[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                 EXAMINING THE POLICIES AND PRIORITIES
                     OF THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND
                         HEALTH ADMINISTRATION

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               Before The

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS

                                 OF THE

                COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________


           HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, SEPTEMBER 27, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-24

                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
  
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]  


        Available via: edworkforce.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov
        
                              __________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
55-836 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------     
       
                COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE

               VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina, Chairwoman

JOE WILSON, South Carolina           ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, 
GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania             Virginia,
TIM WALBERG, Michigan                  Ranking Member
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin            RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York          JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia               GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN,
JIM BANKS, Indiana                     Northern Mariana Islands
JAMES COMER, Kentucky                FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania          SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
BURGESS OWENS, Utah                  MARK TAKANO, California
BOB GOOD, Virginia                   ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
LISA McCLAIN, Michigan               MARK DeSAULNIER, California
MARY MILLER, Illinois                DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
MICHELLE STEEL, California           PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
RON ESTES, Kansas                    SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana              LUCY McBATH, Georgia
KEVIN KILEY, California              JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
AARON BEAN, Florida                  ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota
ERIC BURLISON, Missouri              HALEY M. STEVENS, Michigan
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas               TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, New Mexico
JOHN JAMES, Michigan                 KATHY E. MANNING, North Carolina
LORI CHAVEZ-DeREMER, Oregon          FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana
BRANDON WILLIAMS, New York           JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York
ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana
                       Cyrus Artz, Staff Director
              Veronique Pluviose, Minority Staff Director
                                 ------                                

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS

                   KEVIN KILEY, California, Chairman

GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin            ALMA ADAMS, North Carolina,
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York            Ranking Member
JAMES COMER, Kentucky                ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota
MARY MILLER, Illinois                HALEY M. STEVENS, Michigan
ERIC BURLISON, Missouri              MARK TAKANO, California
                         
                         
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on September 27, 2023...............................     1

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

    Kiley, Hon. Kevin, Chairman, Subcommittee on Workforce 
      Protections................................................     1
        Prepared statement of....................................     4
    Adams, Hon. Alma, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Workforce 
      Protections................................................     7
        Prepared statement of....................................     9

                               WITNESSES

    Parker, Douglas, Assistant Secretary, Occupational Safety and 
      Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor............    11
        Prepared statement of....................................    13

                         ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS

    Chairman Kiley:
        Letter dated September 27, 2023 from Coalition for 
          Workplace Safety.......................................    49
        Letter dated September 27, 2023 from National Retail 
          Federation.............................................    53
        Letter dated September 26, 2023 from Tree Care Industry 
          Association............................................    56
    Miller, Hon. Mary, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Illinois:
        Article dated April 27, 2022 from Reuters................    20
    Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'', a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of Virginia:
        Letter dated September 29, 2023 from United Steelworkers.    58
    Stevens, Hon. Haley M., a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Michigan:
        Statement for the Record dated September 27, 2023 from 
          the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-
          CIO....................................................    41
    Takano, Hon. Mark, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of California:
        Article dated February 10, 2021 from www.nbcnews.com.....    27

                        QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

    Responses to questions submitted for the record by:
        Douglas L. Parker........................................    61

 
                 EXAMINING THE POLICIES AND PRIORITIES
                     OF THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND
                         HEALTH ADMINISTRATION

