madam speaker , we are here again .  we went through this marathon a year ago .  we have had several sets of hearings and markups on these four bills , and one would think they are very important .  they are important , but in the reverse way .  they are not important to protect the health and safety of working families in america .  they are important because they are trying to trivialize the whole safety component of the department of labor and the whole safety responsibility of the government .  they want to trivialize it and make it seem insignificant and unimportant .  i understand each of the four bills amending the occupational safety and health act now on the floor will be considered individually , and i would therefore save my comments on the specifics of the other three bills until the appropriate time .  when you consider these four bills as an entire package , however , it becomes very clear that they will seriously erode the enforcement of u.s. safety standards , they will undermine the ability of the occupational safety and health administration to enforce on-the-job safety standards , and will only add to more worker deaths and more serious injuries .  it will not only lead to the department of labor becoming more and more the department against laborers , the department against working people ; by bringing these bills to the house floor , the republican leadership shows yet again just how out of step it is with the american people .  in this case , the house republican leadership is backing four bills to weaken osha at the very time that the american public is demanding the exact opposite be done .  according to a recent poll sponsored by the wall street journal , eight out of every ten americans believe congress should be passing legislation to ensure greater health and safety in the workplace .  let me repeat that : the wall street journal , which is hardly a liberal publication , they sponsored a poll in april 2005 revealing that 84 percent of those surveyed want lawmakers to pass bills ensuring safer workplaces in america .  that is 84 percent .  parade magazine , another mainstream publication , tells us the same story .  an article published in the april 10 issue of parade magazine assessed our national priorities based on 2005 dollar allocations for government programs .  the article juxtaposed business versus safety , pointing out that this year 's funding for the securities and exchange commission is $ 888 million and the small business administration , which is $ 580 million , far exceeds that for osha , which is $ 464 million , and the consumer product safety commission which is $ 63 million .  the amount dedicated to business , parade magazine concludes , is close to $ 1 billion more than that dedicated to safety in this simple comparison .  the osha bills being voted on today will only serve to exacerbate this huge divide between federal investments in business versus safety .  one of the bills , h.r. 742 , will even require osha to spend part of its meager budget rewarding certain employers who are repeat safety violators .  this bill would reimburse firms that are repeat safety offenders for attorneys ' fees whenever osha citations are downgraded on a technicality during administrative or court proceedings .  the american people are serious about seeing tougher laws enacted to improve safety on the job , and their concerns are well founded .  in a hearing last month , the u.s. chemical safety board underscored the fact that chemical dust explosions represent a serious industrial hazard in this country .  since 1980 , 200-plus explosions and dust fires in u.s. plants caused the deaths of 100 workers and significant injuries to 600 others .  even though the chemical safety board chair stresses that these & lt ; center & gt ; & lt ; pre & gt ; [ page : h5679 ] & lt ; /pre & gt ; & lt ; /center & gt ; as recent headlines about worker deaths in texas , new york and ohio have revealed , american workers are far too often killed or severely injured as a result of safety violations by employers who have lengthy histories of similar offenses .  in march 2005 , 15 workers were killed and more than a hundred injured in a massive british petroleum refinery blast .  a preliminary chemical safety board investigation indicates that faulty equipment was a key factor in this terrible explosion which also destroyed buildings and cars .  yet osha had already fined the same british petroleum plant $ 100 , 000 in september 2004 for safety violations that at that time had killed two workers .  in fact , osha had previously cited and issued a fine of $ 63 , 000 in march 2004 to that british petroleum plant for 14 safety violations .  even though the texas city british petroleum plant is clearly a repeat safety offender , osha routinely reduces penalties and downgrades violation findings as a means of encouraging correction of the problem .  i suppose that is what is alluded to by this voluntary compliance .  they are going to voluntarily comply one day , but in the meantime , many more workers will be killed .  a newly released analysis of 2 , 500 inspections of new york construction sites reveal similar patterns of serious and frequent violations of osha safety standards .  nearly two-thirds of all violations in 2003 involved faulty scaffoldings and/or the failure to provide fall protection equipment .  scaffolding collapses and falls are the most common cause of construction worker hospitalizations and deaths of three or more workers .  sponsored by the new york committee on safety and health , this report recommended more vigorous osha enforcement and the hiring of more osha inspection officers , among other remedies .  under its current staffing , it would take osha 108 years to inspect all of the workplaces in the united states .  yet this administration has proposed that we hire 41 new auditors to audit organized labor records .  