Major Owens

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my statement be included at the appropriate place in the Record in its entirety and request permission to revise and extend my remarks. Mr. Speaker, as other members on the Democratic side of the aisle have stressed, the Republican majority has allowed us only a handful of hours to examine the content of this mammoth bill, which numbers in the thousands of pages, before holding a vote on final passage. This rushed vote on the omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 2005 represents more than a serious disservice to the American people. It signifies a disgraceful denigration of our role as elected representatives and a serious blow to our democratic form of government. Although I therefore lack any time to sift through, let alone examine carefully, the lion's share of provisions in this omnibus measure, I have seen two labor clauses which cause me the gravest of concerns. First, this conference report reverses a provision--which passed both the House and the Senate with clearcut bipartisan support--to ensure that workers who put in overtime hours get paid overtime wages. The Republican leadership in Congress has therefore joined with the Bush Administration in pilfering the pockets of hard-working Americans and their families. By taking away the right of millions of American workers to earn overtime pay, the Republican leadership is also turning back the clock more than half a century. They do so to the detriment of hardworking women and men and their families across this nation. Secondly, a clause in this bill that would seriously erode worker protections against tuberculosis (TB) and bioterrorism. This provision prohibits the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) from enforcing any part of its respirator standard for workers at risk of exposure to TB and other deadly infections. At a time when the Bush Administration is invoking daily, color-coded terrorist alerts, it is senseless to weaken the only standard we have to protect health care workers against air-borne pathogens or air-borne ``weapons of mass destruction.'' By prohibiting OSHA from enforcing either an initial as well as an annual fit test for workers' masks, that is exactly what is possible. According to Dr. Margaret Hamburg, Vice President for Biological Programs at the Nuclear Threat Initiative, drug-resistant TB is a biological agent that might be used as a weapon, in addition to small pox, pneumonic plague, and others. To undercut the only protection that front-line health care workers would have against such agents--namely, their respirators--is worse than irresponsible and reckless. It is entirely without conscience. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues in the 109th Congress will see the wisdom of reversing this provision, which seriously undermines workers' protections against TB and bioterrorism.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us contains several extremely important provisions. They are designed to provide essential medical care and compensation for the brave Americans who worked from the 1950s through the 1970s to build this Nation's atomic weapons, often at serious risk to their own health and well-being. In far too many cases, these atomic energy workers were deliberately misled about the serious health risks their occupational exposure to radiation, heavy metals, and other toxic and dangerous substances would entail. Although Congress enacted the Energy Employee Occupation Illness Compensation Program Act, EEOICPA, in 2000 to provide such workers with essential medical care for specified types of cancer and compensation for their inability to work due to illness, a scarce few actually received it. Moreover, a number of workers died without the government ever making good on its promises to recognize their critical contributions to national defense work. In such cases, the surviving spouses and dependent children of these workers remain justly entitled to compensation. Mr. Speaker, in the early 1950s there were two atomic weapons employers in my district, the 11th Congressional District of New York. One such plant, the American Machine and Foundry, AMF, designed and produced industrial equipment for the Atomic Energy Commission. By carrying out metal machining work for the Atomic Energy Commission-- with uranium, thorium and zirconium--employees at this plant were exposed on a daily basis to large volumes of radioactive and hazardous metals. A second plant in my district, the Wolff-Alport Chemical Corporation, procured thorium sludge for stockpiling by the Atomic Energy Commission. Wolff-Alport Chemical workers were likewise exposed to thousands of pounds of dangerous radioactive substances. Mr. Speaker, the provisions in this bill will settle long-standing health care and compensation claims by providing guaranteed Federal benefits for eligible employees whose work in Department of Energy nuclear facilities caused serious illness, impairment and/or disabling conditions. Likewise, this bill will guarantee Federal benefits for the uranium miners, millers and transporters made ill as a result of their work and covered under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program, RECA. From Brooklyn, NY, to Berkeley, CA, the atomic energy workers and surviving relatives have been hurt twice. First, many workers contracted grave diseases, often after a long latency period, as a result of exposure to dangerous nuclear and toxic materials. Second, the workers and their families were hurt for too many years by a policy of denial with respect to our national responsibility to them. It is imperative we reverse this policy of denial for once and for all. This bill accomplishes just that. It provides a guaranteed Federal benefit for the critical health care and compensation these workers and their families both require and deserve. In closing, I would like to thank my distinguished colleague from Missouri, the ranking minority member of the Armed Services Committee, as well as minority and majority staff, for their hard work and persistence in making certain these deserving workers and families will finally get justice.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, because of an emergency in my district, I missed rollcall votes Nos. 487, 488 and 489. If present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes Nos. 487, 488 and 489.