HEARING ON H.R. 3160, COMPREHENSIVE OCCUAND HEALTH REFORM

PATIONAL SAFETY AND

ACT

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 1992

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m., Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. William D. Ford, Chairman, presiding.

Members present: Representatives Ford, Williams, Martinez, Sawyer, Andrews, Gunderson, Petri, Armey, Fawell, Henry, Ballenger, Barrett, Boehner, Klug, and Reed.

Majority staff present: Ross Eisenbrey, general counsel; Randy Rabinowitz Nelson, counsel; and Philene Taormina, legislative analyst.

Minority staff present: Randel Johnson, labor coordinator; and Gary Visscher, professional staff member.

[The prepared statement of Hon. William D. Ford, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM D. FORD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Today, the Committee on Education and Labor will hold its sixth and final hearing on H.R. 3160, the Comprehensive Occupational Safety and Health Reform Act. When I introduced H.R. 3160 on August 1, 1991, I looked forward to a constructive and productive dialogue with the Republican members of the committee, the administration, labor and business on the need to improve the health and safety protections for America's working men and women. In my estimation, the administration has let us down. They have had 9 months to evaluate H.R. 3160, yet all they can say today is that they do not like it. Faced with an epidemic of occupational disease and rising injury rates, the administration's only answer is the status quo. From the election year White House, everything looks fine in America's workplaces.

What I find most disturbing is that the administration has flip-flopped and taken steps backward. Former OSHA Administrator Gerrard Scannell testified before this committee that OSHA coverage should be extended to employees of State and local governments. Now, the administration opposes such an extension, claiming that there is not enough funding available for OSHA to protect public employees. Yet, when I offered last year to help Secretary Martin obtain additional resources for OSHA enforcement efforts in North Carolina after the Hamlet fire, she wrote back and said she did not need more resources. If more funds are needed, the administration should ask for them. But they should not hide behind their budget and use it as an excuse to avoid real health and safety protections for American workers.

Similarly, former Assistant Secretary Scannell testified in support of toughening OSHA's criminal penalties, at least with respect to making willful violations in death cases a felony. OSHA's testimony today says only that the administration opposes criminalizing willful violations that cause serious bodily injury.

(545)

OSHA vigorously opposes deadlines for setting health and safety standards. As the charts in front of you demonstrate, it now takes OSHA 5-7 years, sometimes more than a decade, to issue a standard. What is the administration's response to this delay? The White House announces a 90-day regulatory moratorium and today will apparently extend the moratorium. Labor Secretary Martin assured me that the moratorium did not apply to OSHA, but yesterday's Wall Street Journal makes clear that OSHA health and safety regulations are a prime target of the moratorium. The fact is that during the moratorium OSHA took no regulatory action not required by a Congressionally-mandated deadline. Without mandatory deadlines, the deregulatory zealots in this administration will never let OSHA do its job.

On the other hand, I am happy to say, that my Republican colleagues have stepped forward with an OSHA Reform proposal. There are many ideas in the Republican proposals that are similar to provisions of H.R. 3160. Other provisions seem reasonable. There are fertile grounds for compromise.

Of course, there are many ideas in the Republican proposal that I strongly oppose and on which my colleagues and I are unlikely to agree. Finally, however, we can begin a constructive dialogue about improved workplace health and safety—a dialogue that is long overdue.

Chairman FORD. Today, the Committee on Education and Labor will hold its sixth and final hearing on H.R. 3160, the Comprehensive Occupational Safety and Health Reform Act. Let me observe that I previously announced that the prior hearing was the final meeting, but at the request of the Department of Labor and Mr. Henry, this additional hearing was scheduled today for people who are deeply concerned with the contents of the bill to have an opportunity to go on public record.

When I introduced H.R. 3160 on August 1, 1991, I looked forward to a constructive and productive dialogue with the Republican members of the committee, the administration, labor, and business to help us improve the health and safety protections for Americans working in all parts of the country. In my estimation, the administration has, unfortunately, let us down. They have had 9 months to evaluate H.R. 3160, but all they can say today is that they do not like it. Faced with an epidemic of occupational disease and rising injury rates, the administration's only answer is the status quo. From the election-year White House, everything looks fine in American workplaces. What I find most disturbing is that the administration has flip-flopped and taken steps backward.

Former OSHA Administrator Gerard Scannell testified before this committee that OSHA coverage should be extended to employees of State and local governments. Now, the administration opposes such an extension, claiming that there is not enough funding available for OSHA to protect public employees. Yet, when I offered last year to help the Secretary obtain additional resources for OSHA enforcement, efforts in North Carolina in particular after the Hamlet fire, she wrote back and said she did not need more resources. If more funds are needed, the administration should ask for them, but they should not hide behind their budget and use it as an excuse to avoid real health and safety protections for American workers.

Similarly, former Assistant Secretary Scannell testified in support of toughening OSHA's criminal penalties, at least with respect to making willful violations in death cases a felony. OSHA's testimony today says only that the administration opposes criminalizing willful violations that cause serious bodily injury. We can quibble all day about the difference in those two positions; they are a difference without a distinction.

