because of the Chairman's announced intention to address this issue separately. I do think that we ought to hear from the States before we pass any legislation affecting their ability and willingness to stay in operation. I note the State plans have concerns with the Chairman's bill, and I would hope that we give opportunity to hear from them prior to considering the provisions in the current bill which would, with respect to many of the State-administered States, they believe would adversely affect their current programs. Thirteen, the area of victims' rights. Both proposals would, for the first time, ours as well, recognize the rights of victims in the OSH Act. Our proposal is consistent with both the guidelines issued by OSHA and with most State laws on victims' rights and would assure that victims, including family members, are kept informed of investigations and the progress of cases, and that they have an opportunity to meet with OSHA personnel to discuss any concerns related to the handling of cases involving them.

Fourteen, in recordkeeping and reporting. We have consistently, on both sides of the aisle on this committee, criticized OSHA's targeting system and use of data and information. The problem has been two-fold, judged by the past hearings and discussions to which I, at least, have been a part. One is the lack of good data available to OSHA. Second, and probably more significant, has been the lack of good use of data and information which is available to OSHA. OSHA has been working both with industry and labor, and I might add also with the States, over the past several years on improvements in recordkeeping, including clearer and simpler forms and instructions, in terms of how to record injuries. We would encourage them to move forward on that, and we would also require that ŎSHA issue an inspection targeting system for public com

ment.

In the area of substance abuse, we think that any bill to improve safety and health has to recognize substance abuse, alcohol, and illegal drugs as a significant factor to workplace accidents and injuries. We do not mandate testing; that is left to the employer. We do give uniform guidance for the terms and conditions of testing for safety and health programs, taking as the basis for regulation the standards issued by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Finally and lastly, Mr. Chairman, the issue of commissions and studies. Despite 20 years of regulation and enforcement under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, questions remain over whether the kind of regulatory regime set up by the Act is effective at all, much less the most cost-effective manner of reducing injuries and illnesses in the workplace. Even if we do maintain a regulatory approach, is the current combination of standard setting and enforcement in a single national agency the best way to continue? Some countries, including some of our European counterparts, have studied our system and concluded that a more definitive break between standard setting, on the one hand, and enforcement, on the other, is a better approach. We simply ask that as we proceed in our final markup of this legislation, we take a serious look at that issue and many other issues as well, Mr. Chairman.

You have been generous in your time with us, and I appreciate that, but I wanted to address these grouping of points at length for

the simple reason we wanted to demonstrate, to the best of our ability, the fact that we are trying to put forth a serious, comprehensive statement and proposal for this committee's consideration. I also want to thank Chairman Ford again for his encouraging comments at the beginning of today's hearing.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Paul Henry follows:]

Mr. Chairman and colleagues on the Committee, I appreciate this opportunity to testify on the issue of reforming the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act, and particularly to discuss proposals for change which our Ranking Republican Member, Mr. Goodling, and I along with others will put forward at the appropriate time.

Our efforts have been directed towards trying to improve the process of reviewing and amending the Occupational Safety and Health Act. We would not have put forth the amount of effort we have, or the proposal we have, if our efforts were simply intended to "stonewall." I think the Chairman knows of my own interest over the past several years in a thorough review of the OSHAct and of the agencies which implement it. I applaud the Chairman, as I said at our first hearing on this issue last September, for initiating that process as only a Chairman can do. I am also very mindful of the Chairman's strong personal interest in worker health and safety.

Having opened the door to change, however, I think it is important that we preserve the fundamental purpose of the 1970 Act, which is to abate hazards and prevent injuries and illnesses to workers. We have some differences of approach in how best to do that, but I hope that we would agree on this as our focus. We will not see "OSHA reform" pass if it is seen as simply a vehicle for advantage for either labor or management.

I share the Chairman's conviction that we can do more to improve safety and health for workers in this country. But we need

to consider changes to the law in the context of successes and real improvements in worker health and safety, just as we need to be aware of the shortcomings of the efforts of the past twenty years. During the legislative debate on the Occupational Safety and Health Act in 1970, the Secretary of Labor testified that industrial accidents were claiming nearly 20,000 lives per year. There has been a steady decline in the number of fatalities since 1970, even while the workforce has increased by over 50 percent. Occupational injuries, which are both more difficult to get accurate data on and more subject to year-to-year fluctuations, have overall decreased by 18%. Significantly, I think, one can hardly open any trade or association publication these days and not see articles about efforts to educate members on improving worker safety and health.

Mr. Chairman, I have submitted with my testimony an 8-page document comparing the provisions of H.R. 3160 and the amendments or substitute which we will propose. Because this hearing,

frankly, came up sooner than I anticipated and while we were back home in our districts, the final legislative drafting is still being done by Legislative Counsel's office.

Let me go through the provisions and explain them briefly. A few of the provisions are identical, or nearly so, between H.R. 3160 and our proposal. There are other provisions in which we address similar issues, but in different ways. And there are a number of issues in H.R. 3160 that we do not address, and a number of issues in our bill which are not addressed in H.R. 3160.

1. Public employee coverage--As I mentioned at our hearing on