mr. speaker , i rise in opposition to this bill . 
if the principle in this bill were applied to u.s. attorneys across the country , we would have a crime wave like you would not believe . 
if prosecutors had to be sure they were going to win every time they brought a case , they would bring very few cases . 
and that is the flaw in this bill . 
there are four kinds of results when osha brings an action . 
the first is the result when osha is right , when they win on every question . 
and this bill does not affect that situation . 
the second is the mixed result where osha wins some and loses some , where some of the charges that they make are downgraded , others are dismissed , and others are upheld in their entirety . 
as i read this legislation , mr. speaker , in that case , it is indeed possible , perhaps likely , that osha would be held responsible for paying the attorneys ' fees of the defendant or accused party in that case . 
the third kind of case osha brings is one where osha loses on all counts , but the claim was not unreasonable , where they made a judgment call and they thought they were right , but the adjudicator , the court , the decisionmaker made a different decision . 
well , in that case , it is obvious under this bill that osha would be responsible for the counsel fees of the accused party . 
the fourth kind of case is the case where osha brings a case that is unreasonable , that is arbitrary and capricious . 
under present law , under such circumstances , osha is responsible for the counsel fees and attorneys ' fees of the accused party . 
now , our friends on the other side say , well , this has been rarely invoked . 
i believe they said there are three cases in recent years , in a long time , where this has been invoked . 
and they draw from that the conclusion , mr. speaker , that there must be many , many cases where osha has done something arbitrary or unreasonable , but not been called on it , not been caught at it . 
one could draw a very different set of conclusions from that record . 
it could draw the conclusion that in the vast majority of the cases , even when they lose , their claims are reasonable ; and the adjudicator and finder of fact in law has found that although osha is wrong , they were not acting in a vindictive or unreasonable way . 
this is a consistent principle across the board in federal law . 
if a federal agency brings a case that is vindictive or unreasonable or patently unfair , then they are in fact responsible to pay the attorneys ' fees of the accused party . 
but if they bring a case that is just wrong , but not unreasonable , where reasonable people could disagree before the case was brought as to whether it was right or wrong , then they do not have to pay the attorneys ' fees , and it is for a very good reason . 
it is because there are judgment calls that prosecutors have to make , there are judgment calls that enforcing agencies have to make , and we do not want to chill that judgment by saying , we will bring the case if you are sure that you are going to win . 
i am glad that the securities and exchange commission is not going to be held to this standard , because if every time someone on wall street were accused of stock fraud , the sec had to say , well , are we sure we are going to win before we bring this case , the cases of stock fraud that we have seen would be far more rampant than we have seen in recent years . 
i am glad that other agencies , the mine safety agency is not held to this standard . 
you know , the basic question here is whether we want to so chill and corrode the enforcement powers of the agency that we want to wipe them out all together . 
i just do not think that makes any sense . 
i think a far more sensible course would be to examine the existing legal provisions as to whether they go far enough , whether they are properly administered ; but to make this wholesale change is to say to osha , unless you are sure you are going to win , do not bring the case . 
you know , every lawyer is asked by every client at some phase of the litigation , am i going to win ? 
clients want to know this . 
and competent , honest lawyers usually give an answer that says , i am not sure . 
i can give you the probabilities . 
i can give you the circumstances under which i think we can win , and the circumstances under which i think we would not win . 
and a sensible client decides whether to go forward or not . 
osha should have the same degree of discretion . 
if it abuses that discretion , it should be punished . 
if it does so on a consistent basis , we should change the law . 
but i believe there is no record that would demonstrate that conclusion , and i think that this proposal would seriously corrode the ability of this much needed agency to protect the working people of the country . 
i would urge both sides to cast a `` no '' vote on this bill . 