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, since 2001 the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, has failed to carry out its core mission of protecting the health and safety of American workers. By withdrawing more rules aimed at workplace safety than it has promulgated over the past 4 years, OSHA has set an appalling track record indeed. As such, OSHA and the Bush administration have earned the dubious distinction of definitively turning back the clock on worker safety. As documented by the Government Accountability Office, GAO, in a March 2004 report, OSHA has decreased the proportion of its budget dedicated to enforcement activities by 6 percent at the same time it has increased by 8 percent the proportion reserved for its Voluntary Protection Program, VPP. Under the VPP, OSHA offers regional partnerships with certain industry associations--such as construction-- to reduce worker injuries and illness. In return for keeping injury rates 25 percent below the industry average and holding comprehensive training sessions for workers, participating contractors receive a lower priority for scheduled OSHA inspections. Although certain contractors participating in the VPP have met with some success in reducing injury rates, this can never suffice as a substitute for adequate enforcement of U.S. safety standards. In its budget request for fiscal year 2006, the Bush administration promises to undermine even further OSHA's ability to develop and enforce essential safety and health standards through funding cuts of $12 million. This is a clear subversion of congressional intent in passing the OSHA Act more than 3 decades ago. Let me remind my colleagues that OSHA's clear statutory mandate is to ``assure every working man and woman in the United States safe and healthful working conditions.'' Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that an article that appeared in today's Washington Post, outlining OSHA's woeful neglect of worker safety, be printed in the Record at this point. [From the Washington Post, Oct. 5, 2004] OSHA Withdraws More Rules Than It Makes, Reviews Find (By Cindy Skrzycki) It's no secret that the Bush administration prefers voluntary, collaborative efforts on the part of companies to improve their safety records. Since the administration took over in 2001, the Labor Department's Occupational Safety and Health Administration has forged hundreds of agreements with companies and business associations to improve their safety records while rulemaking has been sharply curtailed. According to OSHA Assistant Secretary John Henshaw, the approach has resulted in safer workplaces with fewer fatalities, injuries and illnesses--what he calls the triple bottom line. ``I've seen what works and doesn't work on the shop floor,'' said Henshaw, reflecting his own career as a safety and health professional at chemical companies, Monsanto Co. and Astaris LLC, before he came to the safety agency. But labor unions and some watchdog groups would rather OSHA play its more traditional role, issuing regulations. ``We have a preference for an actual regulation that is enforceable and fair across the board,'' said J. Robert Shull, senior regulatory policy analyst at OMB Watch, a nonprofit group funded mostly by foundations that has three union officials among its 15 directors. Adds Peg Seminario, director of occupational safety and health for the AFL-CIO: Setting and enforcing standards is part of their mission. ``So why aren't they?'' Since fall 2000, the agency has not been regulating in the traditional sense, OMB Watch found in a series of reviews. Twenty-four rules that were in some stage of development on OSHA's agenda were withdrawn by the administration. Nine rules were completed, but none were major and several were related to recordkeeping. In examining the agency's December 2003 and June 2004 regulatory agendas, which track the progress of its rules, OMB Watch found that since last December, OSHA has revised a rule on commercial diving operations, reexamined one on mechanical power presses and changed how musculoskeletal disorders are reported. It completed one rule, to protect shipyard workers from fire hazards, and yesterday proposed new standards to protect workers from hexavalent chromium, a chemical used in chrome plating. That was under a court order. ``It's a meager output. It's the black hole of government,'' Shull said. ``OSHA cleared the decks of its agenda. Just swept it clean.'' His group maintains that gutting the agency's regulatory agenda is a sop to business, which won a big victory when the Bush administration cancelled a final rule to protect workers from ergonomic injuries. Early in the Bush administration, Henshaw said he didn't put much stock in the regulatory agenda, calling it a wish list that contained proposals that had been incubating for years with no result. He said he preferred a ``to-do'' list-- which OMB Watch now calls a ``do-nothing'' list. That list has 24 items, including whether employers have to pay for protective equipment for their workers. Said Henshaw, who inherited the protective equipment proposal from the Clinton administration: ``We're reviewing the comments now and we're committed to taking the next step. But I don't want to say exactly what the next step is.'' His emphasis, he said, has been on cooperative efforts with business and stepped-up enforcement of ``bad actors'' who are responsible for most safety problems. The agency has formed 231 long-term alliances with trade associations and companies since 2002 that emphasize outreach, education, and sharing ``best practices.'' OSHA under Henshaw has forged 214 active strategic partnerships that set safety goals involving 4,762 employers, and there are 1,153 voluntary protection program sites, where companies with exemplary safety records forego routine inspections. Critics of the agency are leery of these arrangements, where union participation is minimal. And they don't entirely trust the numbers OSHA uses to support its claim that injures and illnesses are decreasing. Unions don't consider the reports dependable, she said, because they are furnished by employers. Seminario points out that there have been two major changes in the way employers collect injury and illness data since 2002, making comparisons to earlier years difficult. For example, the incidence of musculoskeletal injuries on the job--injuries from repetitive work and poorly designed workplaces--is no longer reported separately. Data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on days missed from work for illness show that over the past few years, the percentage of days taken off due to injuries and illnesses related to ergonomic issues has remained constant-- about 34 percent--though the overall number of injuries and illnesses has decreased. The business community said it wasn't that focused on the proposed rules OSHA axed but wanted to prevent new regulations. And groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have been unhappy that the safety regulators issued citations for ergonomic violations under a broad enforcement authority. Since Congress killed the ergo rule two years ago, OSHA has opened cases against seven companies for ergonomic-related violations. Randel Johnson, vice president of labor, immigration and employee benefits for the chamber, called the trend troubling. ``The agency has aggressively pursued ergonomics citations . . . demanding abatement measures that sound much like the repealed regulation and micromanaging targeted employers with a laundry list of requirements. Despite what the unions may allege, our life with OSHA has been no rose garden.''