if we have the money for 41 new auditors to audit the petty cash records of labor unions , surely we ought to be able to find the money to hire more inspectors and have those inspectors be inspectors not on a voluntary compliance basis but on a serious basis to save lives and injuries .  osha also lacks adequate safety standards to cope with globalization .  four ironworkers killed last year by a massive crane collapse near toledo , ohio , were working for a contractor with a history of repeated safety violations .  moreover , osha has yet to release a standard an advisory committee drafted a year ago to govern inspection of cranes manufactured in europe , as the crane in the ohio fatalities had been .  in closing , the american people are watching us .  by an overwhelming majority , the public wants to pass bills to strengthen osha , not to weaken osha .  they want safer workplaces in america .  the bills before us now do just the opposite .  i urge my colleagues to join me in voting `` no '' on these bills .  madam speaker , i include for the record letters from the afl-cio , the teamsters , the uaw , afscme , as well the united steelworkers in opposition to these bills .  american federation of labor and congress of industrial organizations , washington , dc , july 11 , 2005 .  dear representative : i am writing to express the strong opposition of the afl-cio to h.r. 739 , h.r. 740 , h.r. 741 and h.r. 742 , four bills that would erode worker protections under the occupational safety and health act .  these bills , which are scheduled for a floor vote the week of july 11 , 2005 , would change established law and procedures to benefit employers and stifle osha enforcement .  they would do nothing to enhance workers ' safety and health protection , while weakening the oshact .  we are particularly concerned about h.r. 742 and h.r. 741 , because these two bills would significantly undermine osha 's ability to carry out its core mission .  h.r. 742 .  occupational safety and health small employer access to justice act -- this bill requires taxpayers to pay the legal costs of small employers who prevail in any administrative or enforcement case brought by osha regardless of whether the action was substantially justified .  the language expands provisions of the current equal access to justice act , which already permits small businesses to recover litigation costs where the government position was not substantially justified .  h.r. 742 will have a chilling effect on both osha enforcement and osha standard setting .  osha will be hesitant to cite employers for violations of the oshact unless there is absolute certainty that the enforcement action will not be challenged , will be upheld or there will be no modification in the terms of action .  similarly , unless osha is certain that a standard will not be challenged ( which they are routinely for any number of reasons ) , it would not dare begin the rulemaking process on any hazard no matter how grave the threat of the hazard to workers .  no rational public policy would be furthered by discouraging osha from issuing citations that are substantially justified , but as to which the across all industries , establishments with fewer than 100 employees ( which in 2000 made up 97.7 percent of all private sector establishments ) have a higher rate of fatal occupational injury than do establishments with 100 or more workers .  effectively hampering osha 's enforcement ability in these establishments would be devastating to workers , resulting in even higher rates of worker fatalities , injury and illness .  the number of osha enforcement actions that involve contested adjudications is fairly small , the penalties are generally modest , and the substantive and procedural standards already accommodate the interests of small-business litigants .  to be clear , there is no evidence that this legislation is necessary .  the result of h.r. 742 will be a skewed set of enforcement priorities and a risk of injury , illness and even death to workers .  h.r. 741 .  occupational safety and health independent review of osha citations act -- this bill would change the act to give deference to the commission regarding the interpretation of osha standards .  the bill seeks to overturn a 1991 decision by the supreme court that found that deference should be given to the secretary of labor as the official responsible for enforcing the oshact .  the secretary of labor has much greater experience and expertise regarding the interpretation of safety and health standards and regulations than the commission .  the secretary develops the rules and is responsible for their broad application .  in contrast , the commission only reviews the application of standards in those few cases that are contested and come before the commission .  giving deference to the commission would create an incentive for challenges to the secretary 's rules and interpretations , undermining the secretary 's policymaking and enforcement functions .  h.r. 740 .  occupational safety and health review commission efficiency act -- the bill requires that the number of members on the commission be increased from three to five and that all members must be attorneys .  it also seeks to allow members whose terms have expired to continue serving on the commission for an additional 365 days in cases where no successor has been confirmed by the senate .  the review commission has operated with three commissioners since it was first formed in 1970 .  increasing the size of the commission from three to five members is not necessary and would enable the bush administration to stack the review commission with business-friendly appointees .  the requirement that the commissioners be lawyers would exclude a large pool of talented persons from service .  