                              ----------                              


                     Wednesday, September 27, 2023

                  House of Representatives,
             Subcommittee on Workforce Protections,
                  Committee on Education and the Workforce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:16 a.m., 
2175 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC, Hon. Kevin 
Kiley [Chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Kiley, Grothman, Miller, Foxx, 
Adams, Stevens, Takano, and Scott (ex officio).
    Also present: Norcross, Walberg
    Staff present: Cyrus Artz, Staff Director; Nick Barley, 
Deputy Communications Director; Mindy Barry, General Counsel; 
Isabel Foster, Press Assistant; Sheila Havenner, Director of 
Information Technology; Paxton, Henderson, Intern; Alex Knorr, 
Legislative Assistant; Trey Kovacs, Professional Staff Member; 
Georgie Littlefair, Clerk; John Martin, Deputy Director of 
Workforce Policy/ Counsel; Hannah Matesic, Deputy Staff 
Director; Audra McGeorge, Communications Director; Rebecca 
Powell, Staff Assistant; Kelly Tyroler, Professional Staff 
Member; Seth Waugh, Director of Workforce Policy; Joe Wheeler, 
Professional Staff Member; Maura Willliams, Director of 
Operations; Savoy Adams, Minority Intern; Nekea Brown, Minority 
Director of Operations; Ilana Brunner, Minority General 
Counsel; Stephanie Lalle, Minority Communications Director; 
Kristen Lemus, Minority Intern; Raiyana Malone, Minority Press 
Secretary; Kevin McDermott, Minority Director of Labor Policy; 
Shyann McDonald, Minority Staff Assistant; Kota Mizutani, 
Minority Deputy Communication Director; Veronique Pluviose, 
Minority Staff Director; Dhrtvan Sherman, Minority Committee 
Research Assistant; Bob Shull, Minority Senior Labor Policy 
Counsel; Banyon Vassar, Minority IT Administrator.
    Chairman Kiley. The Subcommittee on Workforce Protections 
will come to order. I note that a quorum is present. Without 
objection, the Chair is authorized to call a recess at any 
time. The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on 
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's policies 
and priorities.
    The Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration has a vital mission. The agency is charged with 
protecting the rights of American workers and supporting 
employers in meeting health and safety standards. 
Unfortunately, OSHA has veered from this mission. It has taken 
its eye off the ball when it comes to protecting worker safety, 
focusing instead on political goals that could not win support 
through the democratic channels of our government. The result 
has been harmful and ill-considered policies that have 
compromised our system of checks and balances, and weakened our 
economic competitiveness, while at the same time depriving 
workers of important protections.
    It bears emphasizing that our witness today, Mr. Parker, 
along with Julie Su, the unconfirmed Acting Secretary of Labor, 
previously served in California government as appointees of 
Governor Gavin Newsom. Mr. Parker was Chief of the Department 
of Occupational Safety and Health known as Cal OSHA for the 
first 2 years of the COVID-19 shutdown.
    During that time, the actions of Cal OSHA faced broad 
bipartisan criticism, and sometimes bordered on nonsensical. 
For example, in June 2021, Cal OSHA proposed a rule that 
employees could go without masks in the workplace if, and only 
if, every worker present was vaccinated.
    A single, identified, unvaccinated employee would cause all 
employees to have to wear masks. Many described it as the worst 
conceivable policy. The rule is so widely criticized that Cal 
OSHA reversed itself the following week, but still forced 
employers to collect vaccination information from employees.
    It was indicative of the uncertainty and irrationality that 
marked the COVID experience for businesses and workers in the 
State. Indeed, Cal OSHA was widely criticized for its role in 
by any objective measure, was the Nation's least successful 
handling of pandemic workplace policies.
    California had the most onerous business lockdowns and 
mandates in the country throughout the COVID era, resulting in 
the highest unemployment of any State in the country. Still, to 
this day, California ranks 49 out of 50 in employment. At the 
same time, the State had one of the worst public health 
records, with an age-adjusted excess mortality rate well above 
the national average.
    Beyond COVID, an MTR investigation found that Mr. Parker's 
agency also failed to protect workers from wildfire smoke with 
required safeguards neglected. This perverse formula, policies 
that undermine both economic vitality and the public health, 
has unfortunately now become characteristic of OSHA at the 
Federal level.
    Mr. Parker and Ms. Su have taken California's lose/lose 
approach national. For example, shortly after Mr. Parker was 
sworn in as Assistant Secretary, OSHA published an emergency 
rule on workplace COVID-19 vaccination. The rule required 
employers with a total of 100 or more employees, to develop, 
implement and enforce a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy.
    Within 2 months, the Supreme Court ruled that OSHA had 
exceeded its authority in an unprecedented way. The Court 
explained: ``It is telling that OSHA in its half century of 
existence, has never before adopted a broad public health 
regulation of this kind, addressing a threat that is untethered 
in any causal sense in the workplace.''
    Policies like the one OSHA attempted to impose, the Court 
continued, are ``the responsibility of those chosen by the 
people, through democratic processes. Although Congress has 
indisputably given OSHA the power to regulate occupational 
dangers, it has not given OSHA the power to regulate public 
health more broadly. Requiring the vaccination of 84 million 
Americans certainly falls in the latter category.''
    Despite this rebuke from the high Court on a matter of 
profound public interest, and despite the absence of a 
confirmed Secretary of Labor, OSHA has proceeded with an 
aggressive regulatory agenda. This includes 23 new regulations 
expected within the next year, with an additional six under 
consideration for future action.
    Incredibly, here in 2023, OSHA continues to list the 
potential final rule on ``Occupational exposure to COVID-19 in 
healthcare settings,'' even though President Biden has signed 
legislation declaring that national emergency to be over.
    While many of the proposed regulations nominally concern 
important and appropriate topics, such as protecting workers 
from heat, or updating injury reporting requirements, there are 
clear signs that the agency has other objectives in mind. For 
instance, serious worker privacy concerns have been expressed 
in relation to the electronic employee injury regulation.
    Another rule blurs the line between health inspections and 
organizing campaigns. Nothing could be more antithetical to the 
mission of OSHA than using health and safety as a pretext for 
other political designs. This usurps the role of Congress, and 
risks leaving workers without the protections they are entitled 
to by law.
    In fact, genuine worker protection measures have been 
deprioritized and delayed, such as the Tree Care Standard and 
the lockout tagout standard to protect workers from the dangers 
of hazardous energy. Moreover, despite having tens of millions 
more in funding, the total number of OSHA inspections in Fiscal 
Year 2022, the most recent year with complete data, lags the 
total number in fiscal years 2017, 2018 and 2019.
    Sadly, OSHA's lack of focus on worker protections is 
showing up in nationwide data. In 2021, the total reported 
injuries increased by 6.3 percent to 2.2 million cases, up from 
2.1 million cases in 2020. The fatal work injury rate was 3.6 
fatalities per 100,000 full-time equivalent workers, the 
highest annual rate since 2016.
    To carry out its aggressive, yet counterproductive agenda, 
OSHA is seeking a 17 percent budget increase, that is 106.4 
million dollar increase in funding, bringing its total request 
to 738.7 million. Tellingly, this includes a 55 percent 
increase in funding not for advancing worker protections, but 
rather for OSHA's office responsible for writing regulations.
    Congress has a Constitutional responsibility to use its 
oversight authority, and appropriation's power, to reign in 
executive agencies, refocus their mission, and assure funds are 
spent efficiently and appropriately. That is the purpose of 
today's hearing, to refocus OSHA on its core mission, so that a 
thriving workforce can coexist with robust workplace 
protections. With that, I yield to the Ranking Member for an 
opening statement.
    [The Statement of Chairman Kiley follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. Adams. Thank you, Chairman Kiley. First of all, I want 
to thank Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety 
and Health Mr. Parker. Thank you for your time. I look forward 
to hearing your testimony. There is no question that the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, is our 
Nation's main line of defense against unsafe working 
conditions.
    In the 53 years since OSHA was created in 1970, worker 
injuries have fallen significantly, and deaths from acute, 
traumatic injuries have likewise come down sharply. 
Unfortunately, too many workers continue to be injured, made 
ill or killed on the job. A worker either gets sick, or injured 
on the job every 2.5 seconds, and can even succumb to death 
every 8 minutes because of unsafe working conditions.
    Thanks to recent news investigations, we also know that 
children, especially unaccompanied migrant children, have been 
suffering all manners of harms in jobs that they should not be 
working on in the first place. Take a closer look at those 
stories, chemicals so caustic that they burn through multiple 
layers of gloves, machines without guards to prevent people's 
arms or hands from getting mangled, food dust and cleaning 
chemical fumes that irritate the sinuses and lungs.
    These stories are not only about children in desperate 
circumstances they are also about workplaces that are dangerous 
to people of all ages. Workers are losing their lives, not 
because of so-called government overreach or tyranny. They are 
losing their lives through preventable hazards because of 
employer negligence and lack of funding from Congress.
    Since Fiscal Year 2010, funding for OSHA has dropped by 
nearly 20 percent, and in 2021 the number of OSHA inspectors 
was already near its lowest level ever. Thankfully under 
President Biden's leadership, OSHA has taken important steps to 
fulfill its promise to America's workers.
    Most recently, OSHA moved to clarify that workers may 
authorize another worker, or third party, including a union 
representative, to join a walk around inspection to aid in 
identifying and resolving hazards. OSHA has also issued a final 
rule to improve accountability that would require large 
employers and high hazard industries to submit detailed 
information about their workplace illnesses and injuries.
    It is disappointing to hear my colleagues proclaim that 
they care about workplace safety and then push for legislation, 
like the Nullify Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
Act, to abolish the leading Federal office designed to ensure 
safe and healthful working conditions for our workforce.
    It is disappointing, but not surprising. We are just days 
from a Republican led shutdown of the government that would 
limit OSHA's workplace inspections, put workers at risk, and 
delay workers' paychecks. Let us be clear, Republicans price to 
keep the government open is a set of extreme budget cuts to 
investments that help workers and families.
    Republican appropriators already propose to cut OSHA's 
budget by 95 million dollars, but that is not extreme enough. 
Republicans want to turn back the clock and reinState spending 
levels from several years ago. This would have a devasting 
impact on OSHA. According to the Department of Labor, House 
Republicans proposed budget cutbacks would slash OSHA's budget 
by 22 percent, causing OSHA to lose at least 270 inspectors and 
conduct 10,800 fewer inspections.
    That would be the lowest level of enforcement in OSHA's 52-
year history. We have seen news reports since then about even 
steeper cuts that rob OSHA of even more capacity. No matter 
where someone works, the most basic right for American workers 
is that they are safe at work and come home at the end of their 
shift.
    Congress should not be turning a blind eye to employer 
workplace violations and should not be turning its back on our 
workers. My Democratic colleagues and I remain committed to 
ensure safe workplaces for all Americans.
    For example, Ranking Member Scott, Representative Grijalva 
and I joined Representative Judy Chu to reintroduce legislation 
that provides an enforceable workplace safety standard for heat 
stress to protect indoor and outdoor workers against excessive 
heat on the job.
    Ranking Member Scott and I also introduced the Protecting 
Children Act to address abusive child labor, by providing OSHA 
with the resources to deter violations and prevent harm from 
children from intensive work in dangerous jobs.
    Representative Courtney and Ranking Member Scott 
reintroduced the Protecting America's Workers Act, which 
provides OSHA with the tools to protect worker's safety and to 
hold employers accountable.
    With that, I want to thank our witnesses again for their 
time. I look forward to a productive discussion, Mr. Chair, and 
I yield back.
    [The Statement of Ranking Member Adams follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman Kiley. Pursuant to Committee Rule 8-C, all 
Committee members who wish to insert written statements into 
the record may do so by submitting them to the Committee Clerk 
electronically in Microsoft Word format by 5 p.m. after 14 days 
of this hearing, which is October 11, 2023.
    Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 
14 days after the date of this hearing to allow such 
statements, and other extraneous material referenced during the 
hearing to be submitted for the official hearing record.
    I note for the Subcommittee that my colleague from 
Michigan, Mr. Walberg, and my colleague from New Jersey, Mr. 
Norcross, waive onto the Subcommittee for the purpose of 
today's hearing. I will now turn to the introduction of our 
distinguished witness.
    Mr. Douglas L. Parker is the Assistant Secretary of Labor 
for Occupational Safety and Health within the U.S. Department 
of Labor in Washington, DC. We thank the witness for being here 
today and look forward to your testimony.
    Pursuant to Committee rules, I would ask that you limit 
your oral presentation to a 5-minute summary of your written 
statement. I would also like to remind the witness to be aware 
of his responsibility to provide accurate information to the 
Subcommittee. I will now recognize Mr. Parker.