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill.

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, it is insulting and disgusting for the Republican Majority to make a joke of serious war and peace policy by bringing draft legislation to the floor as a frivolous matter, as a joke. Every member of the House who is against the draft should join me as a co-sponsor of H.R. 4746, the Selective Service Registration Termination Act. The attached ``Dear Colleague'' letter of June 25, 2004 provides a fuller explanation of H.R. 4746 This bill proposes the termination of the selective service registration system which requires that all eighteen-year-old males register. This lost component of the system maintains a large manpower pool readily available for the quick implementation of a draft. This bill takes away the draft option and guarantees that future policy makers must confine their adventures to actions which can be launched and maintained with only a volunteer military force. H.R. 4746 clearly indicates that in the case of a full declaration of war by the Congress of the United States the Selective Service System may be reinstituted. Only as a last resort should a war be declared and mandatory proscription be authorized. In the case of a draft there must be no exemptions for the rich and the powerful. If a draft is implemented the rich and powerful should go first. Attached is a statement from the Congressional Record submitted on July 16, 2003 which expresses the conviction which must guide any future draft: Let the rich go first. U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Jun. 25, 2004. Working Families Need Jobs, Not Guns and Uniforms--We Must Terminate Selective Service Registration Dear Colleague: I have introduced the ``Selective Service Registration Termination Act'' (H.R. 4746) in order to dismantle the machinery of a draft which would suck American youth deeper into the quagmire of the Iraq War and also provide manpower for new preemptive wars. Our nation is at a pivotal point with respect to the use of military force to protect our vital interests around the world. The worship of the false god of war would be lessened if we take clear and careful steps to reduce the pool of potential combat troops. Continuing a volunteer army policy will provide a strong restraint and check on new violent adventures. Every presidential candidate must be made to pledge that there will be no implementation of a draft after the election. Working families need jobs, not guns and uniforms. Preparations for a draft are presently an underground, covert, ghost operation as we move toward election day; however, there are distinct actions which point the way to a future sudden ``common sense'' announcement that the machinery of the draft must be reactivated. Please note that the Senate recently authorized a twenty thousand soldier increase for the Department of Defense. All experts have agreed that unless circumstances change the size of the occupying army in Iraq must be greatly increased. Instead of the creation of a vast new pool of cannon fodder, we must insist that ``the circumstances must be changed.'' ``Shock and Awe'' invasions must not continue to be an alternative for the unilateral confrontation of enemies in the war against terrorists. The machinery of diplomacy; a world wide network of coordinated intelligence; and the maintenance of the capacity to execute swift, targeted actions must replace the obsolete and costly total war strategy. Ending the draft system is the most practical step available to use to force the end of reckless war as an alternative. Working families need jobs, not guns and uniforms. Support a giant step toward lasting peace. Please join me by cosponsoring H.R. 4746 by contacting Larry J. Walker at 225- 6231. Sincerely, Major R. Owens, Member of Congress.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my statement be included in the Record in its entirety and request permission to revise and extend my remarks. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us would express the sense of Congress that September 11 be designated a national day of voluntary service, charity and compassion in recognition of the nearly 3,000 Americans who lost their lives in the terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the hijacked plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. Clearly, all those who tragically lost their lives that day will forever be memorialized by New Yorkers and the Nation at large. Likewise, it is important that we all continue to pay tribute to the countless rescue and recovery workers and volunteers who toiled heroically to locate survivors as well as the deceased and to clean up the Pentagon and Ground Zero. Yet it is imperative that we do far more than pay symbolic tribute to these front-line heroes. For many on the front lines at Ground Zero in particular, 9/11 can never be a distant memory. Many of these dedicated workers, from the search and rescue teams to the clean-up and construction crews, have significant and lingering health problems as a direct result of exposure to a wide range of toxins. A number have had to retire from active duty due to serious breathing and respiratory symptoms. Far too many can no longer work at their chosen occupations. Others will never be able to work again. On Workers Memorial Day in 2003, I held a forum in New York City to examine the health status of the 9/11 workers, including a large contingent of immigrant workers entrusted with decontaminating Ground Zero. We must ensure that these brave 9/11 workers, including the group of day laborers; receive all appropriate health care and monitoring as long as necessary. We must also ensure that the health and safety blunders made in this case, and the failure to protect our workers, are never repeated again. Mr. Speaker, I hope and expect that in the very near future, we will act upon legislation providing the critical health and compensation these brave 9/11 workers merit and require.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, because of an emergency in my district, I missed rollcall votes Nos. 441, 442 and 443. If present I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, because of an emergency in my district, I missed rollcall vote Nos. 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450, 451, 452, 453 and 454. If present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 446, 447, 448, 449, 452, 453 and 454 and ``nay'' on rollcall votes 444, 445, 450 and 451.