allowing members whose terms have expired to continue serving on the commission for an additional 365 days unless a new appointee is confirmed by the senate may mean a sitting member could have a de facto seven year term , dending on the political makeup of the senate and white house .  the current requirement that a member step down at the expiration of his or her term is appropriate and maintains pressure on all parties to work together to select a qualified person for the commission .  h.r. 739 .  occupational safety and health small business day in court act -- this bill seeks to excuse employers who miss the fifteen-day timeframe to contest citations and failure to abate notices .  its practical effect would be to make numerous excuses into legal reasons for missing the fifteen-day timeframe in which employers currently must respond to osha citations .  this action will only encourage more litigation .  the idea of the fifteen-day requirement is to give all parties a reasonable timeframe in which to take action , and to ensure that the case is moved along as quickly as possible so the hazards cited will be addressed in as timely a manner as is possible .  the commission should be able to review any as demonstrated above , these bills undermine the intent of the congress when it enacted the oshact more than 30 years ago .  generally speaking , these policies and procedures have been serving workers well for over 30 years .  american workers deserve a safe and healthy workplace and the full protection the oshact can offer .  these bills would surely diminish the protections provided to workers by the oshact .  for these reasons , the afl-cio opposes these four bills , and we strongly urge you to vote against each of them .  sincerely , william samuel , teamsters , afl-cio , washington , dc , july 11 , 2005 .  dear representative : on behalf of the more than 1.4 million members of the international brotherhood of teamsters , i am writing to express our strong opposition to four bills that would amend the occupational safety and health act : h.r. 739 , h.r. 740 , h.r. 741 , and h.r. 742 .  these bills , which the house of representatives will consider this week , do nothing to enhance safety and health protections for workers .  rather they would change established law and procedures to benefit employers the teamsters union opposes h.r. 742 , the occupational safety and health small employer access to justice act , which would require that osha ( i.e .  the taxpayer ) pay the legal costs when it loses a case against a small business that prevails in administrative or judicial proceedings , regardless of whether the governments position was substantially justified .  we view this as another effort to impede osha 's and the departments efforts to enforce the law and provide an avenue for workers to seek redress .  we see no justification for such an arbitrary departure from the current practice of each party paying for its own litigation costs for only one class of public prosecutions .  we know of no other agency , charged by statute to enforce the law , which is impeded from fulfillng its responsibility with respect to a meritorious complaint because it can not guarantee the outcome .  in effect , h.r. 742 says that unless the agency is absolutely certain that it can prevail -- that it is absolutely certain that its enforcement action will not be challenged , will be upheld , or no modification will occur in terms of action -- it will be penalized ( budgetarily ) for fulfilling its statutory obligation to protect the safety and health of all workers ( union and non-union ) and to provide an avenue for redress .  furthermore , h.r. 742 would effectively gut osha 's statutory authority to promulgate safety and health standards .  unless certain that a standard will not be challenged ( and many routinely are for a number of reasons ) .  osha would not dare ( or be extremely reluctant , at best ) to begin a rulemaking on any hazard no matter how serious .  we believe that h.r. 742 is tantamount to a stealth repeal of osha 's statutory authority to issue workplace safety and health standards .  h.r. 739 , the occupational safety and health small business day in court act , seeks to excuse employers who miss the current fifteen-day time frame to contest citations and failure to abate notices .  we believe this proposal does nothing more than create `` artificial '' legal reason for failing to respond in a timely fashion .  it is an `` about face '' from ensuring that an osha case is moved along as expeditiously as possible to ensure that workplace hazards are addressed in as timely a manner as possible , thus improving worker safety and health .  the current practice of a case-by-case review is the most appropriate way to ensure that hazards are addressed as quickly as possible , and to reinforce the importance of workplace safety .  h.r. 740 , the occupational safety and health review commission efficiency act , would require that the number of commission members be increased from three to five , that all members be attorneys , and that members be able to serve until a successor is confirmed .  we see no justification , or need , for these changes -- unless one wishes to tilt the `` playing field '' against workers .  first , the level of enforcement does not warrant five commissioners .  and , there is no reason to limit the pool of talented people for consideration .  further , the current system helps ensure that all parties work together to select qualified people to serve , and to do so in a timely manner .  h.r. 741 , the occupational safety and health independent review of osha citations act , would , we believe , turn the osh act on its ear '' , by giving deference to the commission .  presently , the secretary of labor is given deference as the official responsible for enforcing the osh act .  the bill would take away the authority held by the secretary in bringing cases to the court of appeals and the supreme court , an important avenue of redress to protect workers from dangerous and unhealthy workplaces .  