 STATEMENT OF MR. DOUGLAS PARKER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR 
 FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, 
                        WASHINGTON, D.C.

    Mr. Parker. Thank you. Chairman Kiley, Ranking Member Adams 
and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 
to testify today to highlight how the Occupational Health and 
Safety Administration is helping to ensure that our Nation's 
workers have safe and healthy workplaces.
    OSHA's vision for good, safe jobs is one where every 
workplace in America embraces health and safety as a core 
value. This approach requires strategies that encourage 
leadership from the business community, management systems that 
find and fix hazards, and active worker participation.
    No one's job should jeopardize their safety or health. As 
part of our vision OSHA focuses its enforcement on the causes 
of frequent injuries and illnesses, high-hazard industries, and 
employers that demonstrate a lack of regard for safety.
    Our areas of focus include our national emphasis program on 
heat illness, a new initiative on warehousing, and another on 
the dangers facing workers who cut and shape materials in many 
kitchen countertops, which contain high level of silica, and 
cause aggressive and deadly lung disease.
    We are also increasing enforcement at businesses where we 
find repeated safety issues, to incentivize employers to make 
meaningful investments in workplace safety to address the root 
causes of recurring hazards. We have also expanded our whistle 
blower protection program, enabling us to resolve more cases, 
and to do it faster.
    Just this year the average age of a pending case has 
dropped by 36 percent thanks to these efforts. To make 
workplaces safer, we must recognize the importance of worker 
involvement in health and safety. Employers who treat workers 
as partners in making workplaces safer see positive results in 
both safety and their bottom line.
    Not all workers, especially those in underserved 
communities, have this opportunity. I have talked to Latina 
women from Texas in the construction industry facing sexual 
violence and coercion on the job. I have talked to black 
workers from Mississippi who can only get hired for the most 
dangerous and dirty jobs and are injured on hazardous equipment 
without any protections or training.
    I talked to an immigrant worker from Philadelphia who lost 
his leg from a treatable infection because his employer 
threatened to fire him if he left work to get treatment. These 
stories are why we are dedicated to fighting to make worker 
rights a reality for everyone every day.
    We are also proud of our outreach efforts to employers` 
associations and small business. We cannot make meaningful 
progress without listening to and learning from employers and 
supporting their efforts to build strong safety cultures.
    OSHA has conducted, through its onsite consultation 
programs, almost 20,000 site visits, eliminating hazards for 
more than 2.6 million workers, which provide free safety and 
health assistance to the employers through State programs.
    Our Susan Harwood training grants awarded nearly 13 million 
dollars to help train workers and employers, including small 
businesses, and underserved workers with limited English 
skills.
    We have worked closely with employers and unions to address 
a range of mental health issues affecting workers and 
workplaces, creating tools for employers and welcoming more 
than 36,000 businesses to help us kick off our safe and sound 
workplace mental health campaign.
    To better protect workers, OSHA is also developing proposed 
rules to address heat illness, infectious disease and workplace 
violence and healthcare as well. We are also developing a 
standard to protect tree care workers, among others. We 
strongly encourage the public to comment on all these rules to 
ensure that they are both effective and practical.
    This summer we proposed rules to ensure all construction 
workers get personal protective equipment that fits them, as 
well as the rule clarifying the rights of workers to be 
represented in an OSHA inspection. Workplaces are safer when 
workers are active participants in solving health and safety 
problems at work.
    We appreciate Congress' support over the years to ensure 
workers in your districts, and across the country can come home 
to their families after each workday.
    However, to truly embrace health and safety as a core value 
requires a strong OSHA. A government shutdown, followed by 
significant budget reductions would severely compromise our 
ability to protect workers, and meet our congressional mandate.
    Workers across this country depend on OSHA to keep them 
safe, and I hope Congress can provide us with the tools and 
resources we need to do so. Thank you very much, and I look 
forward to your questions and this discussion.
    [The Statement of Doug Parker follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman Kiley. Under Committee rule 9, we will now 
question the witnesses under the 5-minute rule. I recognize the 
representative from Illinois, Ms. Miller.
    Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Chairman Kiley. Assistant Secretary 
Parker, in November 2021 OSHA released an emergency temporary 
standard that would have forced 84 million Americans to take an 
experimental COVID vaccine or provide their private medical 
paperwork to their employer. Do you think OSHA has the power to 
force 84 million Americans to take an experimental vaccine?
    Mr. Parker. You are referring to the vax and test rule that 
OSHA promulgated in November 2021. It did require businesses of 
100 or more employees to develop a program that would require 
employees to either take the COVID vaccine or get regular 
testing.
    Mrs. Miller. Yes. What I want to know is if you believe 
that OSHA actually has the power to force 84 million Americans 
to do that?
    Mr. Parker. Well, the Supreme Court rules on that matter.
    Mrs. Miller. Yes. Thank God the Supreme Court ruled on that 
and stopped you from doing that. You are an unelected 
bureaucrat, and you do not have the power to force 84 million 
people to take an experimental vaccine or show their papers. 
You tried to fire 84 million American workers, but do you 
believe the Court was wrong?
    Mr. Parker. You know the Court made the final decision on 
the matter. That is how our judicial system works. It is about 
finality.
    Mrs. Miller. After they made that decision, you actually 
said to Reuters, this is a quote, ``The ruling was unfortunate, 
but it is not stopping us from pressing employers to take 
adaptive measures to keep things in place.''
    Did you continue to threaten companies to impose a vaccine 
mandate, even though the Supreme Court told you that you 
couldn't? Chairman I would like to enter that into the record.
    Chairman Kiley. Without objection.
    [The information of Mrs. Miller follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