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, because of an emergency in my district, I missed rollcall votes No. 422 and 423. If present I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment to restore overtime pay to millions of hard-working Americans, as proposed by my distinguished colleague from Wisconsin. I ask that my entire statement be printed in the Record and request permission to revise and extend my remarks. Just 3 days ago this Nation celebrated Labor Day, honoring the millions of hard-working Americans we all depend upon to build and repair our homes, fix our cars, install neighborhood street lights, stock supermarket shelves, teach our preschoolers, care for elderly relatives, provide nursing care when we need it, prepare restaurant meals, report the local news, and patrol the streets to keep communities safe. By taking on such jobs, these workers keep America running. Yet these are they very same workers that the Bush Administration has now stripped of any right to overtime pay. When the Department of Labor's final rule on overtime went into effect on August 23rd, some 6,000,000 American workers lost a right that had been guaranteed for more than 65 years under the Fair Labor Standards Act. That right is simple and straightforward. It guarantees that workers required to work overtime will get paid for those extra hours of work. This simple right used to ensure that policemen and women, registered nurses, chefs, team leaders on construction sites, assistant managers in fast food restaurants, nursery school teachers, grocery clerks, car mechanics at the local dealership, and countless others were treated fairly. When their employers required them to work overtime, they were paid for that work. That is only fair and fairness used to be the American way. But the Bush Administration and the Republican leadership in Congress have decided that fairness doesn't apply any more to these American workers. They have come up with a new scheme, which meets Webster's Dictionary definition of servitude. Under Republican management, employers can require these same employees to work as many hours over a standard 40 hour work week as they say, without paying the workers an extra dime. What makes this Bush and Republican-backed scheme even worse is that it has no expiration date. Under seventeenth and eighteenth century indentured servitude, there was an end in sight. Once you paid off your indentureship, you were free and clear. Under the Bush Administration's final overtime regulations, if you fit the category your employer can continue to require you to work overtime without pay for as far into the future as anyone can see. This kind of exploitation is blatantly un-American. The amendment of my colleague from Wisconsin would overturn this un- American servitude scheme by rescinding the Bush Administration's harmful changes in overtime eligibility. At the same time, this amendment would require enforcement of the one noncontroversial provision in the final rule. This minor salary adjustment would ensure immediate expansion of overtime coverage. Again, I strongly support this amendment to restore workers' overtime rights and return us to the 21st century norms of American fairness.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to express grave concern over a clause in this bill that would seriously erode worker protections against tuberculosis, TB, and bioterrorism. This provision prohibits the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, from fully enforcing its respirator standard for workers at risk of exposure to TB and other deadly infections. At a time when the Bush administration is invoking daily, color-coded terrorist alerts, it makes absolutely no sense to weaken the only standard we have to protect health care workers against air-borne pathogens or air-borne ``weapons of mass destruction.'' By prohibiting OSHA from enforcing the annual fit test for workers' respirators or masks, that is exactly what is possible. According to Dr. Margaret Hamburg, Vice President for Biological Programs at the Nuclear Threat Initiative, biological agents that might be used as biological weapons include small pox, pneumonic plague, and drug-resistant TB. To undercut the only protection that front-line health care workers would have to such agents--namely, their respirators--is absolutely unconscionable. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that a letter on this critical issue from the Director of Occupational Health and Safety at the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) be included in the Record at this point. I trust and hope my colleagues in the Senate will see the wisdom of opposing any such effort to weaken workers' protections against TB and bioterrorism. An Open Letter to APIC Members Dear APIC member: I ran across your e-mail thread from my colleagues in the occupational health and safety community. As I am not an APIC member (yet), I hope that you are not offended by my taking this liberty to communicate directly with you about a manner of upmost importance to all of us who are concerned about health care worker occupational health and safety. The APIC leadership (with AHA) have been on a crusade to undermine adequate TB and respiratory legal protections for health care workers for some time now. They are proud of their singular role in working with Congressman Roger Wicker (R-MS), whose state coincidentally is surrounded by states with some of the highest rates of TB, to kill the OSHA TB rule late last year. Not satisfied with that ``accomplishment'', APIC leadership is now determined to gut the application of the OSHA respirator standard that has been on the books for all other chemical, biological and infectious disease agents, except TB since 1998. The reason that the respirator standard didn't apply to TB until now is because the separate OSHA TB standard (that APIC had killed) would have covered respiratory protection within the framework of a comprehensive TB rule. As someone trained as a microbiologist and industrial hygienist working in the healthcare sector for the past 24 years, I must tell you that your APIC leadership is dead wrong to oppose annual fit testing against TB and other airborne biological hazards. I am not alone. Every labor organization that represents health care workers also supports annual fit testing, as does the Bush Administration, the American Nurses Association, American Industrial Hygiene Association and the 50,000 member American Public Health Association. Let's look at the facts: (1) Last year TB rates had their smallest decline in years; rates increased in twenty states. (2) Without annual fit testing, respirator face seals will erode over time, respirators will leak, and more healthcare workers will experience TB conversions. Respirator manufacturers recommend annual fit testing