Charlie Norwood

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Speaker, the previous speaker makes me want to spend my next few minutes talking about another subject. I guess what I need to do is just totally say that I am sorry to be in the same room with some of those remarks, but I will stay on my subject tonight, because I rise tonight to begin a discussion of the ``number one Judicial Hellhole'' for 2003, as named by the American Tort Reform Association. A year ago, prior to a long list of complaints I received from Georgia companies, I had never heard of the place known as Madison County, Illinois. Now that has changed within the last year; and from the facts that I have heard, it seems that the judges of all people of Madison county regularly apply the civil laws in an unfair manner and violate the fundamental constitutional rights of defendants, particularly those that hail from other States. One might wonder why a person from Georgia would be complaining about judges in Illinois. Well, the reason is they are affecting my constituents and the citizens of my State. Madam Speaker, I could not sit on these complaints from good Georgia companies any longer. I sent a letter to Attorney General Ashcroft on September 10 asking for a formal investigation of Madison County. Little did I know that this letter would send the attorneys of Madison County into complete temper tantrums. It should. They are guilty of lining their pockets at the expense of their clients. Yes, at the expense of their clients. And perhaps, Madam Speaker, one of the most guilty is Randall Bono. Mr. Bono's law firm, Simmons-Cooper, generated over $1 billion in settlements in 2003. Somewhere between 30 to 40 percent of those settlements were kept by that firm. The public service that Mr. Bono has offered in his career includes two lawsuits against Ameritech. He walked away with $16 million. His clients each got a $5 phone card. Contrary to the comments Mr. Bono made during his tantrum, my only motivation is to protect the companies of Georgia from frivolous lawsuits. Not only do those frivolous lawsuits triple car insurance rates for the people living in and around Madison County, they also send doctors fleeing from the region and, of the greatest concern to me, they force American companies to close up shops and take good American jobs overseas to avoid such harassments. These kind of illegal shenanigans do cause outsourcing of jobs. We are all suffering, and for what? To line the pockets of lawyers like Bono? The letter I sent to Attorney General Ashcroft is five and a half pages full of cases where defendants' constitutional rights to due process have been violated. I can take all night reviewing them, and I will outline them over the coming weeks. However, what I want to outline here is a possible reason why Madison County has become such a judicial hellhole. Between 1980 and 2002, 90 percent of the contributions made to Madison County judicial candidates came from plaintiffs' lawyers. Judges have received tens of thousands of dollars in contributions, even in the years that they are unopposed. Several plaintiffs' firms with no Madison County office have contributed money to Madison County judicial campaigns. Madam Speaker, I have a strong belief that when Attorney General Ashcroft looks into the situation in Madison County, he is going to find that the cases I have outlined are just the tip of the iceberg. I take it very personally when judges try to legislate from the bench. I take it even more personally when they overreach their power and steal from good companies in Georgia. This will be an ongoing thing, Madam Speaker. I will report to my colleagues every night of how we are doing in the hellhole of the United States, Madison County, where the judges and plaintiffs' lawyers are stealing from the people.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. NORWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I have got a great statement, but I do not have a lot of time, so I will submit it for the Record and just make a few observations. First and foremost, I would ask my colleagues in the nicest possible way, we really should reject this amendment, and we should do so, frankly, in a bipartisan way. There are a number of things that are going on here, but primarily over the last few years, particularly with a lot of work by our committee, the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and the Secretary of Labor, we have tried very hard to see if we could not bring the wage and hour laws into the 21st century and especially the overtime rules which are not clear, are not simple. Generally they are rules that fatten the wallets, frankly, of our trial lawyers because so many problems have to be solved by judges and courts. That is not what labor law really ought to be about, and we worked hard on this language that is in the gentleman from Ohio's bill, which is good language, and we need to leave it alone. I just would make four quick points about it. Not nearly enough is said in this body by people who would oppose any changes in the labor laws that 1.3 million new people will be eligible for overtime. That may not be important to anybody in here, but I guarantee you that is pretty important to the 1.3 million people out there who indeed will for the first time ever have this opportunity like so many other people in the workforce. The second point I would make on this is that people you say that would through this language lose their overtime frankly do not get overtime now, and the reason they do not, they are eligible, but they do not get it because their employers frankly do not let them work overtime because of the time-and-a-half rule. The bottom line here, Mr. Chairman, for those people is not, frankly, whether they can get overtime or not, it is how much money they can earn. And so many more of them who, yes, maybe they cannot get overtime now, but they can make more money. The bottom line is greater for them because so many of them are working on commissions, so many of them are in a position that if they need more and want to work 48 hours, they can make a lot more in these particular kinds of jobs by being allowed to work 48 hours rather than 40. Thirdly, our outdated laws are confusing. There is no question to anybody, and there are a lot of lawyers in here who absolutely understand that better than I do, but as many cases that have to go to court, clearly they are outdated, they are dying of old age, they are not ready for the 21st century, and we simply need to do more than we are doing now, but at least this is a step in the right direction. Lastly, I would say that over the years, Mr. Chairman, the loudest people who have been against making any of these changes, interestingly enough to me, I have observed, are people that this really does not affect directly. The labor bosses in this Nation represent 10 percent of the workforce, but there are a lot of people in America, in fact 90 