    Mr. Parker. No. We did not threaten anyone, but there were 
companies that were looking forward to clarity from the 
government about these rules, and to provide them----
    Mrs. Miller. Yes. They got the clarity from the Supreme 
Court, and you ignored them, and continued to press companies 
to fire American workers, and I am--we are curious, what was 
President Biden and OSHA's plan if 84 million Americans refused 
to comply with the vaccine mandate or show their papers?
    Mr. Parker. That is categorically untrue. We did not 
threaten anyone, and we did not demand that anyone be fired.
    Mrs. Miller. You absolutely were promoting that, and the 
Supreme Court stopped you. Thank God, and in light of 
considering what would have happened if Americans refused to 
comply, what was your plan?
    Mr. Parker. Congresswoman, I believe that the American 
people expect their government to take on the big problems that 
are facing them. More than a million people died from COVID.
    Mrs. Miller. OK. Well, I would just like to say that you 
were inept. It would have terrorized our economy if the 
American workers refused to comply, and it would have put 84 
million American workers out of work.
    Now I am troubled that you are targeting farmers in your 
quest for power, and threatening to shut down the agriculture 
industry because it is hot outside in the summer through your 
new heat standard. Have you ever worked on a farm or run a 
farm?
    Mr. Parker. I have done some work on a farm, yes.
    Mrs. Miller. Yes. Right now, you actually sit in 
Washington, DC. as an unelected bureaucrat. I do not believe 
you have ever produced anything. Have you ever produced 
anything on a farm?
    Mr. Parker. I was a helper on a farm, but I spent a lot of 
time sharpening tomato steaks.
    Mrs. Miller. In your garden.
    Mr. Parker. No. It was a business.
    Mrs. Miller. Anyway, now you want to tell farmers how to 
farm, and tell Americans which big pharma shots they must take. 
I am going to introduce amendments to strip you of you power 
and funding to protect the 84 million Americans who do not want 
to show you their vaccine papers, and to protect farmers, who 
feed Americans.
    Mr. Chairman, OSHA needs to be reined in. They have gone 
far beyond their minor, limited mission. Thank you and I yield 
back.
    Chairman Kiley. What did you mean just now when you said 
you did not--that you were not going to force anyone to be 
fired. What do you mean by that?
    Mr. Parker. There was a statement by Congresswoman that we 
had made threats that employers fire workers after the Supreme 
Court decision for not getting vaccinated, at least that is how 
I understood it. I was just making clear that we made no such 
threats, and that we complied with the decision of the Supreme 
Court fully.
    Chairman Kiley. I now recognize the Ranking Member.
    Ms. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Assistant Secretary 
Parker, heat is the leading cause of weather-related deaths in 
the United States. Earlier this month a farm worker in my State 
was working when the heat index was in the high 90's and he 
fell ill. He died at just 30 years old.
    According to his family workers weren't provided enough 
water during the day, and I am sure you have heard many stories 
like this. OSHA has had several initiatives underway to educate 
employers and workers about heat stress, and to conduct 
enforcement. What are these efforts, and how successful are 
they?
    Mr. Parker. Heat is one of the major health hazards facing 
American workers. We have been diligent in our efforts to 
ensure that we are doing the outreach that we need to do, the 
communication that we need to do with both employers and 
workers to ensure that they are doing everything that they can 
to protect themselves from the hazards of heat.
    In April, we launched a national emphasis program to 
protect workers from heat illness. We have in the course of 
that program conducted more than 4,300 heat related inspections 
across the country, not including inspections that have 
happened in State plans that have adopted this program.
    That has been mainly focused on outreach. In the first year 
of that program, we really focused on educating employers and 
workers about the hazards of heat, and the basics of how to put 
together a practical heat prevention program that would protect 
workers.
    We have also conducted enforcement. We have issued a number 
of citations. We have primarily issued hazard alert letters, 
which are warnings, more than 400, alerting employers that 
their programs are deficient, and that they need to do more to 
protect workers, and that includes just basics like providing 
cool water, and shade, and those sorts of things.
    We are also working diligently on a proposed rule to 
protect workers from heat illness. We have made extraordinary 
efforts to get public feedback and input from industry to make 
sure that we have a workable rule that can address a number of 
complex issues.
    Ms. Adams. Let me move on a moment. You have had mixed 
results in recent years in using the general duty clause to 
bring enforcement cases about heat, so what are the challenges 
of enforcement when you do not have a standard on the books? Do 
you have a standard in development, but I understand it might 
be on a slow track.
    What is the current status of the rulemaking, and when is 
the earliest you could project issuing the proposed rule?
    Mr. Parker. Well, the general duty clause is an important 
tool, but it is very difficult to address a national problem 
using the general duty clause because of the variety of things, 
the variety of elements that you have to prove on each case on 
an individual basis.
    Ms. Adams. If the government is shutdown, what would that 
mean for your enforcement, education and standard development 
on heat stress?
    Mr. Parker. Well, there will not be any rulemaking activity 
on heat illness. Our outreach activities will end. Our 
assistance to employers will end. Our development of materials 
to address heat illness will end. Our ability to conduct 
proactive program inspections, like the ones that I just 
described to protect workers in hazardous conditions will end.
    We will be limited to a more reactive mode, and 
unfortunately that only happens after a worker has the courage 
to complain or a worker is already sick or dead from heat.
    Ms. Adams. I have heard from employers in my district about 
the value of standards to set rules of the road for themselves 
and their competitors. One standard in development I have heard 
from constituents about is the tree care operations rule, so 
what is the current status of that rulemaking if of course the 
shutdown occurs?
    Mr. Parker. There will be no further activity on the tree 
care standard if there were a shutdown. That and all other 
rulemaking would pause for the term of the shutdown. It would 
not just be the effects of the amount of time that it would be 
shutdown, it would have ripple effects because of the impact on 
the workstream.
    Ms. Adams. Thank you very much. Thank you for your 
testimony. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Kiley. I recognize the representative from North 
Carolina, and Chair of this Full Committee, Dr. Foxx.
    Mrs. Foxx. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. I want to 
thank our witness for being here today. Mr. Parker, in its 
latest proposed rule OSHA's rewriting the agency's regulation 
to allow third parties to accompany OSHA inspectors during a 
jobsite inspection.
    This expands those who can participate beyond safety 
engineers and industrial hygienists, as outlined under current 
regulations. Under the proposed rule a third party could 
include a representative from a worker advocacy group, 
community organization, or labor union. What sense does it make 
for OSHA to allow individuals who know nothing about workplace 
safety to accompany inspectors at a jobsite?
    Mr. Parker. Well, the rule as currently proposed, ma'am--
thank you for the question, and welcome to the Subcommittee. 
The rule, as currently proposed, would not have that effect. 
The rule currently has been construed by some to limit 
participation to employees of the employer as the 
representative of workers that can participate in inspection.
    Even a union official who was the international safety 
representative had great expertise in health and safety. Those 
individuals had been excluded by employers from inspections 
