IRAs or not. This will put them in a position where they can be forced to have them whether they want them or not. We have seen the problems caused when the government tries to tell the American people what to do or what the government thinks is best for them. These types of heavy-handed policies simply do not work and they are counter to the principles our country was founded on. So these two bills would use the Congressional Review Act process to block these anti-consumer regulations from taking effect. By passing these two bills, we will protect working families, we will support our Nation's small businesses, and we will be shielding the taxpayers from potential liabilities. As I pointed out last week on this floor, just because we pass these bills using the CRA does not mean we cannot continue working toward solutions that improve our Nation's retirement programs. Just as the CRA gives Congress power to block regulations, the legislative branch can also give agencies further instructions and directions if a regulation is needed at some point in the future. As a member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to find solutions to help Americans save for their retirement. Attempting to use the regulatory pen to skate around ERISA and its important protections is just not the right answer. So I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this rule and these pro-consumer bills and protect American families, workers, and their retirement plans. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts' remarks. We are not here today to talk about Russia, but I do remember about a month ago when we were on this floor counting electoral college votes, my colleague from Massachusetts objected to the Electoral College votes from my home State of Alabama because of Russian interference. I want to put his mind at rest. As a Representative of Alabama, I think I can say with complete confidence that the Russians had no influence over the Presidential vote in the State of Alabama last November. We get our electoral information like most people in America do: from watching FOX News or something like that. But in the fall, in Alabama, we are also paying real close attention to college football. So far from letting Russian influence have anything to do with our vote in Alabama, we were doing what most people in America were doing and paying close attention to college football. We gave no more credence to what the Russians think about our political votes in Alabama than we do to what they think about our college football teams. But let's get back to the substance of his remarks. He says that there is no debate. This rule provides for at least 2 hours of debate, perhaps more if we get into motions to recommit. And the truth of the matter is, under the Congressional Review Act, the actual form of these laws are prescribed by statute. We have no control over what can be in them. We can either vote for them or against them. And we are going to have clear debate--over 2 hours, maybe more--whether we are going to vote for or against it. There are people who are going to vote for them, and there are people who are going to vote against them, and people are going to have reasons for doing each. That is standard order here in the House. I think the American people would agree, on these sorts of fundamental things when you know what is simply in them, that is plenty of debate. He calls these regulations that we seek to overturn ``consumer protections.'' But remember what I said earlier: They take these employer plans, these IRA plans that are forced by the government, they take them out from the protections of ERISA. They take consumer protection away from the people that have these plans. So far from being consumer protection regulations, they are anticonsumer protection regulations. They are antiworker. So what is really going on here is this is not some effort--or was some effort by the Obama administration--to protect workers. It is an effort to try to get government more involved in people's lives, and the people of America don't want the government more involved in their lives. The gentleman mentioned that there are 55 million people in America today who don't have a retirement plan. Every one of those 55 million people have access, if they choose to get it, to an IRA. Anybody can set up an IRA. You don't need your employer to set it up for you. You sure don't need the government to set it up for you. There are plenty of people around the country that will help you set it up, and it is pretty easy, pretty simple. Maybe some of these people, or a lot of these people that don't have them, don't want them. So why would the government come in and tell them you have got to have them unless your real interest here is in empowering government and not protecting consumers? I will leave it to you to make the decision what the real motive was here. Now, the gentleman talked about the fact that these come to us without going through the committees of jurisdiction; but, as I said earlier, because the form of these bills are prescribed by statute, there is really nothing for the committees of jurisdiction to do. But he will be glad to know that I am informed that, after we come back from the Presidents Day week break, there will be a number of bills coming to the floor that will have, in fact, gone through the committees of jurisdiction, including bills, I predict, that will both repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. So there is going to be plenty of things coming through regular order to this floor. But as we go through the Congressional Review Act process, we are pretty constrained in what we can say and not say in these bills, and we are simply following that which is prescribed by statute. As I said earlier, we can all decide, based upon that statutorily prescribed form for what we do, whether we are for it or we are against it, whether we want to force workers in America to get some government-forced type IRA and take them out from the protections of ERISA, or whether we want to let them have their freedom and keep the protections of ERISA. We want to keep freedom for the American people. We want to keep freedom for the American workers, and we sure want them to keep the protections they have had for over 40 years under ERISA and not take those protections away from them so that we can force something down their throat from some government-bureaucrat-run plan. Getting back to what we are here to talk about today, we are here to reverse ill-considered regulations in the waning days of the Obama administration that hurt the American workers. By adopting this rule and by adopting these two pieces of legislation, we protect the American workers. I hope all of us are here to do exactly that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, when I was a young lawyer, an old lawyer one time gave me a piece of advice that I was fortunate to never have to follow. He said: Son, when you are strong on the facts, pound on the facts. When you are strong on the law, pound on the law. If you are weak on the facts and the law, pound on the table. What we just heard is pounding on the table about Russia, and that has nothing to do with the two bills that are covered by this rule. Nothing in the bills that underlie this rule has anything to do with Russia. But because there is not a good argument against the rule, there is not a good argument against these bills, we are pulling up something else and pounding on the table. Let's get back to the rule and the underlying legislation. This legislation will reverse two regulations that hurt working people in America, period, end of sentence. Far from being a press release, as my colleague from Massachusetts talked about, this bill is going to pass not only this House, it is going to pass the Senate, and, yes, it is going to be signed by the President of the United States. Two of the Congressional Review Act bills that have already come through this House have passed the Senate and, I am told, are going to be signed by the President this week. These aren't press releases. These aren't messaging bills. These are pieces of legislation that are going to become law and protect American workers after an attempt by the Obama administration, as it is going out the door, an attempt by them to take ERISA rights away from American workers through a regulation. I would think everybody in this body would be outraged, after 40 years of bipartisan support for ERISA, that we would think it is okay for anybody to take away workers' ERISA rights. It is not. What we are doing today is the right thing to do, not if you are for Big Government. But if you are for the American worker, this is the right thing to do. Rather than pound on the table, let's work together, pass this rule, pass this underlying legislation, and do the right thing for the American worker. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. Parliamentary Inquiry