percent of working Americans, that are not in labor unions, do not wish to be in labor unions, and wish to have this law changed. Yet the labor unions, that is who is opposing this, that and the trial lawyers, and the labor unions simply will not explain, I guess, to the American people this really does not so much affect their members, it affects everybody else that is working out there. And I am pretty concerned about that. Labor law should not be written by those people who represent 10 percent of the workforce, and that is what they try to do. I do not even know for sure if they would be against these changes. Since so many new people get overtime, so many more people will actually make more money. I think it is probably all about, well, you can't possibly have a labor law that we didn't write, and since we didn't write this one, nobody else can have a good idea, let's be against it. That is probably in as simple a form as I can put it what is going on here. I encourage my colleagues to vote down this amendment, which I feel pretty comfortable that they will. We need to move forward and allow the workforce of this country to be able to benefit from the changes that we are going to make. I know we are in an election year, and I know we have got to do all that, but at the end of the day, this needs to go forward, and you can use your election year politics and let us get this bill out of here and pass it. Mr. Chairman, I cannot recall how many times I have been forced to rise in opposition to this amendment, or other amendment like it that will prevent the Secretary of Labor from implementing and administrating commonsense regulations that will provide additional overtime protection to millions of this country's lower income workers. After all this time, I have just simply lost count. But one thing is for certain, Mr. Chairman, I rise today with the same emphatic opposition to this politically motivated, short-sighted and dangerous amendment as the day it first appeared before the House a little less than 1 year ago this day. Mr. Chairman, the final overtime regulation that this shameful amendment seeks to overturn will guarantee overtime security for 6.7 million working Americans, including 1.3 million new workers. For the first time, any worker making less than $23,660 per year is entitled to overtime. The final rule also strengthens overtime protections for police officers, fire fighters, paramedics, EMTs, first responders, and licensed practical nurses. And importantly, the final rule makes if perfectly clear that no blue-collar or union worker will lose his overtime protection. These, Mr. Chairman, are the facts. But sadly, I fear that by pursuing this gimmicky legislative roadblock to an important reform, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not really interested in the facts. Instead, as November rapidly approaches and the campaign season looms, I once again smell the foul odor of trial lawyer cronies and big labor bosses who seek another dime in the pocket and another union member on the rolls. Mr. Chairman, we all know that there are simply no legitimate arguments that substantially support the goals of this amendment. In fact, when you peel through the onion of trumped up charges and ``sky- is-falling'' rhetoric, all you are left with are unsubstantiated talking points written by big labor bosses and their trial lawyer buddies that do not benefit workers. Mr. Chairman, I support these regulations, as I have for the past 2 years, and believe that Secretary Elaine Chao should be commended for responding to the needs of the 21st century worker. After all, how can a largely unaltered regulatory act written in post-Depression America possibly represent the best interests of a rapidly evolving and technologically advanced workforce? Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you, my fellow colleagues and the American people that it simply cannot. I said it last year and I will say it once again: This amendment will only worsen the confusion of current wage and hour laws by attempting to ``freeze'' in place the old complicated and outdated system. Worse still, Mr. Chairman, it will reverse the progress we have already made. Since August 23 alone, when the regulations finally went into effect, American businesses have begun to implement the final rules directed by the Secretary by expanding overtime security to thousands of new workers. Now is not the time to slow this progress down. Instead, Mr. Chairman, it is time to move on and allow the administration's final rule to be fully implemented for the benefit of the American worker. I urge all of my colleagues, no matter what side of the aisle you sit on, to say ``yes'' to the American worker and ``no'' to the big labor bosses and trial lawyers. I urge you to vote against the Obey amendment.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, before I start my remarks, which will be a great pleasure to do, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues that just less than 5 minutes ago, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) took the floor, and I would just like to associate myself with his eloquent remarks and just absolutely, totally agree with him, that the first amendment should absolutely take effect in all of our churches around this country. So I congratulate the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) and hope we can do something about it this year. I rise today for one of those very nice things we get to do, and that is to talk about somebody really special and really nice. I want to recognize the outstanding dedication and the compassion and the achievements on this floor of Ms. Martha Wyllie. Taking an active role in our community while greatly enriching the lives of those who come in contact with her describes how we in Georgia regard Martha Wyllie. Interestingly enough, Martha was born in Bangor, Maine, and lived in a private orphanage until she was adopted at 9 months of age. Her next home was in Massachusetts where she went through her schooling and college work, graduating from Lesley Teaching College in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Her interests and talents began to show up at the age of 4 when she sat down at the piano and played a song for her mother that she had just heard on the radio. Music lessons then, of course, began at age 5, which were taught by her mother until she advanced to the Conservatory of Music Teachings and traveled to numerous States playing with their symphony orchestras from age 10 to 17. Throughout these formative years, she was also involved in school sports and a member of the Brownies and the Girl Scouts. It was while she was a Girl Scout at the age of 12 that she became involved in activities with the local Sunshine Camp for the Blind. From there she began teaching songs to the blind, piano to younger children, and became a summer camp counselor and taught horseback riding lessons. Martha married right out of