[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
RECLAIMING OSHA'S MISSION: ENSURING
SAFETY WITHOUT OVERREACH
=======================================================================
HEARING
Before The
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE
PROTECTIONS
of the
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND
WORKFORCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MAY 15, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-13
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Workforce
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: edworkforce.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
61-706 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE
TIM WALBERG, Michigan, Chairman
JOE WILSON, South Carolina ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia,
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina Ranking Member
GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia MARK TAKANO, California
JAMES COMER, Kentucky ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
BURGESS OWENS, Utah MARK DeSAULNIER, California
LISA C. McCLAIN, Michigan DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
MARY E. MILLER, Illinois LUCY McBATH, Georgia
JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
KEVIN KILEY, California ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota
MICHAEL A. RULLI, Ohio HALEY M. STEVENS, Michigan
JAMES C. MOYLAN, Guam GREG CASAR, Texas
ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri SUMMER L. LEE, Pennsylvania
RYAN MACKENZIE, Pennsylvania JOHN W. MANNION, New York
MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington VACANCY
MARK HARRIS, North Carolina
MARK B. MESSMER, Indiana
RANDY FINE, Florida
R.J. Laukitis, Staff Director
Veronique Pluviose, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS
RYAN MACKENZIE, Pennsylvania, Chairman
MARK B. MESSMER, Indiana ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota,
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin Ranking Member
JAMES COMER, Kentucky HALEY M. STEVENS, Michigan
MARY E. MILLER, Illinois GREG CASAR, Texas
RANDY FINE, Florida MARK TAKANO, California
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 15, 2025..................................... 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Mackenzie, Hon. Ryan, Chairman, Subcommittee on Workforce
Protections................................................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Omar, Hon. Ilhan, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Workforce
Protections................................................ 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
WITNESSES
Parson, Jake, President, Northeast Division, CRH Americas
Materials, on behalf of the National Association of
Manufacturers.............................................. 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Tresselt, Benjamin G., President and Owner, Arborist
Enterprises, on behalf of the Tree Care Industry
Association................................................ 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 18
Barab, Jordan, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary, OSHA....... 23
Prepared statement of.................................... 26
Watson, Felicia, Senior Counsel, Littler Mendelson, P.C...... 51
Prepared statement of.................................... 53
ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS
Ranking Member Omar:
Statement dated May 13, 2025, from the National Safety
Council (NSC).......................................... 69
Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'', a Representative in Congress
from the State of Virginia:
Transcript titled, ``RFK Jr. stands by deep cuts to
health budget during contentious hearings,'' dated May
15, 2025, from NPR..................................... 84
Article titled, ``RFK Jr. stands by deep cuts to health
budget during contentious hearings,'' dated May 15,
2025, from NPR......................................... 145
Walberg, Hon. Tim, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan:
Letter dated May 15, 2025, from Associated Builders and
Contractors (ABC)...................................... 93
Letter dated May 13, 2025, from the American Road &
Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA)............ 95
Letter dated January 14, 2025, from the American Road &
Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA)............ 97
Letter dated November 13, 2023, from the American Road &
Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA)............ 106
Letter dated May 14, 2025, from the Coalition for
Workplace Safety (CWS)................................. 111
Letter dated January 14, 2025, from the Coalition for
Workplace Safety (CWS)................................. 113
Letter dated November 13, 2023, from the Coalition for
Workplace Safety (CWS)................................. 124
Letter dated May 16, 2025, from Fisher Phillips LLP...... 137
Letter dated May 15, 2025, from the National Roofing
Contractors Association (NRCA)......................... 141
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD
Responses to questions submitted for the record by:
Mr. Jordan Barab......................................... 151
RECLAIMING OSHA'S MISSION: ENSURING
SAFETY WITHOUT OVERREACH
----------
Thursday, May 15, 2025
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Workforce Protections,
Committee on Education and Workforce,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:17 a.m., in
Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC, Hon.
Ryan Mackenzie (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Mackenzie, Messmer, Grothman,
Comer, Miller, Walberg, Omar, Stevens, Casar, and Scott.
Also present: Representative Kiley.
