mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  mr. speaker , this is the worst of all of the osha bills before us today .  it would treat osha differently than any other federal agency .  under the equal access to justice act , if any agency 's position is not `` substantially justified , '' the government must pay the opposing party 's attorneys ' fees .  this bill says osha must pay attorneys ' fees to a prevailing employer , even if osha 's actions were reasonable .  under this bill , osha will find itself paying the attorneys ' fees of repeated safety violators whose penalties were reduced on a technicality .  the real-life example of an employer by the name of eric ho in houston illustrates the problem here .  eric ho hired undocumented workers and exposed them to high levels of asbestos , and this represents the kind of case that could not be tolerated by osha .  even after a city worker issued a stop-work order , eric ho secretly had the workers stay on the job .  eric ho 's workers ate at the site .  they worked throughout the night , and some even slept at the site .  ho then directed the workers to tap into what would prove to be a gas line , and there was an explosion which resulted in one contractor and two workers being seriously injured .  in the end , osha cited eric ho for ten serious violations and 29 willful violations .  in turn , eric ho challenged osha and a divided osha review commission eventually downgraded eric ho 's citations .  although eric ho was sentenced to prison in a prosecution led by the under the equal access to justice act , when a federal agency is not substantially justified and cites an employer and the employer prevails in judicial proceedings , the employer is reimbursed for his attorneys ' fees and expenses by the u.s. treasury funds .  under this bill , h.r. 742 , osha would be required to reimburse from its own budget an employer who prevails in judicial or administrative proceedings , even when osha was `` substantially justified '' in issuing its initial citations .  now , they say , still , they are not trying to chip away at the effectiveness of osha , destroying osha bit by bit .  osha would have to pay out of its own budget .  whereas , under the other circumstances that are similar , u.s. treasury funds are used .  thus , any time an osha staffer conducts an inspection and discovers serious safety violations , that inspector would have to second-guess himself or herself .  osha 's inspectors will be forced to perform many mental gymnastics , trying to predict whether a citation , no matter how justified , might have the slightest chance of being adjusted or overturned on a technicality in review proceedings .  mr. speaker , members of both sides of the aisle agree that under its current budget and staffing configuration , it would take osha 108 years , 108 years to inspect all of the workplaces in america .  now , h.r. 742 would have the effect of tying the hands of osha inspectors behind their own backs , causing them to analyze each and every citation in the most serious minute detail .  in a sense this bill calls for osha inspectors and supervisory staff to become forecasters .  they will be required to predict any and all possible scenarios in which a specific citation might be reversed on a technicality .  in the meantime , the founding purpose of osha , to assure , quote , `` every working man and woman in the united states safe and healthful working conditions , '' that would be more or lose forgotten .  mr. speaker , there are members on the other side of the aisle who would have us believe that every osha inspector is like police inspector javert in victor hugo 's famous novel `` les miserables. '' these members compare every business owner to hugo 's noble character jean valjean , hounded by osha 's javertian inspector for having innocently slipped up on one point , one miniscule point of an obscure and archaic osha safety rule .  in turn , those members refuse to acknowledge the relevance of another great novelist , charles dickens , who captured bleak scenarios in which greed led the owners of blacking factories to subject child workers to inhumane and life-threatening conditions .  in reality , we do not have to turn to 19th century novels to enlighten us on workplace safety conditions in this country .  we need merely turn to the last year 's astounding new york times investigative series on worker deaths by david barstow .  reporter barstow reminded us all that someone harassing a wild burro on federal lands in 2004 would get a stiffer penalty , that is up to a year in prison , than an unscrupulous employer whose willful safety violations resulted in the death of a worker .  as i have repeated several times during today 's debate , that employer 's malfeasance could result in a sentence of no more than 6 months in jail .  however , if mr. barstow were to write his series this year , he would have to alter the comparison slightly .  it is not , i am afraid , that we are doing a better job of holding errant employers accountable for serious safety offenses .  rather , it is because a provision in the omnibus appropriations act enacted at the end of the 108th congress repealed the protection of wild burros and horses on federal lands .  so it is a different scenario ; but still workers are no better off , i assure you .  mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  