college, and she and her husband recently celebrated their 44th wedding anniversary. They have two married children and three grandchildren. Moving to Georgia in 1975, as the children grew, she became so very involved in our community. She has been involved with the Athens Area Association for Retarded Citizens, the Oconee Lions Club, Athens Evening Kiwanis Club, Oconee Optimist Club, the Oconee Pilot Club, and was a Special Olympics coach for over 12 years. She has served on the board of directors for Sandy Creek Nature Center, First Night Athens, and Project R.E.A.C.H. She has also served Oconee County on the Citizens Advisory Committee on Cultural and Recreational Affairs. Along with her fine husband, Peter, they have been major benefactors for numerous organizations, projects, and community groups such as the Athens Symphony and the Oconee County Public Library. In 2003, the Oconee Rotary Club awarded Martha with the Jean Harris Award, given each year to a non-Rotarian woman in recognition of significant contributions given to the community over and above the call of duty. Although these accomplishments and involvements are numerous and impressive, perhaps the most important contribution was the founding of Extra Special People, known as ESP. Martha Wyllie has put her energy, her love, and her financial resources into this program since its founding in 1986. For over 18 years, ESP has been providing a summer camp for youth and young adults ages 5 to 17 with different abilities. ESP camp provides a normal camping atmosphere for these young people. Martha and her staff realize that these children wish to participate in the normal experiences of growing, and the ESP philosophy allows them to take part in regular camping activities while still meeting their individual needs. Ms. Martha Wyllie, a tireless advocate who is the true definition of a good public servant, spends most of her waking hours helping everyone she touches to understand and to lend a hand to these very extra special people; and, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to share this woman with our colleagues.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Javits-Wagner- O'Day (JWOD) Program because it epitomizes what our country has long stood for--giving everyone an equal chance. Employment fuels the United States economy and builds our communities. Sadly, people with disabilities are often overlooked when it comes to finding jobs. Those with disabilities face a 50 percent unemployment rate, which is more than 10 times the national average. These are people who can work, and want to work, but who face transportation, environmental, and attitudinal barriers when it comes to finding the employment that will allow them to become self-sufficient, independent members of society. Hiring a deserving, qualified individual with a disability creates a positive synergy that ripples out to the greater community in the form of reduced dependency on welfare. There are 45 million Americans with a disability, many of whom are forced to rely on public welfare because they have not been able to find employment. Of people with disabilities, some 5.2 million receive Social Security Disability Insurance, 3.5 million receive Supplemental Security Insurance, and 1.3 million who receive both. By tapping into the potential of a person with a disability by offering them an employment opportunity, we can help them to become tax-paying citizens that can help power America's economy and strengthen our communities. That is why I am proud to commend the Javits-Wagner-O'Day (JWOD) Program, which provides employment opportunities where they are needed most--to Americans with disabilities. The JWOD Program uses the purchasing power of the Federal Government to buy products and services from participating, community-based nonprofit agencies dedicated to training and employing individuals with disabilities, which allows them to acquire job skills and training, receive good wages and benefits, and gain greater independence. The program serves 40,000 people with disabilities nationwide and last year generated approximately $280 million in wages earned and nearly $1.5 billion in products sold. In Georgia alone, some 972 people with disabilities earned nearly $3 million in wages last year as a result of JWOD. I am pleased that these JWOD contracts have had such a positive impact, and hope that his is only the beginning. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support the JWOD Program and encourage my congressional colleagues to do the same.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, Martha Phillips is well respected in Georgia and throughout the country as an unflagging supporter of organized dentistry. Her constant goal during her distinguished career as executive director of the Georgia Dental Association is ensuring dentistry receives all the respect and consideration it is due. Ms. Phillips received the 1996 Award of Merit by fellows of the American College of Dentistry because of her commitment to the profession, her invaluable contribution to the growth and activity of the GDA, her esteem and reputation as a state association executive, her influence and success as dentistry's lobbyist and representative in state legislative activities and the admiration and respect she has enjoyed in her work in the American Dental Association. In 1999 the International College of Dentists made Martha Honorary Fellow of the ICD. As an advocate of dentistry, Martha is active 365 days a year. She became part of the Georgia Dental Association in 1977 as administrative assistant to the Executive Director. She was appointed as executive director of the 137-year-old association in 1986. Apart from the duties listed above, and the management of an eleven person executive office, Ms. Phillips has also utilized her skills as a licensed insurance agent to bolster the growing subsidiary, Georgia Dental Insurance Services, Inc. At the national level, Martha is past president of the Association of Constituent Dental Society Executives. Ms. Phillips received her bachelor of arts degree in business from Georgia State University. She worked in the real estate, insurance and administrative fields before coming to the GDA. Ms. Phillips and husband Al reside in Marietta, Georgia, and have a son and daughter in law, Mark and Cindy Phillips, and a grandson, Tyler.