Staff present: Vlad Cerga, Director of Information
Technology; Libby Kearns, Press Assistant; Katerina Kerska,
Legislative Assistant; Trey Kovacs, Director of Workforce
Policy; Campbell Ladd, Clerk; R.J. Laukitis, Staff Director;
Danny Marca, Director of Information Technology; Brad Mannion,
Professional Staff Member; John Martin, Deputy Director of
Workforce Policy/Counsel; Audra McGeorge, Communications
Director; Alexis Morgan, Intern; Daniel Nadel, Legislative
Assistant; Ethan Pann, Deputy Press Secretary and Digital
Director; Kane Riddell, Staff Assistant; Carl Rifino, Intern;
Sara Robertson, Press Secretary; Ann Vogel, Director of
Operations; Ali Watson, Director of Member Services; Joe
Wheeler, Professional Staff Member; James Whittaker, General
Counsel; Ilana Brunner, Minority General Counsel; Ni'Aisha
Banks, Policy Aide & Internship Coordinator; Patrick Jo,
Minority Intern; Jessica Schieder, Minority Economic Policy
Advisor; Dhrtvan Sherman, Minority Research Assistant; Bob
Shull, Minority Senior Labor Policy Counsel; Raiyana Malone,
Minority Press Secretary; Kevin McDermott Minority Director of
Labor Policy; Marie McGrew, Minority Press Assistant; Veronique
Pluviose, Minority Staff Director; Banyon Vassar, Minority
Director of IT.
Chairman Mackenzie. 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. Today's hearing will review the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration's activity under
the previous administration, and we will also explore common
sense solutions that can return OSHA to fulfilling its purpose
of advancing workplace safety.
OSHA's mission is to ensure the hardworking men and women
of this Nation are given safe and healthy working conditions.
The agency fulfills this mission by setting and enforcing
safety standards, and by providing education, outreach and
compliance assistance to both employers and employees. When
necessary, OSHA's enforcement efforts include monetary and even
criminal penalties, all with the goal of protecting workers.
That mission is critically important. However, in recent
years we have seen a regulatory approach that in many cases may
have gone beyond OSHA's statutory authority under the
Occupational Safety and Health Act. While these actions may
have been well intentioned, they often created confusion or
imposed overly broad mandates that did not meet the realities
of the industries affected, especially for small businesses.
For example, OSHA's attempt to implement a nationwide COVID
vaccine mandate, later struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court,
raised serious concerns about Federal overreach. In 2024, the
agency issued a Worker Walk Around Rule, which opened the door
to third-party individuals, even those without workplace safety
backgrounds, entering jobsites to do safety inspections.
The proposed heat standard, while addressing a real
concern, takes a one size fits all approach that fails to
account for a wide range of conditions, and different
industries and regions. We have also seen an expansion of
enforcement tools, such as the Severe Violate Enforcement
Program, and the Instance-by-Instance Citation Policy that may
reflect a view of employers as adversaries, rather than
partners in workplace safety.
That is a misguided perspective. Obviously, small
businesses succeed when their employees succeed, and most of
their employers take workplace safety very seriously. OSHA's
mission is too important to be undermined by overreach. As the
nature of work continues to change, broad-based regulatory
efforts can unintentionally create more problems than they
solve.
That is why today's conversation is so critically
important. For instance, the tree care industry has petitioned
for the creation of a Federal tree care standard for nearly two
decades. This is one of the most dangerous industries in the
Nation, but workers currently rely on a patchwork of standards
that do not adequately address the unique challenges of the
work being performed.
Similarly, because of technological advances with equipment
and machinery, OSHA should update its 35-year-old standard on
the control of hazardous energy, otherwise known as the
lockout, tagout standard.
While we saw progress on both fronts, under the first Trump
administration, now is the time to push for these solutions to
be resolved. Republicans, under this American economy, and this
administration, we know that American flourishes when workers
flourish.
I look forward to the hearing for today's witnesses, so
that they can bring about their knowledge, and share with us
what can be improved from the past 4 years, the lessons that we
have learned, and how we can keep OSHA focused on its core
mission of keeping America's workers safe. With that, I yield
to my Ranking Member for an opening statement.
[The Statement of Chairman Mackenzie follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Omar. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you to our
witnesses for your testimony today. Over the past 100 days,
President Trump and his administration have decimated the very
agencies and resources that have kept workers safe and healthy.
Now, Committee Republicans are following suit by holding this
hearing to attack the work of the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration.
We should all be able to recognize a basic truth. No job
should ever be a death sentence. Workers deserve to come home
to their families at the end of the day, not in pain, not in
fear, but alive and well. To protect that fundamental right,
Congress passed landmark safety laws and established important
agencies, like OSHA, the Mine Safety and Health Administration,
and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
All of these three agencies have been chronically
underfunded since their inception, and largely because of that,
they have long struggled to robustly defend workers from
preventable injuries, illnesses, and death at work. In the 54
years since it was established, OSHA has made great strides,
but it remains hamstrung by an overly complicated regulatory
process, persistent underfunding, and the long uphill battle of
updating standards to reflect scientific advances.