because they are not an employee of the employer. We are trying 
to fix that. It is a commonsense issue, so if a union has a 
representative who is a health and safety expert, they can 
participate. We have also expanded----
    Mrs. Foxx. They have to be an expert in the area. Is that 
correct? Is that the way it is going to be?
    Mr. Parker. They have to be able to make a contribution to 
the inspection, so that could be through----
    Mrs. Foxx. Well, there is a difference in that and what you 
just said. They have to be an expert in the area.
    Mr. Parker. That is correct. I was just giving one example.
    Mrs. Foxx. OK.
    Mr. Parker. The rule itself is a little broader than that.
    Mrs. Foxx. Is that rule intended to help union organizing 
campaigns?
    Mr. Parker. No ma'am. Our only focus is on health and 
safety.
    Mrs. Foxx. On safety. OK. 74 trade groups have asked you to 
extend the comment period for the proposed rule on walkaround 
representatives by 60 days in order to provide the regulated 
community with sufficient time to analyze the proposed rule and 
assess its potential impact on businesses. Will you grant this 
request to extend the comment period?
    Mr. Parker. I have not analyzed that question yet. If there 
is a government shutdown, the impact of a 60-day delay on top 
of that would have pretty great consequences on getting this 
rule done, and so that would certainly be a factor in our 
decisionmaking.
    Mrs. Foxx. Well, if is a big word. Oversight is important 
in this Committee, but your agency has not always been 
responsive to our requests. Last year, starting on September 
27, OSHA hosted a 3-day worker's voice summit. This event was 
held just over a month before Election Day.
    It included a select group of participants, who politically 
support the administration, but it was closed to other 
stakeholders. When I wrote my first oversight letter to you 
about the event, I expressed my concerns that this event 
sounded like a pep rally for the Biden administration and 
congressional Democrats.
    Now a second oversight letter and a year later, we still 
have no answers to our questions. Will you commit to providing 
complete answers to the questions in these oversight letters 
within 1 week of this hearing?
    Mr. Parker. I will work with our congressional team and our 
attorneys who are responsible for those responses to make sure 
that we are giving--providing an appropriate response to any 
followup. I will say this about the worker voice summit.
    You were not here for my testimony, oral testimony, but I 
was telling stories of workers who had tragic situations at 
work, and had been, you know, exposed to the hazards, have been 
harassed, had seen tragic events.
    Those were the people who were at that worker voice summit. 
That was an opportunity to hear from rank-and-file workers from 
around the country about their experiences on the job, and for 
us to be able to listen to them. It was one event, an important 
event. It was no pep rally. We had some hard questions to 
answer from these workers about what we were doing, and----
    Mrs. Foxx. Well, why could you not hear those comments and 
concerns without having a rally, or a big meeting?
    Mr. Parker. It was an event that occurred in both a 
question-and-answer forum, as well as in some smaller group 
discussions, but it was hardly a rally in that sense.
    Mrs. Foxx. You could have had those, you could have heard 
those on an individual basis, or in a Zoom call, or in any 
number of ways other than bringing a large group of people 
together and calling it a summit.
    Mr. Parker. You know, I meet all the time----
    Chairman Kiley. The gentlewoman's time has expired. The 
witness may answer.
    Mrs. Foxx. Thank you.
    Chairman Kiley. The witness may answer.
    Mr. Parker. I meet all the time with employers and employer 
associations. I meet with unions who ask for meetings. We have 
never had a meeting with rank-and-file workers to hear their 
needs. I get to meet with them when I travel, but people are 
always saying that Washington's isolated, you are not listening 
to people. We had this event to listen to people, and that is 
what the event was about. It was not about--it was not anything 
surreptitious.
    It was not organizing, it was to hear some hard stories, 
and some criticisms from rank-and-file workers who want us to 
do a better job reaching the most vulnerable among them.
    Chairman Kiley. Mr. Takano is recognized.
    Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin my 
questioning, I take offense at the Chairman's opening statement 
with these baseless, and frankly misleading attacks on our 
Acting Secretary of Labor. I would like to enter into the 
record an article entitled ``Deputy Secretary of Labor pick got 
her start fighting for enslaved Thai garment workers,'' and 
that is why she is an icon in the AAPI community.
    I think history will judge him and the Senators who have 
held up her nomination very poorly because you know, she held 
to account, and also brought about legal reform for those who 
were enslaved, and for those who were the enslavers, to hold 
them to account.
    [The information of Mr. Takano follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman Kiley. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Takano. I will not yield. I will continue my questions. 
Assistant Secretary Parker, I would like to specifically thank 
you for your emphasis on safety and warehouses and logistical 
facilities. Warehouses are the lifeline of the district that I 
represent. What would you say are the leading causes of 
injuries in warehouse and logistical facilities?
    Mr. Parker. Well certainly the leading cause, and I thank 
you for the question, and I appreciate your comments. 
Certainly, the leading cause of injury in warehousing, and in 
many industries that involve lifting, repetitive motion, are 
musculoskeletal injuries, ergonomic injuries.
    I mean we see nationally, millions of injuries a year from 
workers who are handling materials, who are lifting, moving 
materials, and so that is certainly prevalent in warehousing, 
particularly where there are medium sized packages, and they 
have less automated processes.
    We also see falls. We see struck by incidents with powered 
industrial trucks (``forklifts'' more commonly is the term). We 
see materials falling on workers from stacking, unsafe 
stacking, of materials. We see heat as a factor, particularly 
in areas like the Inland Empire, where we see this a lot, in 
California, if a facility was not air-conditioned, so.
    Mr. Takano. Well, heat I have heard is a concern from many 
of the workers in my area, extreme heat, having to work 
prolonged hours with heat, not enough rest breaks. I recall 
touring a textile factory with former member David Cicilline of 
Rhode Island, actually in Massachusetts, next to Rhode Island. 
It was a sizable factory that focused on sewing items for 
sheets, pillow covers and duvets.
    Prior to entering the factory, I expected to encounter a 
stuffy interior with all the machinery going, and all of that. 
However, I was pleasantly surprised to encounter a cool air 
coming from the circulated a/c system. This highlighted for me 
that really good employers know what they have to do to protect 
workers.
    Protecting workers with adequate break and rest 
protections, and air-conditioning is not rocket science. 
Austin, Houston and Dallas, all experienced campaigns that 
resulted in local ordinances for rest and break requirements. 
The State of Texas has attempted to supersede these ordinances, 
and the issue is currently being litigated.
    While we have some states like Texas that are trying to go 
backward, we do know that good employers exist, or aim to do 
right by their employees. Factories such as the Matouk Factory, 
which I visited, are emblematic of this. By the way, all this 
cool air is being generated by renewable energy.
    They invested in this renewable energy even when the 
utilities were not really encouraging that to happen. Mr. 
Parker, what steps--by the way, I would challenge the 
gentlelady from Illinois, to work in extreme heat on a farm for 
protracted hours and see whether or not she thinks that workers 
should be protected from extreme heat, and I challenge her to 
do that. I challenge her to go work on a farm under extreme 
heat conditions.
    Mr. Parker, what steps, if any, can OSHA take to 
