mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  mr. speaker , i appreciate the previous speaker .  i know he is really busy today and had to go `` no '' on all four bills , but maybe i can refocus us just a little bit and explain that we are on one bill right now , and it is a very simple bill .  it is h.r. 740 , the occupational safety and health review commission efficiency act of 2005 .  maybe we can concentrate just on this bill now for this hour and understand that this is a badly-needed change in osha unless you do not believe osha ought to work , unless you do not believe that the osha commission should be in place .  this legislation is especially timely .  in april , the occupational safety and health review commission 's term expired , placing the commission in the same position it has been in for almost two-thirds of its existence ; now , listen to me : almost two-thirds of its existence for the last 34 years undermanned and unable to function properly .  well , why is that important ?  it is not .  it is only important to someone who has a citation hanging over their business , hanging over their head , and you can not get the review commission to operate .  it is clearly , after 34 years : no , we understand it does not work .  half of the time they can not do business .  h.r. 740 , the occupational safety and health review commission efficiency act , increases the size of the occupational safety and health review commission from three members to five .  my goodness .  we really need to spend a lot of time debating this .  we are actually going to change this commission , like most commissions in the federal government , and change it to five members so it finally can do the job that the congress in 1970 wrote into the law they wanted it to do .  what an extreme bill this is .  the bill changes the quorum requirements from two members to three members , and allows the president to consider legal training , in addition to education and experience , as criteria in selecting an individual to serve on the board .  finally , h.r. 740 allows a confirmed member of the commission to continue to serve for up to 365 days to prevent the breaks in service that occur when a senate confirmation is not concluded in a timely manner .  does that mean every time somebody retires this commission goes out of business , because we can not get the senate to do its job ?  that does not matter to anybody except the small business who has a citation hanging over their head that the government will not deal with .  the committee heard testimony in the 108th congress that because of the vacancies , the commission has been nonfunctioning for two-thirds of 30-plus years of its existence .  now , listen to that , for pity sakes .  the commission that you are trying to protect has been nonfunctioning for two-thirds of the 30 years of its existence .  why in the world would you want to protect the present-day system ?  given that the creation of the commission was the catalyst for the passage of the osh act in 1970 , there never would have been an osha had not this particular provision been in this review commission .  and now you do not want it to work .  we are trying to change that .  i believe it is important to prevent the commission from being stalled and unable to rule on cases when there is a gap in appointees .  that does not serve employees or small employers well at all .  let me make one final point .  my colleagues on the other side have been very critical of the inclusion of legal training as a qualification for commissioners , criticism that i can not understand .  mr. speaker , oshrc is an adjudicative body .  legal training is therefore important because the commission writes opinions that will be reviewed by the courts if a finding is challenged .  i would certainly think our democratic lawyers would agree and understand that .  but i would note that legal training is but one of three criteria the president could review before appointing a commissioner , that would mean a democratic president or a republican president .  nothing in this bill suggests or requires that every member of the commission be a lawyer .  the simple fact of the matter is this : when the commission is unable to rule on cases , resolution does not occur in a timely manner .  that is unfair and that is wrong .  this is unfair to all parties and drastically undermined congressional intent from 1970 .  in the 108th congress this bill passed the full house with bipartisan support by 228 to 199 .  i urge passage again this year .  and i will say , if you live in a district where there are no small businesses in that district , then i would vote `` no '' on this .  but if i had any small businesses in my district , i would give it some serious consideration .  mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  