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Georgia bringing this amendment tonight. I am a little distressed that it needs to be an amendment, frankly. This is a problem that must and has to be dealt with. I am happy that this amendment does deal with any country that will not extradite nationals to the U.S., but I am particularly concerned about the one I know of particularly from Mexico, David March, one that a lot of us have been concerned about, frankly, for a long time. We do not really understand why the United States Government does not deal with this. At the first of the year, we had written the President and asked why in the world do we not deal with a problem like this, the extradition back into our country. We really do have a formal agreement with them for extradition. It was not something that I could understand why you would put a family through this. The White House sends it to the State Department, the State Department works overnight and gets us an answer back 6 months later to say that, gosh, we're sorry we can't help with that. President Fox is not in the judiciary in Mexico. We couldn't possibly bother him because he is in the executive branch. None of that makes any sense to me, but what does make sense to me is that we tell any country but in this case and in particular we tell Mexico that if you want to be our friend, act like our friend. If you do not want to be our friend, there has to be some penalties; and in this case and in this bill we simply say that we are not going to fund the Mexican government. Is it $40 million a year, I believe, that we send down there or there is $40 million in this bill? You just do not get that this year. I know we are going to hear a lot of concerns about that. I really need to ask the gentleman from Georgia a question or two, if I may, about the effects of this bill and the $40 million. I am told, and I think I am told correctly, that Mexico, that country, sends more illegal drugs into this country than any other. Of course, that does not sound very friendly to me, as if they are real friends, but the fact that they do send so many drugs into our country, we have to send them $40 million or we cannot possibly stop. That may not be the best use of $40 million, but I would like to hear your response to that, the maker of the amendment, why this is or is not such a bad thing.

Mr. NORWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, so the gentleman is telling me that when Mexico does not cooperate with us on a treaty that we have with them, we are not going to send them that $40 million to try to stop the illicit drug trade, but we could use that $40 million, for example, in other places to stop that illicit drug trade. Does the gentleman have any idea, and I do not know, the 40 millions of dollars we were sending down to Mexico in the past to work with International Narcotics Control, are they doing any good? Do we have any proof that that money is working?

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if, in fact, Mexico was sending us 5,000 metric tons of marijuana, 50 metric tons of amphetamine, and 10 metric tons of heroin, we are not doing really good stopping it with that $40 million. I will tell the gentleman that. Maybe we need to tell them if they do not want to work with us in sending murderers back to our justice system, perhaps we need to keep our $40 million and put it in American hands to stop the illegal traffic.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4517, the Refinery Revitalization Act of 2004. I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for his leadership on this very important issue. Mr. Speaker, I find this whole discussion absolutely amazing. We go home and all of us hear from our constituents that gasoline prices are too high. Why does Congress not do anything about it? Whether Democrat or Republican, the answer is, boy, I am working on it. Well, I have never heard so many pitiful Democratic excuses to not vote for a bill that would simply increase gasoline and diesel fuel in this country and bring down the price. Now, if you do not want to bring down the price, just vote no on this bill because that is the design of it. And the American people are not interested in all the nitpicking, little excuses that you are coming up with. Mr. Speaker, the citizens of the Ninth District of Georgia, and I am certain along with other citizens across the country, want to know what we in Congress are doing to help lower the gas prices. That is a legitimate question to ask your Member of Congress. I wish there was a quick fix. The facts are clear that there is not one. Tapping into our national oil resources, such as the one in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which we certainly should do, will not guarantee a lower gas price unless, unless we improve our refinery capabilities as well. What we must do is work to improve the situation in the future by opening up refineries for more production. I remind you, we have not opened one in 25 years in this country. Little wonder there is such a high demand for gasoline. That is exactly what this act wishes to do. H.R. 4517 would streamline the regulatory approval process, my goodness, streamline the regulatory approval process, for the restart of the idle refineries, which there are many, or the construction of new refineries, which there have been none in 25 years in areas of this country that desperately need more than just lower gas prices. The same people who are complaining about jobs will not vote for a bill that will improve our job situation in these areas that have an unemployment rate 20 percent higher than the national average, and they have either experienced massive layoffs in the manufacturing industry or have a closed refinery plant in that area. While we do our best to combat high gas prices in the present, we must be prepared for demand in the future. U.S. gasoline consumption is projected to rise to 13.3 million barrels per day by 2025. I want you to compare that to the 8.9 million barrels per day today. Where is it coming from? Are we going to be dependent on the Middle East for refineries? Vote for this bill and let us do something about lowering the price of gasoline and diesel fuel in this country.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his generosity and for yielding me this time. I just would point out that some might think this bill should not deserve to pass for the second time; but it did, it did pass very nicely the first time. Sixty-six Members of this House of Representatives above the passing mark decided this was a very good bill. So we are not in agreement as to whether it is a good bill or not. Just this last November, I stood before this body and urged my colleagues to support the energy conference report. I have watched in frustration, along with the rest of the country, as gas prices continue to go through the roof and the other body sits on our hard work for the sake of election-year politicians. We are in desperate need of a comprehensive energy policy, and I want to extend my gratitude to the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) for bringing this legislation to the floor once again. A truly comprehensive national energy plan should include the utilization of all domestic resources that can be extracted in an environmentally sound fashion; a diversified and well-balanced portfolio of fuel sources for electric generation, including nuclear, clean coal, hydro, and natural gas; improvements to transmission capacity, ensuring the reliability of our electric transmission grid, because oh, how we forget just some months ago; energy efficiency incentives, conservation measures, and targeted research dollars with an eye on the future, and that is what this bill does. Mr. Speaker, this bill achieves all of this and strikes the necessary balance. I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to support this bill; and I am happy to say I believe the majority of the House of Representatives will support it. Not since early 1992 and, in fact, until this administration came along has the importance of U.S. energy policy been prioritized again where it should be. Today we can take another step forward to uniquely reposition ourselves as a country in terms of energy independence and getting back ahead of the curve. I encourage all Members to support this sound, coherent, comprehensive policy for America. Let us send our colleagues in the other body a reminder that our constituents should come first. It is time to push politics to the side and do what is right for this country. