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 .  