each of these bills will undermine , subtly in some instances and egregiously in the case of h.r. 742 , workplace protections and the protection that the osh act was designed to provide workers .  the teamsters union urges you to reject each of these bills .  sincerely , michael e. mathis , & lt ; b & gt ; international union , united automobile , aerospace & amp ; agricultural implement workers of america -- uaw , & lt ; /b & gt ; washington , dc , july 11 , 2005 .  dear representative : this week the house is scheduled to take up four bills to amend the occupational safety and health act of 1070 -- h.r. 739 , h.r 741 and h.r. 742 .  the uaw opposes each of these anti-worker bills and urges you to vote against them .  h.r. 742 , the `` occupational safety and health small employer access to justice act , '' would require taxpayers to pay the legal costs of employers with 100 or fewer employees and worth up to 7 million who win administrative or enforcement cases brought by osha or any challenge to an osha standard , regardless of whether osha 's actions were substantially justified. '' the uaw is deeply concerned that this legislation would have a tremendous chilling effort on the ability of osha to enforce workplace health and safety protections .  in addition , this bill would reverse the time-honored rule of american jurisprudence that requires litigants to bear their own cost and fees .  there is no need for such legislation because the equal access to justice act already protects parties from administrative overreaching by compensating them in cases where the government is not `` substantially justified '' in bringing a law enforcement action , or under other `` special circumstances. '' the other three bills , h.r. 739 , h.r. 740 and h.r. 741 , all relate to the occupational safety and health review commission ( commission or oshrc ) .  in considering these bills , the uaw urges the house to bear in mind that oshrc functions as an intermediate appeal for employers , between decisions of the occupational safety and health administration ( osha ) and the u.s. courts of appeal .  during the time a case is on appeal to oshrc , employers do not have to pay any assessed penalties , nor do they have to abate the violations for which they were cited .  thus , procedural delays at oshrc serve only to postpone justice and to delay the correction of workplace safety and health violations .  h.r. 739 , despite being mislabeled the `` occupational safety and health small business day in court act , '' is not limited to small businesses .  instead .  it would effectively eliminate the statutory time period within which all employees -- not just small employers -- must contest an osha citation or assessment before it becomes a final order of the commission .  this bill would excuse employers from the fifteen-day deadline for contesting osha citations and lead to more litigation .  the purpose of the fifteen-day requirement is to give all parties a reasonable amount of time to take action and to move cases along as quickly as possible so that hazards can be abated in a timely manner .  the bill excuses employers from missing their fifteen-day deadline but does not extend the same provisions to an employee who challenges the period for abatement in a citation .  this provision is one-sided and unfair to employees .  under the statute , an employer contests by simply mailing a letter to the osha office .  therefore , contestation is not burdensome , and the statutory time period should be retained .  the federal courts already provide relief , pursuant to rule 60 ( b ) of the federal rules of civil procedure , for employers who can show that their failure to meet filing deadlines was due to mistake , inadvertence , surprise , excusable neglect , fraud , misrepresentation or misconduct by an adverse party , so long as the employer can show the existence of a meritorious defense .  there is a body of established case law pursuant to rule 60 ( b ) that would be subject to wasteful re-litigation if h.r. 739 were enacted .  h.r. 740 , the `` occupational safety and health review commission efficiency act , '' would expand the number of oshrc commissioners to five from three and authorize sub-panels of three members to exercise all of the powers of the commission .  it would also authorize commissioners to hold their position at the expiration of their six-year term , until a successor has been nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate .  finally , it would add a new requirement that commissioners must have legal training .  the uaw submits that the only good to come from adding two commissioners to oshrc would be the creation of two more jobs to an economy that has already lost millions of industrial jobs .  otherwise , it is wasteful and unnecessary to expand oshrc , which has been composed of three members since it was established in 1970 .  indeed , the uaw believes that congress should give consideration to abolishing all of the oshrc commissioners ' positions , allowing appeals to go directly from the decision of the commission 's administrative law judges to the courts of appeals , as is done with social security administration appeals .  the uaw also objects to the legal training requirement because it would work against persons with workplace health and safety expertise .  h.r. 741 , the `` occupational safety and health independent review of osha citations act , '' would overturn a 1991 supreme court decision holding that oshrc 's interpretation of a health or safety standard may not be substituted for the interpretation of the secretary of labor .  the bill explicitly provides , `` the conclusions of the commission with respect to all questions of law shall be given deference if reasonable. '' because it is for all practical purposes only employers who appeal cases to oshrc , there is never an instance when the commission would be expanding workers ' rights by substituting its interpretation for the secretary 's .  