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise on the floor today to join my colleagues and the legions of Americans and freedom-loving people around the world in honoring the memory and the legacy of President Ronald Wilson Reagan. In the days that have passed since President Reagan slipped the surly bonds of this world, much has been said about our Nation's 40th President, of his boundless energy, eternal optimism, strong character, good judgment and, most important of all, his unmatched ability to lead and to deliver hope to America and the world at a time when it was needed most. Despite those who would suggest otherwise, the accomplishments and good fortune that befell this Nation and ultimately those behind the Iron Curtain on President Reagan's watch did not happen accidentally or through luck or simply being in the right place at the right time. No, Mr. Speaker. Providing unfailing hope and guidance to a grateful Nation and all the world in a time of much despair is not luck. It is called leadership. And President Reagan will be remembered as a leader without peer, period. Winston Churchill once said, ``The price of greatness is responsibility.'' President Reagan understood and accepted that responsibility like no one else, and he left greatness in his wake. Mr. Speaker, if the measure of a man is the difference that he makes, then history will record that President Ronald Reagan was nothing less than a giant. He will be missed, but his legacy of leadership will live on in the history of this Nation.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for the time, and frankly, I am quite pleased to have the opportunity today, Mr. Speaker, to address four very important measures that I have had the honor, along with the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner), to sponsor. Before addressing the mechanics of each of these important bills, and I will as they are considered, I would like to provide a little useful background. If performance outcomes are what truly counts in government programs, performance outcomes, how well is that government program doing, my colleagues should know that the relevant indicators suggest that OSHA, under President Bush, is performing better than at any time in the agency's history. Now, if we can spend just a little time looking at the facts, and I hate to confuse anybody with facts, but looking at the facts, we should look at the GAO report. It is saying very clearly that the voluntary compliance strategies are showing very good results. In fact, they are saying this may actually be working because the performance outcomes are better than they have ever been in the history of OSHA. I have a couple of graphs, so you do not have to believe me, and they are put out by the Department of Labor statistics. It is indicating that workplace injuries as of 2002 and workplace fatalities as of 2002 are the lowest; they are the lowest they have ever been in the history of OSHA. Injury and illness rates and a number of workplace fatalities are down and are declining. And I believe, I firmly believe that one of the major reasons for this performance improvement is a new and improved vision for OSHA. I know people do not like to change laws once they are passed, but they do need to be measured against performance outcomes, and sometimes you need to change laws when you know you are on the wrong track. OSHA has a vision that rejects the blunt confrontation and embraces the idea of cooperation between employers and government, between business and government. Let us come together to work together to make this a safer and a healthier workplace. The simple truth is we can achieve much better results working together than working against each other, and that seems to be what GAO is saying. It seems to be what the numbers are saying. Or as we say where I come from, you are likely to attract more bees with honey. Now, this does not mean, in our opinion, that you should let the fox guard the hen house. Far from it. It simply means that we will have a better balance to our regulatory approach at OSHA if it includes two useful components: one, a more effective targeting of enforcement resources to where they are most needed. That is just common sense. And, two, strong encouragement for employers to cooperate toward the performance improvements. Why would they not? If they feel they can work with this government and try to improve the health and the safety of their workplace, why in the world would they not? Obviously, they are. The GAO studies keep pointing to the fact that that is working. Targeting focuses on a few bad actors in the business community, while cooperation focuses on the vast majority of employers who very much want a healthier and a safer workplace. I would suggest this: performance improvements at OSHA simply did not come about by accident. In fact, by 1993, OSHA was strongly heading in the other direction of not using the carrot but using the hammer. Almost one of the worst OSHA bills that could ever have become law, in my opinion, occurred in 1994 with the Ford-Kennedy bill. Thank God that did not pass. It would not have improved workplace safety. And the GAO recently reported that one reason might be the exciting results reported by those employers who have already cooperated with OSHA. They are working together. What they are really trying to do is get where they can trust each other, where the employer feels he can call the government and ask for help and not be fearful that he will be tricked and drug into court. What was most exciting about GAO's findings is that the word is getting out among the business community that safety pays. What relevance does all this have to the bills that we are going to consider today? The answer is a great deal of relevance, because each of these measures is directly tied to the general idea of a working formula to promote cooperation and trust. I would like to explain that. I