Despite these constraints, OSHA took action during the
Biden administration and proposed commonsense safeguards, like
the Heat Stress Rule, to prevent tragedies in the workplace.
Rather than build on that progress, the Trump administration is
now threatening to dismantle any government program or agency
that prioritizes workers' health and protects workers on the
job.
At one point, DOGE targeted at least 11 OSHA field offices
to be permanently shut down, including the only office in
Louisiana, located in what is known as ``Cancer Alley'', due to
the presence of over 200 chemical plants and the high rates of
cancer in the area.
MSHA has at least 30 field offices slated for closure on
DOGE's hit list, including an office created in response to the
Upper Big Branch Mine Disaster. While we face a surge in child
labor violations, DOGE is still cutting staff and planning to
close 20 Wage and Hour Division offices.
Shutting down field offices will endanger workers' lives by
cutting off the public from DOL's most vital services. This
also means severely limiting the geographic coverage of
inspectors and investigators' enforcement activities against
law-breaking companies and further straining an already
resource strapped DOL.
It does not stop here. On April 1st, nearly the entire
NIOSH workforce was placed on leave with the promise of being
fired later this summer by HHS Secretary Kennedy.
In one sweeping move, Secretary Kennedy put 50 years of
scientific expertise and public health research at risk. DOGE
kicked out NIOSH's staffers, paid them to not work, and then
after realizing that effectively eliminating NIOSH was a
mistake, the Trump administration started to reverse course and
re-hired only some of those staff.
This entire circus is wasteful, expensive, and harmful for
workers--a description that could only apply to most of DOGE's
actions. Workers are not expendable. They are not statistics.
OSHA and NIOSH do the essential work of keeping workers safe.
We must fund them properly and strengthen the laws that support
their mission.
In my own district, we are already feeling the consequences
of these cuts. The University of Minnesota's Midwest Center for
Occupational Health and Safety is one of just 18 NIOSH-funded
Education and Research Centers in the Nation. It trains the
next generation of workplace safety experts in the region and
helps protect our workers in high-risk industries. Without
NIOSH, the invaluable research and workforce development
provided by that center and others like it across the country
will be lost.
That means fewer trained medical and safety professionals,
less research capacity to prevent fatal accidents, and
ultimately more injuries, more deaths, and more grieving
families.
Democrats are committed to honoring those workers who have
been harmed or killed on the job, not just with words, but with
action to change the system.
Recently, Ranking Member Scott, Representative Courtney,
and I reintroduced the Protecting America's Workers Act, a bill
that would make long overdue improvements to the enforcement of
the Occupational and Safety and Health Act. This bill would
expand coverage to millions of workers currently excluded from
the law's protections and strengthen whistleblower protections.
These reforms are critical to preventing the most serious
violations that endanger worker safety.
Democrats are also championing legislation to protect
health care and social workers from violence, to make mining
safer, and to prevent illness, injury from extreme heat. This
is what it means to have an agenda to ensure safety.
With that in mind, I hope that we can have a productive
discussion today. Thank you, and I yield back.
[The Statement of Ranking Member Omar follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Mackenzie. Pursuant to Committee Rule 8-C, all
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., 14 days
after this hearing. Without objection, the hearing record will
remain open for 14 days to allow such statements and other
extraneous material noted during the hearing to be submitted
for the official hearing record.
I note that the Subcommittee--there may be some of my
colleagues who are joining who are not permanent members of the
Subcommittee, they may be waiving on for the purpose of today's
hearing.
Now, for the introduction of witnesses, I will start. Our
first witness is Mr. Jake Parson, the President of the
Northeast Division of CRH Americas Materials in West Hartford,
Connecticut, testifying on behalf of the National Association
of Manufacturers.
Our second witness is Mr. Ben Tresselt, the President and
Owner of Arborist Enterprises in Lancaster, Pennsylvania,
testifying on behalf of the Tree Care Industry Association.
Our third witness is Mr. Jordan Barab, the former Deputy
Assistant Secretary of OSHA from Takoma Park, Maryland. Our
final witness is Ms. Felicia Watson, Senior Counsel for Littler
Mendelson in Washington, DC.