for their products to work properly. (3) The APIC leadership is misleading you when they say that the Wicker amendment is supported by CDC. This is not true. The official CDC position has never differed from OSHA's position either verbally or in writing. (4) The official position of the Bush Administration in supporting annual fit testing, was articulated in the December 30, 2003 Federal Register OSHA notice, stating that fit testing is crucial to a proper face seal, and that over time that 5% to 50% of all workers will lose a proper face seal each year if annual fit testing is not performed. (5) As far as the argument that there is ``no difference'' between a surgical mask vs. a properly fitted N95 respirator, a study conducted by Nelson Laboratories in Salt Lake City last year found that a surgical mask filtered out 61.9%-62.3% of particles in the respirable 0.3 micron range vs. 97.9%- 99.7% for a properly fitted N95 respirator. Many of you may recall the clamor of opposition against the bloodborne pathogens standard in the late 1980s. Many dentists claimed that if they wore gloves, that patients wouldn't see them. Today the opposite is the case, while the CDC reports that since the standard took effect, that hepatitis B cases among health care workers have plummeted from 17,000 a year to 400. Today, as a result of the requirements under the bloodborne pathogens standard, many infection control professionals have more resources to do their job. The same could be the case if we work together to protect health care workers from airborne exposures to TB through annual fit testing; also conferring protections against SARS, avian flue and airborne weapons of mass destruction. SEIU represents 1.7 million workers, with over half employed in health care, including over 100,000 nurses and 20,000 physicians. Many of our members are APIC members who vehemently disagree with the position of the current APIC leadership. I know that many other APIC members believe that their current leadership is not acting in the best interest of their membership when they work so zealously in opposition to these basic worker protections. I respectfully suggest that APIC members learn the facts, and work to support an APIC leadership that shares our joint interests in protecting both workers and patients. Sincerely: Bill Borwegen, MPH, Director, Occupational Health and Safety Service Employees International Union.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, Democrats like tax cuts, too, but the Democratic Party's tax policies are targeted to do the most good for the majority of Americans. Working families will be the beneficiaries of the Democratic tax policy. Republicans want tax cuts which give more to the have-mores. Tax cuts for the rich are luxury toys, but tax cuts for working families are absolute necessities. Working families need more child care tax credits. Working families need tuition tax credits to help their children attend college and rise up the economic ladder. Let the corporations pay more taxes if we need revenue for the war in Iraq or any other activity. Change the Federal rules for the way we charge for our assets, grazing land, mining rights or the sale and lease of the spectrum above us, which is owned by the American people. Democrats want tax cuts, but we want tax cuts for working families.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a distinguished business executive well known to members of the Congressional Black Caucus, Ester Silver-Parker. She serves on the boards of International Women's Forum, Brenau University, North Carolina Central University, National Public Radio Foundation, The Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, the Wyndham Hotel Women and Diversity Roundtable. Ester Silver-Parker was named Vice President of Diversity Relations for Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in December 2003. She is charged with the strategic planning and execution of Wal-Mart's diverse efforts as it relates to its supplier development program, philanthropic and community relations programs. Additionally, she is responsible for strengthening Wal-Mart's relationships with diversity leaders and leadership organizations in the communities it serves. Prior to joining Wal-Mart, Ms. Silver-Parker served as Vice President of Corporate Affairs and President of the AT&T Foundation for AT&T. She also directed AT&T's National Constituency Relations, Issues Management and Corporate Social Responsibility Programs. Ms. Silver-Parker directed AT&T's public relations field offices in the Northeast States, the Mid-Atlantic States and the Southeast. She established the first AT&T public relations operations in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, designed and implemented the plan to increase AT&T's presence in the U.S. domestic field operations, and developed the organizational design for AT&T's field public relations organization. She also established AT&T's first constituent relations organization. She was the recipient of the Catherine Cleary Award, the highest leadership honor AT&T gives to a female employee. Prior to joining AT&T, Ms. Silver-Parker worked in public relations for New York Telephone, the National Urban League and as a journalist for Essence Magazine, the Review of Political Economy and New World Outlook. Ester Silver-Parker has traveled on behalf of the Board of Global Ministries in the Congo, Burundi and Kenya to study and write about the health conditions and quality of life of women and children. She is a frequent speaker on issues pertaining to women, diversity, corporate social responsibility, and strategic philanthropy. She received a Masters in journalism from Columbia University School of Journalism and a Bachelors of Arts in political science from North Carolina Central University. She is a graduate of Pennsylvania State University's Executive Management Program and holds an Honorary Doctor's Degree in Humane Letters from Benedict College. Ms. Silver-Parker has received numerous awards, including the Ebony Magazine Outstanding Women in Corporate Marketing, the Congressional Black Caucus Unsung Hero Award, the DECA Award for outstanding businesswoman, the Harlem YMCA Black Achievers in Industry Award, New York City Gus D'Amato Community Service Award, the Atlanta Business League's Outstanding Corporate Person Award, the 100 Black Men of America's Corporate Excellence Award, the National AIDS Fund's Leadership Award, the Asian Pacific Islanders Women's Leadership Starfish Award. Mr. Speaker, Ms. Silver-Parker is a genuine professional who cares deeply about her community. I am honored to recognize her as a ``Point of Light for All Americans.''