would suggest in the course of our debate over the next few hours that we will repeatedly hear several themes. These themes are: justice, flexibility, efficiency, elimination of waste, and a government that plays fairly and within the rules. Each of these words accurately describes one or more of the purposes of the four measures we will consider today. I will describe the mechanics of these measures and relate how each fits into this larger picture of positive performance results for OSHA as each is considered. I would like to urge each of our Members to support this rule and allow this very important discussion to begin. Obviously, I urge each of my colleagues to vote for the underlying bills. I hear over and over again the term ``working families.'' That is used most frequently, I think, by the minority. And what they generally mean by working families is the 8 percent of our population that are in unions. Well, I like the words working families too. And when it comes to having protection from the government, the other 92 percent of the working families deserve that just as well. The baker with three employees, the florist with two, the local filling station guy who has two employees, they deserve protection equally as do the 8 percent that are in the unions. So I would say to my colleagues that it is as simple as this: if you have no small businesses in your district, then you ought to vote ``no'' on this rule. But if you do have small businesses in your district, you better give this some consideration, because this is fairness for the little guy who happens not to be in a union, who has no way on Earth to stand up to the Labor Department or the finances of the Federal Government.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, so we do not get confused, this hour is devoted to H.R. 2728, not all four bills, The Occupational Safety and Health Small Business Day in Court. My good friend from California (Mr. George Miller) speaks as a gentleman who really truly never has been in small business and it is pretty clear to me does not have any small businesses in his district because this is very important; and, in fact, nobody must be unemployed there because that is what this is all about. Small employers ought to be devoting more of their time and attention, in my opinion, to creating the new jobs our Nation needs and much less time on dealing with government lawyers that are intent on manipulating legal technicalities. That is precisely and that is all what H.R. 2728 does. That is what we are trying to accomplish here. Nothing more, nothing less. It is not complex. It is an 11-word bill. The measure adds only 11 words, Mr. Speaker, to the OSHA act, but those 11 words will add fairness. And I know this body is interested in fairness and in removing potential injustice which has happened before because these 11 words are not in the OSHA act. Here is why. In almost every other court of this Nation, in almost every other court of this Nation a party that acts in good faith but nonetheless misses a deadline that results in a legal default can ask the court to have the case heard on the legal merits. Why not OSHA? That is a good idea. That is a fair idea because we are after justice here. The principle of justice is as old as our common law, and it was crafted to add equity and fairness to the justice system. Why is this not a good idea? We are adding equity and fairness to the justice system that almost every other court in the land can use. Yet we cannot use it with OSHA. Simply stated, everyone should have a right to be heard on the merits of their case before being penalized by their own government. Legal technicalities should not be allowed to get in the way, hear this, as a general rule. Legal technicalities should not be allowed to get in the way as a general rule. Do we say that an employer should respond in 15 days? Sure, that is appropriate. And, actually, employers want to because they do not like this citation hanging over their heads. They want it to move too. But occasionally an honest mistake happens. Can you deal with that in all the other courts in this country? Yes. Can you deal with it when you are dealing with OSHA? No. Why not? Why is this so terrible to put a little fairness and justice into the system? Right now, regrettably, there is doubt over whether the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, or OSHRC, the agency specifically created by Congress to hear each legal dispute between an employer and OSHA, has the statutory authority to grant this type of just relief. And by the way, just for those who do not remember their history, there would be no OSHA act passed by Republicans, signed by a Republican President, had not a review commission been put in the bill. It was a very, very simple reason. Parties who sit in judgment should not be the Labor Department as the plaintiff. It ought to be independent people on the review commission looking at what OSHA says is a violation and what the small businessman says, no, this is not a violation. This agency was created by Congress and allowed OSHA to pass in 1970 to hear each legal dispute between the employer and OSHA. It has the statutory authority to grant this just type of relief. Well, it is not clear, we do not think, so we were not sure they do. While most every other court in the Nation can do what is right, employers facing OSHA standards can be victimized by legal technicalities that would deprive them of the right to be heard and to hear the merits of their case. That is dead wrong. I do not care whose side of this you are on. All H.R. 2728 does is conclusively give OSHRC the authority to make sure that our laws are fairly administered. Who can be against that? We want fair administration of our laws. What is going on now is not necessarily fair in some cases. And using 11 words, that is all this bill is, we have done this as narrowly, Mr. Speaker, as we possibly could have. We have used legal terminology that is time tested and proven to ensure just results without possible abuse. This is because we use identical terminology to that used in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that is known as rule 60(b), a rule that has a very long history of use in nearly every other court of the Nation. Why in the world is it wrong to have that rule take effect when you are dealing with cases with OSHA? I have a feeling about that, but we will not go there. Under this measure, results will only change when the totality of the circumstances concerning a missed deadline, totality of the circumstances concerning a missed deadline indicates that an employer acted in good faith but nevertheless missed a deadline because of a mistake, an inadvertence or an acceptable excuse. This is reasonable. This is to be judged by OSHRC. This is to be judged by independent reviewers. This measure therefore removes a legal trap that has led to unfair results in the past. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2728 simply provides a day in court to parties who believe that they are without legal fault. It is nothing more than that. It is not a lot of what we have heard already. It is simply that it provides a day in court to parties who believe they are without legal fault. Nothing more. I urge my colleagues to vote for passage of this bill. I frankly cannot imagine why every Member of this Congress would not vote for this bill, because every Member of this Congress has a lot of hard- working small business people in their communities that need this very simple, basic protection. About 92 percent of America is made up of the florists with three employees and the butcher with two. They have no way on Earth to take on the Federal Government. Let us just put a little fairness in the OSHA Act with 11 words that do not hurt anybody, but helps the people in your district.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I always welcome one of the members from our Committee on Energy and Commerce to join us. I know on the Committee on Energy and Commerce we have a lot of political dialogue, but we try not to posture on the Committee on Education and the Workforce and just stay on policy. And that certainly was a lot of posturing the gentleman did very well with that, but a lot of it is just simply not true. Let me remind the body what we are doing this hour. We are dealing with one bill, H.R. 2728, that helps working families in this country. I know it is confusing for some people, but working families also include small business owners and their employees, which make up about 92 percent of the working families. Now, this little piece of legislation helps those working families, and I have yet to hear a good explanation why that did not include the 92 percent. Everybody wants to talk about the 8 percent that happen to be unionized. What about those that are not? This is not very difficult legislation. We are giving the rights to 92 percent of the working families in this country that every court, almost every court in the Nation gives. Who said 15 days was right? Who made that up? It is arbitrary. It could have been 8; it could have been 16. All we are saying is occasionally a small business owner needs to have his case relooked at by the review commission and given his right and day in court.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I remind Members that we are on H.R. 2728. It is hard to tell because we are all over the board here. This is simply about small business owners having a fair day in court. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. We are going to have the votes on these three bills, then there are a couple of other votes, and then we go back to the final bill and its debate, and we will vote it.

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

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will remind us that we are on H.R. 2731, the employer access to justice. That is what we are going to be debating and voting on for the next hour. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), my friend.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in case any Members just came in in the last few minutes or little while or are watching on the monitor, let me remind us what we are doing. This particular hour we are giving consideration to H.R. 2729, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission Efficiency Act. That is what we are discussing. That is what is under debate and that is what we are going to vote on. Mr. Speaker, in the report on H.R. 2729, the Committee on Education and the Workforce observed that once Congress has created a government agency, it must continue to monitor the government agency for its performance on behalf of the taxpayers. Surely nobody can disagree with that. When the performance of that agency is found to be unsatisfactory, Congress must seek to identify the reasons for this failure and then make the needed corrections. It is that simple. That is all this bill is about. We are trying to make the needed corrections on behalf of the taxpayer. That is what this is about, regardless of what we previously have heard. Mr. Speaker, we are all tasked with performing this oversight that Congress has mandated since the inception of the OSHA law. That process describes what H.R. 2729 seeks to accomplish in a narrow, surgically targeted measure. In correcting clearly identified problems, this measure will improve the agency's performance, increase efficiency and eliminate unnecessary government waste. Who can disagree with that? Let me use this visual aid behind me to explain why it will do that. I am sure the blue and pink areas are seen prominently by all. These shaded areas represent the time periods when the agency specifically created by Congress to hear all disputes between OSHA and employers have not been able to meet. The shaded areas are an indication of a time when the review commission at OSHA was nonfunctional. It did not work. They were getting paid, of course, but it did not work. This is since 1970. Half of the time since 1970 the review agency did nothing. That is not good for anybody, especially the American taxpayer, but more importantly, the worker or the employer. They found it impossible or at least very difficult to perform the functions that the Congress said to them this is their job, this is what they must do. This agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, or OSHRC, was created by Congress for one single purpose; and, incidentally, had it not been created, there never would have been an OSHA Act. It would never have passed in 1970 had it not been for at the last minute OSHRC being put in. Their job is hearing disputes between OSHA and the regulated community. They are the court. OSHA is the plaintiff. The small business person is the defendant. They are supposed to be totally independent of the Labor Department. To serve this important purpose, OSHRC, by statute, was given three members, or judges. Two members constituted a working quorum. That is, without an agreement between two judges on all issues of law, no decision can be issued. Without this agreement, OSHRC cannot perform its congressional mandate, and the review commission established by Congress is instead forced to shut down or come to a stalemate where waste and efficiency rule the day. Guess who gets to pay? The same old folks, the taxpayers. Here is the problem. Stalemate and waste have been the rule over the history of this agency since 1970 rather than the exception. I am telling the Members they have been out of business half the time since 1970. As the visual I pointed to earlier, this one indicates the time of trouble highlighted by the shaded areas seems to overrun this timeline and it seems to signal a problem. And as one witness testified, these legal stalemates produce cases as long as 8 years old that sit on a court docket. That is not what Congress intended and it is not fair to anybody, 8 years of