We want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today,
and we look forward to each of your testimoneys. Pursuant to
Committee rules, I will ask that each of you limit your oral
testimony to a 3-minute summary of the written testimony that
you provided. The clock will count down from 3 minutes as
Committee members have many questions for you, and we will--we
would like to spend our time doing as many questions as
possible.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 8-D, the Committee practice,
however, is that we will not cutoff testimony until you reach
the 5-minute mark. I would like to also remind the witnesses to
be aware of their responsibility to provide accurate
information to the Subcommittee, and with that, I will
recognize our first testifier today, Mr. Parson, you can please
begin.
STATEMENT OF MR. JAKE PARSON, PRESIDENT, NORTHEAST DIVISION,
CRH AMERICAS MATERIALS, WEST HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT, ON BEHALF
OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS.
Mr. Parson. Good morning, Chairman Mackenzie, Ranking
Member Omar, and members of the Subcommittee. As you have said,
my name is Jake Parson, and I am proud to serve as the Division
President for the Northeast Division of CRH Americas Materials.
In 1952, my great grandfather founded Jack B. Parson
Companies in Brigham City, Utah, with a simple, but powerful
ambition, to build and to make a difference. That spirit has
guided four generations of our family in the construction
materials industry, and I carry it with me in my role at CRH
today.
CRH is the largest building materials company in the world.
Our 50,000 employees across 48 states helped build the
infrastructure you depend on, and craft the backyards you
enjoy.
You may not know us as CRH, but you might know us as Pennsy
Supply in Pennsylvania, Michigan Paving in Michigan, Mulzer in
Indiana and Hinkle in Kentucky. CRH takes great pride in our
local communities and takes our responsibility very seriously
to ensure the safety of our employees and our subcontractors.
Common sense labor policies support manufacturing
operations and empower the American worker, but recent actions
by the Department of Labor threaten to impose unworkable rules
that do very little to improve safety. If we want to grow
manufacturing in the U.S., we need to rebalance regulations
that costs manufacturers 350 billion every year.
This is real money that could be spent on hiring people,
building new facilities, and creating new products. OSHA has
put forward costly rules that ignore the complexity of U.S.
manufacturing.
One problematic regulation is the proposed Heat Rule. A one
size fits all heat standard ignores the work manufacturers
already do to protect our employees, and it ignores the unique
ways in which it is done.
When it comes to heat, what makes sense for Maine does not
make sense in Texas. During my time leading an asphalt
production and paving business in Texas, I saw firsthand how
extreme heat impacts our teams, and how local expertise and
adaptive safety measures are critical. Now, overseeing similar
operations in the northeast, I face a completely different
climate, and set of challenges.
Any standard must reflect the realities of our industry,
and the diverse environments in which we operate. The proposed
rule imposes significant mandates on manufacturers, without
fully grappling with, or understanding whether they are
feasible or cost-effective. The result would be reduced
production, and ultimately fewer jobs.
We can do better. Working together, manufacturers will
continue to communicate best practices already in place to
protect our employees. Collaboration is going to become
increasingly important. This is the best path forward to keep
workers safe and grow our economy. I am proud to continue my
family's tradition, leading thousands of Americans, workers at
CRH.
Manufacturers in America provide safe, well-paying jobs
that strengthen our communities. We will continue to support
OSHA in its mission of safety and provide this Committee with
the input you need to make sound policy. Working together, we
can enhance our Nation's economic competitiveness and empower
the American worker.
Thank you for inviting me to testify today, and I look
forward to your questions.
[The Statement of Mr. Parson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Mackenzie. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Tresselt
for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF MR. BEN TRESSELT, PRESIDENT AND OWNER, ARBORIST
ENTERPRISES, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA ON BEHALF OF THE TREE CARE
INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
Mr. Tresselt. Chairman Mackenzie, Ranking Member Omar, and
distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank you so much
for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Ben Tresselt,
and I am the President of Arborist Enterprises, a total tree
care company located in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
I am also the former Chairman of the Tree Care Industry
Association. I am here today to urge OSHA to finalize a long
overdue safety standard for tree care, one that reflects OSHA's
core mission of protecting workers through clear, practical
rules. Tree care is an extremely technical and very hazardous
occupation.
Crews work aloft using chain saws, aerial lifts and cranes
often near homes, roads and power lines. Tree care workers
suffer serious injuries and fatalities well above the national
averages, making our industry one of the most hazardous. That
is why at our company we have worked hard to build a safety-
first culture. We perform safety job assessments before every
project, provide and maintain high quality climbing and
protective gear for our employees, and follow the ANSI Z133,
our industry's consensus safety standard.
Safety is at the core of how we hire, train and operate.