potentially incentivize employers like Matouk to take actions 
like these, or employers to emulate what Matouk has done?
    Mr. Parker. Well, I think one of the things that we are 
learning from our conversations with employers is that there is 
more and more evidence out there that providing rest actually 
can lead to productivity gains. Workers slow down when they are 
overheated.
    They have--they are more prone to less mental focus, so 
there is more mistakes in their work. There is some emerging 
evidence that if you address these things you actually have 
productivity gains that can have some effect in offsetting the 
time it takes to provide employers with rest breaks.
    There is also a lot of technical assistance that we can 
provide employers on how to promote a range or implement a 
range of options to ensure that their workers are doing the 
basic things, like drinking enough water, taking breaks in a 
cooler location. That there is some acclimation, or acclimation 
is taken into account.
    I mean, most of these deaths from heat happen during the 
first week on the job.
    Mr. Takano. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Chairman Kiley. I will now recognize the representative 
from Wisconsin from Grothman.
    Mr. Grothman. I have a variety of questions to ask you. 
First of all, apparently there is a possibility of granting 
union representatives' access to a non-union jobsite without a 
collective bargaining agreement. What are the safety related 
advantages of giving somebody access like that, or are there 
dangers? How do you align the idea of giving access to these 
people with your goal of improving workplace safety?
    Mr. Parker. Well, our goal is to implement the OSH Act, and 
the OSH Act calls for strong worker participation. What we have 
seen over the course of the 52 years since the signing of the 
OSH Act is that there is less and less worker participation.
    We are interested in making sure that we are--we have 
regulations that follow the law, but we have current 
regulations that place restrictions on who can be an authorized 
representative, that do not exist in the OSH Act, and we do not 
think were intended.
    Regardless of whether it is a union representative, or some 
other third party, if they have knowledge or expertise, whether 
it is technical or real-world experience that can contribute to 
that inspection.
    Mr. Grothman. You are going to allow people in even if the 
business does not want them?
    Mr. Parker. Well, the employees have a right to designate a 
representative, and so yes. There are also important 
protections in place that are not part of our rulemaking and 
remain undisturbed. If a representative is disruptive to the 
proceeding, if they would not contribute to the proceeding, if 
their entry into a workplace would compromise trade secrets, 
then in those cases that person would not be permitted to be a 
part of the inspection, or they would be excluded for any 
relevant----
    Mr. Grothman. OK. I am going to switch a little bit. How 
much do you think the proposed heat standard would cost small 
business in this country?
    Mr. Parker. We do not have a number on that because we do 
not--we have not written a proposal on that. We have gone to 
the SBA, and convened a small business committee, and given 
them a range of options, rather than a prescriptive proposal, 
so that we can get a fuller range of feedback from small 
business about what is practical.
    We are very mindful of the cost, and putting measures in 
place that are going to be achievable for small business, and 
we have really--I am proud that we have taken an approach that 
OSHA has never done in the rulemaking, which is to go to small 
business with an open ended--with open ended questions, to hear 
from them about what they think makes sense, rather than giving 
them a set of rules that they have to respond to.
    We are actually hearing from them, and hearing their ideas, 
and hearing what they are doing now to protect workers. It is 
quite exciting to be a part of that process.
    Mr. Grothman. The permanent COVID-19 standard in healthcare 
settings has been under review since December 7th. Since that 
time the administration has ended both the public health 
emergency, and the national emergency for COVID. Does your 
administration have a plan to move ahead with this burdensome 
regulation, given other COVID regulations have been rolled 
back?
    Mr. Parker. Right now, the status is that it is under OMB 
review, so I cannot make predictions or----
    Mr. Grothman. Are you guys trying to extend it though?
    Mr. Parker. It is under inner-agency review, and an OMB 
process, so we are engaged with OMB and a decision will come 
from that process about what happens.
    Mr. Grothman. Obviously, we know a lot more about the COVID 
situation, maybe the press tries to cover it up, but more about 
both the masks, more about the vaccinations than we did at the 
time, and I think most of, or at least the things that I am 
reading, are the masks were not all they were cracked up to be. 
The vaccinations were not all they were cracked up to be.
    Could you comment on businesses that are requiring, or do 
you take a position on businesses pushing their employees 
toward masking and vaccinating?
    Mr. Parker. You know, the OSH Act places primary 
responsibility on employers to come up with health and safety 
programs and systems, and so if an employer makes a decision 
that they believe that they need to----
    Mr. Grothman. I guess what I am saying is I am almost out 
of time. There are people who come up to me in my district that 
only got the vaccine because their employers forced them to. 
Now they regret it. They feel they are having bad symptoms, or 
whatever. Is that something OSHA is concerned about?
    Mr. Parker. You know I think I would love to hear more 
about that and how we could be helpful, I think, but we are not 
really engaged in active rulemaking in general workplaces on 
that issue anymore.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. Thank you.
    Chairman Kiley. I recognize the gentlewoman from Michigan, 
Ms. Stevens.
    Ms. Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you Mr. 
Assistant Secretary Parker for appearing before our 
Subcommittee today to highlight the vital work that OSHA 
carries out each and every single day in workplaces across 
America. I know we agree that a good job cannot truly be a good 
job without safety.
    From semi-conductor fabs, and electric vehicle battery 
plants, to construction and open-air agricultural farming, the 
challenges we expect OSHA to meet and offer answers to are 
extremely diverse, wide-ranging and numerous. Certainly much 
has changed since OSHA was established 53 years ago in 1970.
    Innovation and technological advancement have overhauled 
many workplaces across the United States, a trend which is set 
to continue with the return of industrial policy. For example, 
just last month the Department of Energy announced 15.5 billion 
dollars that will be made available to turbo charge a massive 
factory retooling initiative, particularly in our automotive 
industry.
    These dollars are set to transform auto plants across the 
United States. This is so vitally important to my native 
Michigan and helps support the production of clean and 
efficient vehicles right here at home. It is going to be up to 
OSHA to make sure that these converted facilities meet the 
highest safety standards, and that employees working there are 
informed of potential hazards and are trained to recognize 
them.
    While these workplaces are modernizing the core demands and 
expectations of workers remain the same. Good pay, strong 
benefits, and a safe workplace. Whether it is air-conditioning 
going into UPS delivery trucks, or PPE in a comprehensive 
review of the chemicals used in EV battery plants, workplace 
safety has never been more important for hard-working Americans 
and unions like the Teamsters, and the United Auto Workers.
    Assistant Secretary Parker, as you are aware, and as is 
being discussed, we may be just a few days away from another 
Republican shutdown of the government. I wanted to take a 
minute to request unanimous consent to enter into the record a 
letter from the American Federation of Government Employees, 
explaining the consequences of a government shutdown for OSHA.
    Chairman Kiley. Without objection.
    [The information of Ms. Stevens follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