stalemate and waste. Now we are trying to remedy that. It may be hard for Members to tell we are trying to remedy that with some of the demagoguery, but that is all we are trying to remedy. A simple remedy can be found by looking at OSHRC's sister agency, the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission. There, Congress placed five members on their review panel; and since the mine safety law was passed 7 years after the OSHA Act, most believe this represents a lesson learned. With five commissioners, are they doing better than OSHA is with three? It is not hard. And the answer is, yes, they are. A second remedial step is necessary to maximize efficiency, however; and H.R. 2729 accomplishes this by enabling the President to use what we call a ``hold-over'' provision to improve effectiveness and efficiency, which is what the taxpayers want, what we all should want. Simply stated, this provision would permit the President to ask incumbent members of OSHRC whose terms have expired to remain seated, listen to this now, remain seated no longer than 365 days, until the Senate can confirm a replacement. That lets this agency keep working. Lastly, because the case is decided that OSHRC go on appeal directly to a United States court of appeals, we have inserted the word ``legal'' before the word ``training'' and subsection 12(a) of the OSHA Act. This directs the President to select qualified candidates, but it in no way prevents the appointments of individuals who are nonlawyers to serve on OSHRC because there is a threefold criteria for selections. It includes training, that is one of them; it includes education; and it includes experience. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2729 represents a very narrow change to the current law. It will have positive and sweeping consequences in terms of improving the performance and the efficiency of OSHRC while eliminating unnecessary government waste. Who can be against that? I urge the passage of this bill. And I conclude by saying that the demagoguery earlier that says that this bill should be called More Injury and Death Marathon Act is shameful, it is embarrassing, and it is out of line. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to sincerely and honestly thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for staying on the subject matter. We are indeed dealing with this bill. He and I may not agree, but at least we are having a discussion about the bill, and there may be just a couple of things that I want to make sure we have clear. The gentleman indicated that should the President make an appointment, that that could be forever. That is simply not true. It is 365 days. The bill clearly states that. If the President makes an appointment, it is for 365 days, not forever. Secondly, the word ``legal,'' that is an interesting thing. I tended to not want to do that too. I understand that. But the problem is, OSHRC is an adjudicative agency, and appeals from OSHRC go straight to the U.S. Court of Appeals. That strongly indicates, perhaps, some need for legal training, and this training could be a very useful tool for a member of this commission in light of the role that they play before it goes to the Court of Appeals. Secondly, I am very concerned that the courts have been giving deference to the plaintiff. The plaintiff in this case is OSHA. The court should be the review commission. The courts have been giving deference to the plaintiff, rather than the court, and perhaps this will stop some of this. In terms of efficiency and going from three members to five and the gentleman's indication that he is really against growing government, Congress has a very difficult time saying, you know, this is not working. We need to do something about this. This agency is not efficient. This agency is not getting done what Congress asked it to do. I pointed out earlier that this agency has almost been out of work half of the time since 1970. What could possibly be done to make it much more inefficient than that? For some 20 percent of the agency's history, it has not had a statutory working quorum in place, and despite otherwise fully staffed people in the agency, they could not act. That is wasteful and that is inefficient. Will five do better than three? Let us pray, is all I can tell you. It certainly has worked better for MSHA, and we hope that it will for OSHRC. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I need to remind everybody that this hour is devoted to H.R. 2729, that it is about the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission Efficiency Act. That is exactly what we are talking about. I want to remind everyone that a President, a President of either party, is going to appoint somebody to the commission that they agree with. That makes sense, whether it be President Clinton or President Bush. But all of these confirmations have to be confirmed in the Senate, so there is a check and a balance on it no matter which party is in the White House. The comment earlier about President Bush is more concerned about big business than worker safety , I would simply say this bill is about small business. It has not got anything to do with big business. It is about helping small business. To simply say, well, this is not what workers want, is very presumptive. There are 92 percent of the population out there that are working families who own businesses, who work every day, and they do want some relief in the regulatory element, particularly, particularly, when the setup at OSHA is so unfair and the deck is stacked against them. So I will tell you that a lot of small businesses and a lot of working families do want this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to say to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) that I have great admiration for him, that I always listen to him very carefully, and when he speaks, it is usually well thought out and there is some wisdom behind it. I appreciate that. I do not necessarily agree with his remarks, but I am thankful he stayed on the subject, generally speaking, of the bill that is before us. I suppose actually we could sit down and probably have some long nights of discussion as to whether there should be three members, four members, five members. But both of us know that the commission is simply not working. My suggestion is to vote for this bill and let us give a chance for something else to work, particularly when we know that the commission is working pretty well over at MSHA. I do not know anything sinister about the appointments by the President. It is pretty simple. Frankly, what we need to do is have this commission operate. You cannot operate if it is going to take 8 years producing its findings, and that happens occasionally simply because there is no one there that can get confirmed in the Senate. We need to give Democrat or Republican Presidents an opportunity to put somebody in.

Mr. NORWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.