George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I request 5 legislative days during which Members may insert extraneous material on House Concurrent Resolution 340 into the Record.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. This concurrent resolution makes two technical corrections to the GINA legislation just passed. First, with respect to the Department of Defense Labs, in our current bill, section 202(b)(6) and section 205(b)(6) of H.R. 493 provides an exclusion for an employer to conduct DNA analysis for law enforcement purposes as a forensic laboratory, which submits analyses to the Combined DNA Index System, known as CODIS, if the employer only uses that analysis of DNA identification markers for quality control to detect sample contamination. However, we recently learned that the Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory, AFDIL, of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner System, which identifies soldiers' remains, would not be included in this exclusion because it does not submit DNA to the CODIS system. It was not our intent to prevent the Armed Forces, AFDIL, from using DNA analysis for human remains identification. This technical change would allow them to continue their mission. With respect to NAIC, the other change is a very minor one. Section 104 of the bill, dealing with Medigap, requires the National Association of Insurance Commissioners to modify their regulations to conform to GINA. The deadline for NAIC to make these modifications is June 30, 2008. If NAIC does not make these modifications by this timeframe, HHS would be required to make the modifications by October 1, 2008. When this bill moved through the House last April, these deadlines were not a problem. However, with today being May 1, NAIC will not be able to meet the June deadline. Thus, the other change to this bill pushes back the NAIC and HHS deadlines until October 30, 2008, and July 1, 2009. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield the gentleman 30 more seconds.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I recognize the gentleman from Connecticut, a member of the committee, for 2 minutes.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), a member of the committee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker and Members of the House, this is a very serious piece of legislation and a very important piece of legislation. The idea that we would delay this until some time that the Secretary of Labor could make some certification about its impact on food costs is really unacceptable. Let's look at the record of the Secretary of Labor. Since January 1980 until 2006, there were 281 explosions in these kinds of facilities due to dust. Seven hundred eighteen people were injured and 119 died in those explosions. One hundred nineteen bread-winners were killed in those explosions. That's the result of a study from the Chemical Safety Board of whose members are all appointed by President George W. Bush, an independent agency that may be the gold standard in terms of independent review of accidents. They then recommended that OSHA adopt dust standards. OSHA did nothing. Did nothing. No enforceable standards were adopted by that point. No enforceable standards at all. And then in February 2008, the Imperial Sugar plant exploded. In the meantime, 67 explosions took place since the Chemical Safety Board recommended the standard. Five hundred seventy-five injuries and 14 deaths took place before OSHA did anything. And the Chemical Safety Board recommendations continue to say there are no enforceable standards with respect to dust. Not only does it devastate the lives of these individuals and their families and the community, it devastates the facility, a facility here that is key to the commerce of that area. So talk about an impact on price in a tight market when these facilities start pumping up. The feed and grain people, they're under their own standards. And what is their analysis of that standard? That it drove technologies, it drove better design, and better productivity in their markets. That's their findings. They're not implicated in these standards. What happened there? Eight people were killed in the explosion, 20 were put into medically induced comas for a number of weeks, 5 of those died, and 3 are still in the hospital. Since the Chemical Safety Board made its recommendation, there have been 67 explosions, and OSHA never found the urgency to protect these workers. Now to come along and to be so cynical as to suggest that if we could just keep killing the workers, the price of food will stay down. You know, it's funny. I read the papers, read the business journal, read The Wall Street Journal, and they're talking about how the price of food has driven the profits of the grain companies; but when they talk about why it's gone up, it says, ``The crisis stems from a combination of heightened demand for food from fast-growing developing countries like China and India, low grain stockpiles caused by bad weather, rising fuel prices and the increasing amount of land used to grow crops for ethanol'' and others. Some people say it's because Zimbabwe has quit producing food under the corrupt regime of Mr. Mugabe, so Africa has a double problem. I see the Governor of Texas, Mr. Rick Perry, thinks we ought to cut back on ethanol production. He