    Ms. Stevens. Thank you. As we know, another Republican 
shutdown will impact worker safety. We have heard this directly 
from AFGE. I wanted to ask you Mr. Assistant Secretary, will 
OSHA still be able to conduct its strategic enforcement program 
in meat packing and poultry plants if we are in a Republican 
shutdown?
    Mr. Parker. Thank you for the question. It is an important 
one. I think the short answer is no. Strategic meaning 
proactive and preventative inspections. Our mandate would be 
limited under the Act, or Appropriations Act to matters 
involving, you know, life or property, and that has always been 
interpreted to mean actionable knowledge.
    Reacting to a hazard that has been reported that we have 
actual knowledge of, reacting to a complaint, reacting to an 
injury, reacting to a fatality. We would not be doing proactive 
inspections.
    I would add, also, that it is going to--we are not going to 
have any money to distribute to the State who run their own 
State plans, so there will not be, you know, Michigan will not 
get a check from OSHA when the time comes if we are shutdown.
    Ms. Stevens. OSHA just announced a new strategic 
enforcement program this week on silica dust exposures in 
manufactured stonework. Will that work be able to continue in a 
Republican shutdown?
    Mr. Parker. That will not get off the ground, and that is 
very concerning to me. We first worked on this issue when I was 
in California after finding workers who had worked 10 years in 
this industry, had not even reached the age of 40, and were 
dead in the ground from silicosis. We need to take action on 
this, and it is extremely, gravely concerning that this effort 
is going to be delayed.
    Ms. Stevens. Yes. We need to take action and make sure that 
government can still function for the workers and individuals 
who rely on it, and I want to thank you for your dedication to 
that charge, and with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Chairman Kiley. Mr. Parker, your agency was responsible for 
issuing an employer vaccine mandate that would have applied to 
84 million Americans. Now the Supreme Court struck that down. 
It was a scathing opinion about how OSHA had well exceeded its 
authority in unprecedented ways.
    Earlier today you testified that you did not demand that 
anyone be fired, so in your contemplation if a worker did not 
comply with the requirements of that vaccination or test rule 
that you promulgated, what would have happened? What would have 
been the consequences for that employee?
    Mr. Parker. Well, the question that I received earlier from 
the Congresswoman from Illinois referenced our activity after 
the ruling was issued, and so it was a reference to our efforts 
post-Supreme Court decision.
    Chairman Kiley. Pre-Supreme Court decision you did demand 
that people be fired?
    Mr. Parker. The rule never went into play.
    Chairman Kiley. Right. The rule as you wrote it, as you 
contemplated, as you wanted it to go into effect, did 
contemplate people being fired?
    Mr. Parker. It was up to the employer. It did not prescribe 
any remedies in the rule for how that would be implemented.
    Chairman Kiley. The Supreme Court noted that hundreds of 
thousands of people could have lost their jobs. Do you disagree 
with that?
    Mr. Parker. The Supreme Court was making a preliminary 
decision. It was not a final order. They had a limited record 
in front of them, but I would have to go back and re-read the 
ruling. I do not recall that provision.
    Chairman Kiley. Mr. Parker, you are one of a number now of 
officials in this administration who has come before this 
Committee, and tried to tell us that two plus two does not 
equal four. Sitting in the chair that you are in now, the 
Secretary of Education testified, gave false testimony to this 
Committee, denying that he had promoted a student vaccine 
mandate, when he had done precisely that, sitting in the chair 
that you're in now.
    The Secretary of Health and Human Services made one of the 
most outlandish statements ever entered into the congressional 
record, which is saying quite a lot, when he said we never 
forced anyone to do anything in relation to the widely 
discredited policy forcing young children, as young as 2 years 
old, to wear masks.
    Now you come before us today, asked about one of the most 
sweeping abuses of power that we have seen, that was rebuked by 
the Supreme Court, and you tell us that we did not demand that 
anyone be fired. Has there been some sort of memo going around? 
Why is the administration insistent on rewriting history?
    Mr. Parker. All you have to do is read that rule, and you 
will see that it is not a vaccine mandate. It gives employees 
the option of testing in lieu of a vaccine mandate.
    Chairman Kiley. If they did not do that, then what would 
happen to them?
    Mr. Parker. They would be out of compliance with the 
requirement, and our role then would be to cite the employer.
    Chairman Kiley. I want to testify--I want to clarify your 
earlier testimony as well. Are you saying that your agency is 
still pushing forward with a new COVID-19 rule for healthcare 
at this time?
    Mr. Parker. The rule is in--we proposed that rule in, well 
I do not recall----
    Chairman Kiley. I did not ask when you initially proposed 
it. I am saying are you still pushing forward with it?
    Mr. Parker. We submitted the rule to the Office of 
Management and Budget in December of last year. It has remained 
in review there.
    Chairman Kiley. You are not planning on rescinding it, or 
withdrawing it?
    Mr. Parker. That is a decision that would be made after it 
goes through the process, and I cannot comment on it. That is 
just----
    Chairman Kiley. You cannot comment? You do not have an 
opinion of whether it should be withdrawn?
    Mr. Parker. It is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter 
of me following the rules of the administration.
    Chairman Kiley. Sure.
    Mr. Parker. In ensuring that we respect the process of 
working with OMB.
    Chairman Kiley. Did your agency at all delay or pause its 
rulemaking or regulatory agenda following the nomination of 
Julie Su as Secretary of Labor?
    Mr. Parker. I do not believe so. All of our work internally 
continued.
    Chairman Kiley. OK. How would you describe morale at the 
Department right now?
    Mr. Parker. You know, we are still working to address a 
real malaise that was in place at the Department of Labor in 
the prior administration.
    Chairman Kiley. Do you think that having an unconfirmed 
Secretary of Labor who the Senate has considered and chosen not 
to confirm has had a negative impact on the morale of the 
Department of Labor?
    Mr. Parker. I cannot speculate on that. Really, I think 
that from the people I talk to the answer is no. They are 
continuing to do their work for the American people. That is 
their mission. That is what they care about.
    Chairman Kiley. You were confirmed by the Senate for your 
role, and she has not been for years, and you are reporting to 
her. Does that create some awkward dynamics?
    Mr. Parker. She was confirmed by the Senate.
    Chairman Kiley. Not for the role she is in right now, was 
she?
    Mr. Parker. Well, my understanding is that as Deputy, she 
serves in the role as Acting Secretary.
    Chairman Kiley. She has not been confirmed as Secretary of 
Labor, that is correct?
    Mr. Parker. That is certainly correct, yes.
    Chairman Kiley. Has that created any difficult dynamics 
around the Department in your direct observation?
    Mr. Parker. Not in my direct observation, no.
    Chairman Kiley. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Scott for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary, is it true 
that under your present funding you can only inspect each 
business under your jurisdiction once every 190 years?
    Mr. Parker. I believe that is a figure from the Death on 
the Job report by the AFL-CIO that they released annually on 
Worker Memorial Day, and I have not checked the math lately, 
but I have checked the math multiple years in the past, and 
