Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2693, Popcorn Workers Lung Disease Prevention Act

Press Release

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2693, POPCORN WORKERS LUNG DISEASE PREVENTION ACT -- (House of Representatives - September 26, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton), for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

H.R. 2693, the underlying legislation that is being brought to the floor today, directs the Secretary of Labor to establish an interim standard regulating worker exposure to diacetyl that applies to flavor manufacturers as well as all microwave popcorn production and packaging establishments that use diacetyl.

Diacetyl is a chemical found in trace amounts in nature and can be found in such foods and beverages as beer and wine and some forms of chicken. The compound is also used in the production of the artificial butter flavoring in microwave popcorn. Since 2000, several organizations, including the NIOSH, the OSHA, have raised concerns regarding health effects of diacetyl on workers in manufacturing plants that use the chemical.

Mr. Speaker, we all want to make sure that our workers are able to work in a safe environment. We also want to make certain that the policy that we enact is best for workers. We certainly want to make sure that in the end it doesn't harm them more. That's why a significant number of Members on our side of the aisle are concerned that this legislation may be premature.

I just received a letter from the American Bakers Association, which I will submit for the Record. Its president, the American Bakers Association president, says, ``On behalf of the American Bakers Association, I am writing to express our opposition to the Popcorn Workers Lung Disease Prevention Act, which the House of Representatives is expected to consider this week. Passage of the legislation ``would significantly short circuit the appropriate regulatory process by mandating that OSHA implement a regulation, including a permissible exposure limit, PEL, applicable to all sectors of the food industry, and based on limited scientific data.''

Mr. Speaker, even though OSHA has raised concerns about diacetyl, the agency itself has also said, ``At this time, insufficient data exists on which to base workplace exposure standards or recommend exposure limits for butter flavorings.''

So we believe that it is important to give OSHA time to complete a scientific study of diacetyl exposure or to issue a recommended exposure limit for the use of that chemical. Without a complete study, Congress may push manufacturers to use different chemicals that could be even more directly responsible for diseases.

Yesterday, the minority in the Rules Committee offered an amendment to the rule to allow for an open rule so that any Member who wished to bring forth amendments, ideas for legislative changes would have the opportunity to do so. Especially after listening to the commencement of this debate and if they have some expertise or perhaps they are in touch with some people with expertise, Members could bring forth amendments to improve this legislation. That is what we sought in the Rules Committee, and we offered an amendment to the rule to allow for an open rule.

The majority voted down an open rule on a party-line vote. We think it's unfortunate that the majority did not want to consider this bill under an open rule. Now, considering that only two amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee prior to consideration, I really do not believe that we would have faced an avalanche of amendments. But the reason that it would have been important is that any of our Members and/or their staffs, listening to the commencement of this debate, if they have expertise, they could bring that expertise forth in the form of ideas, legislative ideas, amendments, for improving this legislation. Unfortunately, that will not be possible because the majority in the Rules Committee shut down debate, did not allow that open rule.

I think an open rule would have been an easy lift on this legislation. Instead, we have this structured rule. So it is a missed opportunity, Mr. Speaker.

If the majority would have offered an open rule, as a matter of fact, they would have doubled the number of open rules for this session on nonappropriation bills, because they have only brought forth one. So they had an opportunity to double the amount of open rules. It would have been an easy lift. So an unfortunate opportunity was missed.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source