OSHA vigorously opposes deadlines for setting health and safety standards. As the charts in front of the committee now will demonstrate, it takes OSHA 5 to 7 years, sometimes more than a decade, to issue a standard. What is the administration's response to this delay? I hasten to observe that this administration is not responsible alone for the fact that we have been waiting 20 years for dust standards in the construction industry. It is a pattern of the way OSHA has developed its operations, of contempt for the intent and purpose of the original Act.

The White House announces a 90-day regulatory moratorium and today will apparently extend that moratorium. Labor Secretary Martin has assured me that the moratorium did not apply to OSHA, but yesterday's Wall Street Journal makes it clear that OSHA's health and safety regulations are a prime target of the moratorium. The fact is that during the moratorium, OSHA took no regulatory actions not required by a congressionally-mandated deadline. Without mandatory deadlines, the deregulatory zealots in this administration will never let OSHA do its job.

On the other hand, I am happy to say that my Republican colleagues have stepped forward with an OSHA reform proposal. There are many ideas in the Republican proposal that are similar to provisions of H.R. 3160. Other provisions seem reasonable, and I see fertile grounds for compromise that can produce a bill that we can all support.

Of course, there are some ideas that the Republican proposal has that I strongly react to and on which my colleagues and I are unlikely to agree. That is the stuff of which true compromise is made: to start out with those things that we believe are unpalatable and beat them to death until they become palatable and make both sides slightly ill but do not injure either side with sickness unto death. Finally, however, we can begin a constructive dialogue about improved workplace health and safety, a dialogue that is long overdue.

I am looking forward particularly to the testimony of a long-time colleague of ours here on the committee, Dorothy Strunk, who speaks for the Labor Department today. She goes all the way back to John Erlenborn, the real labor brains on this committee on the minority side. It was a loss to us and a gain to the Labor Department when you decided to leave the committee and go over there. This committee has not had a good record, in recent years, of being able to sit down and hammer out compromise positions. When Mr. Ashbrook was here, the epitome of the conservative darling on the Republican side, we had a compromise on almost every labor bill before we got out of here, but something happened. What we need is a good hard-headed conservative like Ashbrook back here so I can work with him, and we can get this put together.

Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, you have Dick Armey.

Chairman FORD. No, a hard-headed one. Let us not pick on Dick when he is not here.

Mr. Henry, do you have an opening statement?

Mr. HENRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I do want to commend you, as I did when we began this series of hearings, for forcing this committee to address, in a comprehensive way, a review of the entire OSH Act. As the Chairman knows, I, too, have

believed that is appropriate. I appreciate the fact that we have done that, and I appreciate the fact that every effort has been made to accommodate the minority's interest, in terms of witnesses before this committee and participation in the hearings.

I also want to express particular appreciation for this additional panel today, Mr. Chairman. As you know, we had a rescheduling problem, and we very much wanted the administration to have an opportunity to present its case before the committee. For your accommodation of that, I thank you and I join in welcoming Ms. Strunk.

Likewise, I appreciate the opportunity you afford me today to put forth our Republican substitute and your very kind words about what you know is in that substitute, in terms of trying to see if indeed we can come up with a solution and compromise on some of the differences which do separate us. We believe that the substitute in fact will serve the interest of a strengthened and reformed OSHA in the interest of working men and women, while it is also responsive to the legitimate concerns of the business community. With that, I thank the Chairman.

Chairman FORD. Let me make it clear that my comments went to what I think is going to be in your substitute, because we do not yet have a copy of it. I understand it is still in the technical drafting process, but we have had enough exchange between the staff members to have an idea of where you are going. We do not find ourselves alarmed, running for the exit, over where you are trying to get. We probably will have some reservations about doing it exactly the same way, but at least it is an opening wedge in getting a dialogue going on a very important subject.

Mr. Martinez?

Mr. MARTINEZ. I have no opening statement, Mr. Chairman. I am just anxious to listen to the witnesses.

Chairman FORD. Does anyone over here wish to be heard? The gentleman from Nebraska?

Mr. BARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the last hearing that has been called on this particular issue. I think we have two highly respected witnesses today. I am looking forward to hearing from them. The fact that they are both Republicans, Mr. Chairman, may mean that we are finally going to get the last word on this committee.

Mr. HENRY. Don't count on it.

Mr. BARRETT. I doubt that we will be so lucky.

Mr. Chairman, last November, I wrote to Secretary Lynn Martin and requested some information on activities of OSHA in my State of Nebraska, and in my district in particular, for the last 3 years. My inquiry was sparked by repeated complaints that I had received from businesses in my district, saying that OSHA had been unfair to these businesses because of the large fines that were levied for non-serious worksite safety and health violations. The purpose was to get a picture of what was happening in the district before putting people like Assistant Secretary Strunk over a barrel. I wanted to make sure that there was a balance between worker safety and the profitability and viability of some of those small businesses out there.