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, on their policy of liquidating overtime pay as we know it, the Republican majority should end their covert sabotage and come out of the closet. The right to overtime pay is a fundamental right guaranteed for the past 66 years by the Fair Labor Standards Act. For 6 million or more American workers, however, that right will expire in exactly 1 month's time. On August 23, a Bush administration rule will be implemented to strip hardworking Americans, including certain police officers, nurses, preschool teachers and many others, of rightfully earned overtime pay. Republicans must admit their war on overtime. Come out of the closet. The House Republican leadership is now refusing to bring the fiscal year 2005 Labor-HHS appropriations to the floor. The Republicans fear the truth and power of a Democratic amendment to reverse this Bush rule and protect workers' rights to overtime pay. The Republicans are afraid to expose their unjust policy to the voters. Under the Bush economic plan which favors the haves and have-mores, an increasing number of American workers have had to rely on overtime wages simply to pay their electricity bill or their monthly mortgage. But overtime for working families is also an issue of fundamental fairness. In Iraq, 90 percent of the frontline soldiers are the children of these working families. Mandating that employees work extra hours without adequate pay is a betrayal of the trust of the families of our heroes. Vote ``yes'' on overtime pay. Bring it to the floor today.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, because of an emergency in my district, I missed rollcall votes Nos. 359, 360, 361 and 362. If present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 359, 361 and 362 and ``nay'' on rollcall vote 360.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, this House must be applauded for the passage of the Resolution (H. Con. Res. 450) I introduced to honor the civil rights martyrs: Andrew Goodman, James Chaney, and Michael Schwerner. These young men were true martyrs, nonviolent and self-sacrificing for the highest ideals. In contrast to the suicide bombers who call themselves ``martyrs'' while taking lives, these heroes placed themselves at risk in order to save lives. The fact that their passion and dedication was expressed in non-violent actions made them no less courageous and brave fighters. On this fortieth anniversary of their lynching it is important that we hold up to our youth and to the world these examples of three ``greatest'' American men. The Angels Cried The day Chaney, Schwerner and Goodman died Was a day the angels cried: Heroes who laid down their lives, Courage recorded for eternal archives. Medals of honor belong to the brave Who take no lives but struggle to save The credo of justice for all; Build them a three person Memorial Wall. Suicide bombers look down and see True martyrs who won great glory In the war for ideals Fought past Mississippi cotton fields; Three sacrificed the full measure of devotion, Murder of enemies is an obsolete notion, Love is a weapon of overwhelming emotion. Sound the trumpet again and again Appreciate the sacrifice of three greatest American men. The day Chaney, Schwerner and Goodman died Was a day angels in heaven cried.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, because of an emergency in my district, I missed rollcall vote Nos. 276, 277, and 278. If present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote Nos. 276, 277, and 278.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, quite a number of Washington leaders have expressed great anger over the comparison of the present war in Iraq to the past war in Viet Nam. Many insist that there is no logical comparison: Viet Nam was a war waged over many years and thousands of Americans died. With great glee they point to the fact that we have not yet had the first thousand body bags come home from Iraq. Consider, Mr. Speaker, the fact that not one soldier killed or wounded has a wife, mother and family rejoicing about the overall low casualty rate. Human life is sacred and one tragedy of Viet Nam is that our government stopped counting one soul at a time. 58,000 heroes died in the jungles of Viet Nam and every American citizen has a duty to fight to guarantee that no body count statistics close to these are tolerated ever again. While we praise the heroism of the troops in Iraq we must confess that it is now crystal clear that this army is in the wrong place fighting the wrong enemy at great financial as well as human costs. Before the years begin to go by and the body count mounts into the thousands, an exit strategy must be implemented now. Viet Nam has taught us that inevitably there will be an end negotiated to even a very complex war. In the interest of our nation and of humanity let us begin to work backward to initiate the negotiations for peace. The shape of the table might be the same as the table shape finally agreed upon in Viet Nam. What matters most is that this administration must invite all of the nations on the U.N. Security Council and all of the members of NATO to come to the table. The sharing of the powers of decision-making must be placed on the table. French, German, Russian and Chinese troops must be contributed to the effort to guarantee law and order in Iraq. The guerilla insurgents may hold out for many years but once we are able to make the argument to the Iraqi masses that we are not in their country to re-institute colonial subjugation or to pilfer their oil revenues the popular appeal of the violent uprising will fade away. An international presence with a clearly stated set of rules and a transparent timetable will encourage the development and actions of a new leadership class among the Iraqi population. The yearling for liberty is so great in the bosom of every human being that true freedom has its own overwhelming recruiting power. Viet Nam is still described by former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara as an unfortunate series of mistakes; however, in dishonest riddles McNamara refuses to admit that Viet Nam was one of the greatest blunders in modern history. 58,000 died needlessly. We lost Viet Nam but the dominoes did not fall against us. The free world went on to win the cold war. Victory over Al Qaeda and world terrorism cannot be won in Iraq. Let this truth guide Washington decision-makers now before another 58,000 die. No New Vietnam In Iraq 58,000 Have not yet died. 58,000 Mothers, daughters, wives Have not yet cried. 58,000 Did not fall yet, The quota to make a wall Has not yet been met. From VietNam 58,000 Body bags came home; Jungle warfare was tough, Mid-East deserts deemed easy to roam, Combat assumed to never get rough. 