they were right. I have no reason to dispute that that is fact.
    Mr. Scott. That the proposed cuts in the Republican budgets 
would make that even worse. Is that true?
    Mr. Parker. That is certainly true.
    Mr. Scott. If they have a shutdown, you have indicated that 
you would not be able to do your work. Have you had to spend 
staff time preparing for the shutdown?
    Mr. Parker. Everyone has to spend staff time preparing for 
the shutdown, and unfortunately it is a regular exercise in 
government.
    Mr. Scott. Some disparaging remarks were made about staff, 
some of the budget proposals to add staff for regulatory staff. 
How long has it taken, how long did it take to get regulations 
done for silica and beryllium?
    Mr. Parker. At least 20 years.
    Mr. Scott. If you had more staff, could you have done a 
quicker job?
    Mr. Parker. Certainly.
    Mr. Scott. In terms of regulations, we have had legislation 
pending to reduce workplace violence. What kinds of regulations 
could OSHA propose that could save lives and reduce injuries? 
It is my understanding that these would be fairly innocuous, 
like make sure you have a plan to reduce violence, not anything 
that would be over burdensome?
    Mr. Parker. It would be difficult to predict what a rule 
would look like that we have not worked on or proposed, but I 
can talk about, to answer your point, we can look at our 
efforts in healthcare and draw some analogies because we are 
doing rulemaking in the area of healthcare.
    I would agree our focus is on established practices, best 
practices that exist in the healthcare industry that have to do 
with adequate staffing, and particular circumstances. Things 
like line of sight, panic buttons, things that are certainly 
manageable in that context.
    Mr. Scott. Then in regulations involving heat stress, you 
mention things like shade and water. Those do not seem 
particularly burdensome. Are they effective in reducing deaths 
and injuries from a heat stroke?
    Mr. Parker. They are highly effective in reducing the risk 
of heat stroke, as well as just people understanding how to 
recognize signs in themselves and others. Understanding the 
need, the elevated risk when you are new to the exposure, so 
you are new on the job, or there is a heatwave. Pretty common-
sense issues.
    Mr. Scott. Do you have jurisdiction over child labor?
    Mr. Parker. We have jurisdiction over children exposed to 
hazardous conditions at work. The Department of Labor has 
jurisdiction over child labor.
    Mr. Scott. What is the situation there? Has it gotten 
better or worse recently?
    Mr. Parker. We see more reports of child labor, and we see 
a troubling increase in workers who are underage being exposed 
to higher hazard workplaces. I get heartbreaking emails in my 
inbox all too often of, you know, workers 13, 14, 15, that they 
lose an arm in a poultry processing plant, or they are pulled 
into a woodchipper, or just things that you do not even want to 
hear about.
    Mr. Scott. A lot has been said about the COVID vaccine, and 
a comment was made about experimental COVID vaccine. Do you 
have any authority to impose any requirement for any medication 
that does not have final approval from the FDA?
    Mr. Parker. I believe that I would have to check with our 
legal counsel on that, but in normal circumstances the answer I 
think is no.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Kiley. The representative from Michigan, Mr. 
Walberg, is recognized.
    Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to you, Mr. 
Parker for being here. On November 26, 2019, a farmer and 
friend in my district tragically fell to his death while trying 
to fix a hole that had developed from a storm in the roof of 
his family farm. Fell through it and was not found until a 
significant amount of time later by his brother who came to 
look for him, since he had not returned to the field.
    He was the owner and operator, working with his brother. 
While the family was still grieving, my OSHA, Michigan OSHA, 
levied thousands of dollars-worth of fines on the family for 
failing to report the death within 8 hours.
    The family was dealing with the emotional loss of a brother 
and a husband, and the last thing I am sure that a wife was 
considering was picking up the phone to call OSHA hotline to 
report the death of her spouse, as you might understand.
    Since 1976, Congress has approved an appropriation's rider 
stating businesses with 10 employees or fewer, including small 
family farms, are exempt from the OSH Act's injury and incident 
reporting requirement. Efforts to reduce the penalty at the 
State level were vetoed by Governor Whitmer, saying that doing 
so would be inconsistent with how Federal OSHA regulates small 
farms.
    Do you believe, Mr. Parker, small family farms with less 
than 10 employees should be held to the same standards as large 
businesses?
    Mr. Parker. Well as you know under the appropriations 
rider, we do not have jurisdiction for much of our activity on 
small family farms with fewer than 10 employees. The only 
exception is if there is a temporary labor camp onsite.
    Let me also just offer my condolences for your friend. That 
is a horrible incident. I will say that we have--I do not know 
the circumstances of the jurisdictional questions in that case. 
I do know that while we do issue penalties for reporting 
violations because there is an important policy reason that we 
are able to respond to deaths in a timely manner.
    There are circumstances such as that where we have been 
known to issue citations without penalty because of the trauma, 
so I think--
    Mr. Walberg. I would guess I would followup on that to make 
sure I understand. Does OSHA--do the OSHA inspectors have 
discretion in these types of situations, and if an OSHA 
inspector did this, offered discretion, and in a case like 
this, at the Federal level, would you view that as appropriate?
    Mr. Parker. We would look at that on a case-by-case basis, 
and that would not be really--the final decision would not be 
with the inspector, but we would look at that at the 
supervisory level.
    Mr. Walberg. You would not necessarily go to immediate 
penalty of thousands of dollars for a wife not reporting her 
husband's death.
    Mr. Parker. That is correct. Let me be clear. I do not know 
the circumstances, and I do not know Michigan's policies, and I 
do not want to disparage them. I can only talk about what we 
do.
    Mr. Walberg. Sadly, Michigan's policy still would require 
this wife in a grieving situation within 8 hours of her husband 
falling through a roof, trying to prevent any further storm 
damage, to report, or pay thousands of dollars. I guess in 
asking on the Federal level, which will determine whether we 
move this direction somehow to give some reality to how OSHA 
works with states like Michigan OSHA, would it be appropriate 
to lengthen the reporting requirement in cases like this one 
described when someone loses a family member? I am looking for 
a policy.
    Mr. Parker. I do not know that. I would have to evaluate 
that more and talk to our team. I do not know that necessarily 
more rulemaking is the right answer, as opposed to----
    Mr. Walberg. Common sense.
    Mr. Parker. Just an approach of ensuring that we always 
include, you know, humanity in our approach to our work.
    Mr. Walberg. I appreciate that, and I hope that we truly 
can provide greater clarity at the Federal level and prevent 
these types of unfortunate events in the future because we know 
that the State OSHA's look in a great degree to what Federal 
OSHA sets the standards of practice.
    In this case I would think discretion would be common sense 
as the first step, unless we saw something that was egregious 
in undercutting what should be done in reporting requirements 
that make sense. We will keep looking. Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Chairman Kiley. Without objection, there being no further 
business, the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:24 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    

                                 [all]