mr. speaker , i thank my friend from new york ( mr. owens )  for yielding me this time .  mr. speaker , i would be remiss if i did not tribute my friend from new york ( mr. owens )  for his years of advocacy for working people generally and in worker safety specifically .  year after year , month after month , the gentleman from new york ( mr. owens )  has come to this floor and raised these issues with great clarity and passion , and we very much appreciate his contribution in this area .  mr. speaker , i also appreciate the efforts of my friend from georgia ( mr. norwood )  who is the author of the bill .  i never thought i would see the day , i must say , mr. speaker , to the author where he would propose a bill that could create two jobs for lawyers .  on behalf of our profession , i guess we have to express our appreciation .  i do want to note my three bases of objections to the bill .  the first is it does provide the opportunity for what we might call court packing .  it does provide the opportunity by expanding the commission from three members to five , that we would find a fishing expedition for two members that would be more attuned to the ideological predilection of the administration .  i do not think either a liberal or conservative administration should have the right to pack the commission .  i think expanding to five members runs that risk .  secondly , i am concerned about the undue reliance upon legal training .  the language of the bill does not expressly require the appointment of lawyers , but it does indicate that the principal consideration for appointment is legal training or the lack thereof .  there are many positions in the federal administrative service that are very complex that are adjudicatory in nature that do not require formal legal training , and i do not believe that these positions should either .  i would note for the record that none of the nonlawyers appointed to this commission in its history have been appointed by democratic administrations .  all of the nonlawyers appointed , to my knowledge , have been appointed by republican administrations .  so my objection is not partisan or ideological .  i think that the door should be wide open for people of all backgrounds and ability to serve on the commission provided they are qualified .  my third objection has to do with what appears to be a minor provision , but could be a major provision .  it appears that the language would permit two members of the commission , now it is expanded to five , only two members of the commission to transact business on behalf of the commission .  i do not know of really any other decisionmaking body in the federal structure where a minority of the members can make an affirmative decision .  i know of institutions where a minority can veto a decision , bit i am not familiar with a situation where two members out of five could in fact act on behalf of the commission .  i have a concern about that as well .  so for these reasons i would urge opposition to the bill .  