58,000 Must die first; For oil and gas American appetite Shows an unquenchable thirst; 58,000 To stop other nations from daring To make demands for equal sharing. 58,000 Is a goal there is time to reach; For present low count casualties VietNam Has no lessons to teach. Families waiting Will get no happy greetings Til Rumsfeld holds One hundred more meetings; Colin must make more trips, DeLay must crack his whips, Speeches must be recited On the fourth of July Photo opportunities with wives Of husbands shipped off to die. 58,000 never again-- Where in hiding Have power brokers been? Command Macnamara To tell the true story, Washington warmongers deserve No star spangled glory, On the front lines The scene is always gory. White House power at risk Needed an Iraq fix; Exposed now Is what we always knew, Addiction for oil Infected the Neo-Com crew. Rumsfeld decrees That far across the seas There is no new VietNam; Every high tech trick Has not yet been tried We have not yet met The WMD enemy threat; Premature victory the White House tasted Because 58,000 lives Have not yet been wasted. Thank America For names carved in stone Pray for all children left alone When body bags bore their fathers home; Home of the brave Pledge to the credo Each life we must save, No more monuments But lasting peace we crave. 58,000 Have names on the wall, These heroes stand tall, From heaven their voices call, Blood soaked wisdom From truth trenches will crawl: 58,000 never again! Rise to resist the squander Of the lives of brave men! 58,000 Did not fall yet, The quota to make a wall Has not yet been met. 58,000!

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was unavoidably absent and missed rollcall votes No. 210, No. 211 and No. 212. If present I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, because of an emergency in my district, I missed rollcall vote No. 208 and No. 209. If present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 208 and ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 209.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, because of an emergency in my district, I missed rollcall votes No. 177, No. 178 and No. 179. If present I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for an opening statement.

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this particular bill, H.R. 2728, and the other three bills to be considered in succession, H.R. 2729, H.R. 2730 and H.R. 2731. As I said earlier in the debate on the rule, this package I would label as a ``more injuries and more deaths package.'' This package I would label as ``a spoon feeding of poison'' to OSHA. If we compare OSHA to a giant elephant, as has just been boasted by a couple of Members, they knock the elephant to its knees immediately by repealing the ergonomic standards, and now they want to slowly kill the elephant with spoonsful of poison. Deliberately, it is made to appear these are trivial bills, common- sense bills, they have no real value; but why are they on the floor? I think they are significant only if we take this within the context of what the majority party has been trying to do with OSHA since it took control of the House, if we take it in the context of how the protection of owners and businessmen is the obsession of the majority party. We never get any bills from them which seek to protect workers. There are quite a number, 14, of significant bills that have been offered since the 104th Congress, starting with the gentleman that just spoke before. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger) has offered more than anyone else, and each one of those bills seeks to, in some way, weaken OSHA and to favor law-breaking employers. These bills will do nothing to strengthen the occupational safety and health standards for American workers. Rather, they will do quite the reverse, by undermining, sometimes suddenly and other times blatantly, the overall effectiveness of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. I would like to remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that Congress passed the Occupational Safety and Health Act in 1970 to assure ``every working man and woman in the United States safe and healthful work conditions.'' I believe that bears repeating. OSHA's founding and fundamental purpose, as spelled out in the statute, is to ensure that each and every individual working in the United States carries out his or her work in safe and healthy circumstances. The bill was not written to overburden business. It has never overburdened business. Every attempt has been made to bend over backwards to limit the burden on business and no attempt is made to protect workers. This is the yardstick by which we must measure the likely outcomes of each of the bills before us today. Let us briefly review such outcomes. H.R. 2728: By extending the customary 15-day period for an employer to appeal an OSHA citation, this bill would encourage litigation, and litigation is on the side of the employer not the employee. It would delay the correction or the abatement of whatever hazards have occurred in the workplace related to that citation. As such, it can only place workers at greater risk of unsafe and unhealthy working conditions, which runs expressly counter to the purpose of the OSHA Act originally. H.R. 2729, and I want to talk about all these bills in context first before I deal specifically with each one: By expanding the size of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission from three to five members, this bill simply creates a bigger bureaucracy in search of a mission. Moreover, the bill adds legal training as a qualification for appointment to the commission. It makes OSHA less effective, not more effective. It diminishes the chances that candidates considered for selection will have the requisite expertise in occupational safety and health. They have got to have legal expertise but they do not have to have expertise and experience directly in relation to occupational safety and health. That expertise is critical to further the assurance of safe conditions for America's working men and women. H.R. 2730: By extending deference to the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission over the Secretary of Labor, this bill contorts and confuses enforcement responsibilities of both the Secretary and the Review Commission. Such confusion will only hinder efforts to fulfill the statutory guarantee of safe and healthy conditions for all workers in this country. It seems like a small matter, but it is another spoonful of poison which, in the end, can be very effective in killing the elephant. H.R. 2731: By requiring OSHA to pay attorney fees for any employer with 100 or fewer workers and a net worth of under $7 