doesn't think we ought to keep killing American workers. Nowhere in this paper, The Wall Street Journal mind you, nowhere in this paper, when you read about food prices, do you see any mention that we ought to continue to subsidize food prices by blowing up processing plants and killing and injuring workers. Nowhere do you see that except, perhaps, in this amendment. We ought not to accept this amendment. These workers and this critical industry are entitled to this protection. And the facts on the ground are: The last time we put in a standard was for the feed and grain industry, and it has turned out to be wildly successful. Why is it wildly successful? Because injuries went down 40 percent, fatalities went down 60 percent, explosions went down 60 percent. Don't you think we know enough now to think that these other workers in this industry are entitled to this protection? But OSHA has done nothing. OSHA has done nothing. And if OSHA is not going to act, we must. In this administration, OSHA has only acted when prodded by the courts or the Congress, never on their own. Never on their own have they suggested that they were going to go out and do this. Even after the recommendation of a presidentially appointed commission to look at these kinds of accidents, appointed by this President, they've chosen to do nothing. And it's important; it's important to these workers, it's important to the Congress. John Barrow and I have put together legislation that works for the industry. We've consulted with the industry. We've sat down with the industry. We've sat down with OSHA. And we ought to oppose this motion to recommit in the name of the workers, in the name of their families, in the name of our Nation, we owe it to protect these workers.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5522, the Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Prevention Act of 2008. On February 7 of this year, a huge explosion ripped through the Imperial Sugar refinery in Port Wentworth, Georgia. Eight workers died instantly, and five more have died in the months since the explosion from the horrific burns that they suffered. More than sixty workers were injured, some so seriously that they will never fully recover. This was a terrible disaster, one of our Nation's worst workplace tragedies of the past decade. The cause of the explosion was combustible sugar dust. It may surprise many of us that sugar dust can explode with such violence. But it can, and so can many other dusts that are commonly found in U.S. industrial sites. In 2003, three fatal dust explosions occurred in the United States, killing 14 workers. The U.S. Chemical Safety Board investigated these incidents. The board examined whether these tragedies were just coincidences or a major national problem. The Chemical Safety Board also examined whether there were adequate laws to protect workers or whether new protections were needed. The Chemical Safety Board found that these explosions were not coincidences. In fact, between 1980 and 2005, 119 workers had been killed and 718 injured in dust explosions that had also extensively damaged the industrial facilities. The Chemical Safety Board also found that there were no enforceable national regulations to prevent combustible dust incidents. Let me repeat that. The Chemical Safety Board also found that there were no enforceable national regulations to prevent combustible dust incidents. The Chemical Safety Board concluded that controlling combustible dust explosions isn't a mystery. In fact, the first National Fire Protection Association standards to prevent combustible dust explosions were issued in 1923. In November of 2006, the Chemical Safety Board, an independent Federal agency whose members were all appointed by President George W. Bush, concluded that the only way to prevent more worker deaths was for OSHA to issue a comprehensive standard covering combustible dust. That was in November of 2006. But to this day, OSHA has taken no action to issue a standard. In fact, OSHA has refused to act despite the fact that 70 more combustible dust explosions have occurred since 2006. Even now, after 13 needless deaths in Georgia, OSHA demonstrates no understanding of the urgency of this problem. This is a shocking failure by the very governmental agency responsible for keeping workers safe. Sadly, this isn't the only time that OSHA has failed to act on a Chemical Safety Board recommendation, and it's not the only time where the result of that inaction has been the death of American workers. The Chemical Safety Board warned OSHA in 2002 that new rules were needed to prevent reactive chemical explosions, but OSHA refused to act. Then last December a reactive chemical explosion in Jacksonville, Florida, killed four workers. Because OSHA refused to act, Congress must now act. Congressman John Barrow and I have introduced H.R. 5522 to force OSHA to do the job it should have done on its own. The legislation will require OSHA to issue an interim standard on combustible dust within 90 days and a permanent standard within 18 months. It would require OSHA to base the new standard on the National Fire Protection Association standards. OSHA says that the combustible dust hazards are already covered by numerous existing regulations. But that simply is not true. Most of the existing standards do not even mention the word ``dust'' and do nothing to educate or inform employers and employees how to prevent combustible dust explosions. Existing OSHA standards also do not address what levels of dust are safe, how to clean the dust safely, or how to prevent dust from accumulating to unsafe levels. And it is not true, as opponents of this bill say, that we don't allow for public input. In fact, OSHA would have to conduct full public hearings and a small business review but to do so on an expedited basis that reflects the life-or-death urgency of this issue. Because of the serious hazards imposed by combustible dust, because OSHA has issued no major standard during this administration except under pressure of the courts or the Congress, and because OSHA is unable to meet the regulatory deadlines it sets for itself, it is necessary to set some tight deadlines for action. It is also not true that this bill requires OSHA to adopt the National Fire Protection Association standards. The bill requires OSHA to include only the relevant and appropriate provisions of the National Fire Protection Association combustible dust standards. While the National Fire Protection Association standards have proven to be effective, OSHA should use its discretion, after full public hearings and comments, to determine how the National Fire Protection Association guidelines should be used in a final standard. You will hear opponents of this measure say we should wait until the OSHA investigation is completed and the results of OSHA's current National Emphasis Program are in. But we have waited long enough. And, in fact, again, the Chemical Safety Board recommendations predate that accident based upon the urgent need for these regulations to save American workers' lives and to prevent their injuries prior to that time. Again, if OSHA doesn't act, we must. We know that most businesses are doing the best they can to make their workplace safe. But it is also clear that other businesses may not be doing enough to ensure the safety of their employees. The bottom line is that workers need protection and the agency established by Congress 37 years ago to protect workers has once again failed in that duty. The goal today is to protect workers from those preventable explosions, and we believe that this legislation accomplishes that goal without imposing unreasonable burdens on employers. I want to leave the House with the closing words of a witness who appeared before the Education and Labor Committee, Tammy Miser. Tammy Miser's brother, Shawn Boone, was killed in a combustible dust explosion in 2003. Tammy recounted the terrible suffering that her brother went through before he died, her hopes that something would happen after the Chemical Safety Board recommendations were issued, and her disappointment that OSHA has yet to act, even after the Imperial Sugar explosion. Tammy left us with this one request: ``that you not let our loved ones die in vain and help us keep other families safe from the dangers of combustible dust.'' It's the least we can do for Shawn Boone, the workers in Port Wentworth, and the many other workers who have needlessly lost their lives. Madam Chairman, I strongly urge that all of my colleagues will support H.R. 5522. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), the Chair of the subcommittee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow), the cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. This manager's amendment is offered because during the drafting and the refining of this bill we have had numerous extensive conversations with OSHA, with its technical staff and with affected industry associations about problematic issues. Our goal is to save workers lives, but also make these OSHA standards workable for businesses who need to implement them. To that end, the manager's amendment makes four adjustments to the bill: One, several industry associations were concerned that the short 1- month effective date on the interim standards was too short to make some of the capital improvements that may be needed for engineering controls. The manager's amendment therefore provides for engineering controls required by the interim standards shall be effective 6 months after the issuance of the standard, rather than 30 days. Because emphasizing specific National Fire Protection Association standards was seen as putting more emphasis on some than on others that were not mentioned, the manager's amendment maintains the provisions that OSHA shall include appropriate and relevant National Fire Protection Association standards in its final standards, but eliminates reference to specific National Fire Protection Association standards. Then, because we want to make perfectly clear that OSHA is expected to conduct a full review of small business impacts of this standard, the manager's amendment clarifies that the final standard shall be conducted in accordance with the usual rulemaking procedural requirements, including those that provide for a small business review. Finally, it changes the title to ``The Worker Protection Against Combustible Dust Explosions and Fires Act.'' I would encourage all of my colleagues to support the manager's amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I would just say that the problem with home building is not explosions, it is implosions. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 5522.