in other words , h.r. 741 would give unprecedented and unwarranted authority to the oshrc to take away workers ' workplace health and safety protections .  for all of the reasons set forth above , the uaw strongly opposes h.r. 739 , h.r. 740 , h.r. 741 and h.r. 742 .  we urge you to vote against these anti-worker bills that would undermine workplace health and safety .  sincerely , alan reuther , american federation of state , county and municipal employees , afl-cio , washington , dc , july 11 , 2005 .  dear representative : on behalf of the 1.4 million members of the american federation of state , county and municipal employees ( afscme ) , i am writing to urge you to reject h.r. 739 , h.r 740 , h.r 741 and h.r. 742 .  these bills would weaken important worker safety and health protections that are guaranteed under the occupational safety and health act ( oshact ) .  collectively , these bills would erode important osha policies that have served to protect the health and safety of workers all across this country .  h.r. 739 would allow employers to avoid current law 's fifteen-day deadline to contest osha citations .  such a change would result in a delay in correcting dangerous work place hazards in a timely manner .  h.r. 740 is simply an unnecessary move to stack the occupational safety and health review commission with new members while requiring that they have legal training .  h.r. 741 would remove policymaking and the interpretation of osha 's policies from the secretary of labor and give that responsibility to the osha review commission .  such a move would be an extreme departure from the original intent of the oshact and make it difficult we urge you to reject all four of the measures .  these bills will erode a law that has served american workers well .  sincerely , charles m. loveless , united steelworkers , july 11 , 2005 .  dear representative : the united steelworkers ( usw ) , a union which represents industrial workers in virtually every sector of the economy , strongly opposes the four bills amending the occupational safety and health act ( osha ) which the house is scheduled to take up tomorrow .  h.r. 741 , h.r. 740 and h.r. 739 all relate to the occupational safety and health review commission ( oshrc ) while h.r. 742 adds new rules under which small employers can receive compensation for attorney 's fees .  proponents of these bills paint them as simply eliminating bureaucratic `` red tape '' with a `` common-sense fix , '' but workers ' safety and the protections established under the 1970 osh act and the rights of claimants to a timely response to osha citations can not be equated to red tape .  perhaps most onerous is h.r. 742 , the `` occupational safety and health small employer access to justice act , '' which requires taxpayers to cover the legal costs of small employers who prevail -- or partially prevail -- in any administrative or enforcement case by osha , or in any challenge to an osha standard , regardless of whether the action was `` substantially justified '' .  in other words , this bill will go beyond the protection already provided to litigating parties in the equal access to justice act which currently protects a party in cases where the government is not `` substantially justified '' in bringing about a law enforcement action .  h.r. 742 will effectively act as a deterrent to osha enforcement and standard setting .  statistics show that small employers ( those with fewer than 100 employees ) have a higher rate of fatal occupational injuries than those with more than 100 workers .  since small employers account for over 97 % of all private sector employers , usw vigorously opposes any bill that could further weaken osha enforcement efforts and standard setting for this proportionally large group of private sector small employers .  h.r. 741 the `` occupational safety and health independent review of osha citations act '' overturns a 1991 supreme court decision and undercuts the secretary of labor 's authority to interpret and enforce the law .  h.r. 741 would order judges in cases appealed to the courts to give deference to the oshrc , giving the commission unprecedented authority to interpret osha standards .  the usw strongly urges you to vote against h.r. 741 and keep policymaking and the interpretation of osha policy with the secretary of labor .  h.r. 740 the `` occupational safety and health review commission efficiency act '' proposes to expand the number of commissioners from three to five , require commissioners to have a legal training and allow commissioners to hold their position after their six year term expires until their successor has been appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate .  since 1970 the oshrc has been composed of three members and there is no need to expand the commission while excluding from the commission persons with workplace health and safety expertise , but no law degree .  the usw also urges you to vote against this bill .  finally , h.r. 739 or the `` occupational safety and health small business day in court act '' would excuse all employers -- not just small employers -- that miss the fifteen-day deadline for contesting osha citations .  in other words , this bill will effectively eliminate the 15-day deadline , further delaying the timeframe for moving a case through the process and further delaying actions to correct the possible hazard .  the usw opposes this bill as redundant , since employers already have recourse for missed deadlines in the federal courts under rule 60 ( b ) of the federal rules of civil procedure if the failure to contest meets certain requirements .  sincerely , assistant to the president , legislative and madam speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  