million, that prevails, even partially, upon appeal, this bill would have a chilling effect on OSHA enforcement efforts. It would almost freeze those efforts. Given that worker death rates are much higher in such firms in comparison to those with more than 100 workers, this bill would encourage litigation and seriously jeopardize progress towards improving the safety and health conditions of American workers. Moreover, the bill would freeze safety enforcement efforts in the lion's share of private companies in light of the fact that more than 97 percent of all private employers have fewer than 100 employees on the payroll. I might add that the practice now is for larger employers who are subject to other kinds of regulations and other OSHA standards often to subcontract to small employers and avoid being regulated in the proper way for health and safety. These bills run counter to the real interests of working Americans, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it. As the senior Democrat on the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, I have heard firsthand from workers around the country about very real and pressing safety and health concerns many face on the job on a daily basis. If neglected or unaddressed, these risks can have severe, and even fatal, consequences. H.R. 2731: Requiring OSHA to pay attorney fees for any employer with 100 or fewer workers is one of those bills that certainly would create a situation where the likelihood is that less regulation would take place and more workers would be at risk. In a May 12th forum, which we entitled ``A Job to Die For: Inadequate Enforcement of U.S. Safety Standards,'' I heard from witnesses on the front lines of an epidemic with fatal consequences. Worldwide, this epidemic is deadlier than war. From Brazil to Bangladesh, it claims 6,000 lives a day, which means four lives a minute. In this country, it claims 6,000 lives a year, which computes to one life every 90 minutes. This epidemic takes a devastating toll on American families and communities. I think my colleagues can see from the arithmetic, we lose more workers per day from deaths in the workplace than we are losing in Iraq. I think that later on we are going to talk about how this phenomenon must be brought to the attention of the American people, starting with the Members of this body in both parties. This is not a trivial discussion today. This is not a discussion to be quickly passed over. It is at the core of an effort to make the workplace safe and to create better conditions for working, and better respect for working families. Working families are expected to produce the soldiers that go off to fight our wars. Ninety percent of those in Iraq are from working families, but yet we have an attempt to oppress working families with many measures. We will not even consider a minimum wage increase. We are constantly trying to change workplace safety conditions through these various measures for those members of our society who also shoulder the burden when it is time to go off and fight for the country and defend the country. I am referring to wrongful deaths in the workplace when I talk about the 6,000 lives lost in this country per year. Individual worker deaths are not random, isolated events. Rather, they are often tragic certainties that are almost always preventable. Unlike a disease that is triggered by a mysterious or elusive virus, this outbreak is caused by the willful and reckless safety violations of certain employers. Let me repeat, the willful and reckless safety violations of certain employers. Much has been said about the fact that most employers care about their employees. And that may be true, but there is a large, large percentage that care only about the profits, and they are constantly squeezing the workers and jeopardizing the safety and health of workers in an attempt to increase their profits. Such business owners pursue profits and their own economic interests at the expense of basic safety practices, and all too often this comes at the actual expense of workers' lives. We have learned that for Latino workers the risk of workplace fatalities keeps rising. They right now happen to be the most vulnerable. Recent immigrants are forced to take the dirtiest and most dangerous jobs. As highlighted in the recent investigative series by the Associated Press, immigrant workers born in Mexico are now 80 percent more likely to be killed on the job than their U.S.-born peers. This is almost three times greater than the disproportionate risk of workplace fatalities for the rest of the population. Even by conservative estimates, a Mexican worker is killed on the job every day in this country. The Federal Government is astonishingly ineffectual at combating this epidemic of wrongful deaths, both with respect to immigrant workers born in Mexico and all other workers. The current administration is replacing standard OSHA inspections with voluntary compliance programs that ignore the work sites where deaths are most likely to occur. And much is being made by the majority party of volunteering and trusting employers. The OSHA was developed by legislation because it was clear that employers could not be trusted to safeguard the health and safety of workers. The current administration is replacing standard OSHA inspections with voluntary compliance that ignores the work sites where deaths are most likely to occur. You can find that the majority of American employers do care about their employees and safety, but that minority is the problem; and they are not being properly scrutinized. Moreover, OSHA has increased the percentage of its budget dedicated to voluntary efforts by 8 percent. These discussions and negotiations of voluntary efforts have run off with the slight increases that have been made in the OSHA budget while they have reduced the funds devoted to safety enforcement by 6 percent. At the same time, the U.S. continues to lag behind other Western nations in preventing workplace deaths. A construction worker in the U.S. is four times more likely to be killed on the job than a worker in Belgium. In comparison with their British counterparts, American construction workers are twice as likely to be killed on the work site. These are critical health and safety issues we should be addressing today as opposed to the four bills that would further undermine OSHA's effectiveness in protecting American workers. We have the most productive workers in the world. We ought to appreciate that and try to protect those workers, not squeeze them more, not make them sweat more, and not endanger their lives more. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 2728, H.R. 2729, H.R. 2730 and H.R. 2731. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.