Despite these efforts, OSHA continues to regulate our industry
through a patchwork of standards that do not reflect the unique
hazards or work conditions of tree care. This creates confusion
and places unnecessary compliance burdens on employers trying
to do the right thing.
Crane access into the tree is one clear example. In many
cases, lifting a climber into a tree using a crane is the
safest option, especially when the tree is structurally
compromised in a tight space, or located above a hazard. The
ANSI Z133 supports this safe method.
Several State OSHA plans also support it, but the Federal
OSHA still applies a general rule of cranes, prohibiting
lifting climbers into the tree, leaving the employer vulnerable
to citation. At the same time, OHSA maintains five regional
emphasis programs that explicitly direct inspectors to identify
tree care operations, but once they do, there is no tree care
specific standard to apply.
It is a nationwide enforcement effort without the right
tools to carry it out effectively. In 2020, I served on OSHA's
SBREFA's panel concerning tree care safety standard. The
recommended outcome was clear, move forward with an OSHA
standard grounded in the ANSI Z133, yet OSHA has delayed the
Rule at least eight times while more complex rules have
advanced.
A dedicated tree care safety standard will not expand the
rule book, but it will clarify it by replacing outdated,
misapplied rules with ones tailored to our type of work. In
short, this kind of smart focused standard is exactly what OSHA
was designed to deliver, a standard that protects workers,
supports responsible businesses, and makes regulation more
effective.
I respectfully urge the Subcommittee to ensure OSHA
finalizes a safety standard for tree care. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify, and I will welcome your questions.
[The Statement of Mr. Tresselt follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Mackenzie. Thank you. Next I will recognize Mr.
Barab for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF MR. JORDAN BARAB, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF OSHA (2009-2017), TAKOMA PARK, MARYLAND
Mr. Barab. Thank you for inviting me here to testify, but I
will take issue with the title of this hearing. OSHA's problem
is not overreach but, rather, underreach. Last year I told this
Committee about Gabriel Infante, a Texas construction worker
who died of heat stroke, a death that would have been prevented
had OSHA's Heat Standard been in place.
These preventable tragedies continue. Last August,
Baltimore Public Works employee Ron Silver II tragically died
of heat stroke. The State of Maryland has since issued a tough
Heat Standard, a standard that would have saved Ron Silver's
life.
More than 712,000 workers now can say their lives have been
saved since the passage of the Occupational Safety and Health
Act. Far fewer workers are dying today from asbestos-related
disease, or diseases caused by exposure to lead, formaldehyde
because of OSHA's standards. OSHA standards have significantly
reduced deaths in confined spaces and deep trenches. Fewer
workers fall to their deaths, or have their limbs crushed in
machinery. Work-related Hepatitis B deaths have virtually been
eliminated since OSHA issued its Bloodborne Pathogen Standard,
and I could go on and on.
Unfortunately, despite the lives saved by OSHA, the
original mission of the agency to assure the safety and health
of American workers through enforcement of OSHA standards has
not been realized.
It is difficult to comprehend today, but only 3 Senators
and 58 Representatives voted against passage of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act in 1970. OSHA is a tiny
agency with a miniscule budget, and an enormous mission to
ensure the work safety in 11.8 million workplaces, covering 161
million workers.
In Fiscal Year 2024, OSHA had only 1,800 inspectors, one
inspector for every 84,937 workers. If OSHA was to inspect
every workplace in the country just once, it would take 185
years, almost two centuries, and it only promises to get worse.
OSHA has lost 10 percent of its staff due to early retirements,
and very little likelihood that any of these positions will be
refilled.
This is hardly a recipe for reclaiming OSHA's mission.
OSHA's standard setting process is in shambles. It can take
7 to 10 to 20 years to issue a single OSHA standard.
The founders of this Act would undoubtedly be shocked and
disappointed if they knew what had become of OSHA today. They
never would have envisioned an agency that would take decades
to issue a standard and centuries to inspect workplaces. This
is a clear example of underreach, and the main solution is not
difficult, significantly increase funding for OSHA's
enforcement and standards program and modernize the law.
While this hearing focuses on OSHA's mission, I cannot
ignore the chaos at NIOSH because the functioning of NIOSH is
critical to the mission of OSHA.
Almost the entire NIOSH staff was RIF-ed last month, and a
few were brought back and restored a couple of days ago because
of a court order.
NIOSH provides lifesaving support to miners suffering from
black lung disease, workers in the agriculture and fishing
industry, firefighters who have suffered disproportionately
from cancer and heart disease, provides compensation to 9/11
workers, as well as to America's nuclear veterans who built
America's nuclear arsenal.
Most of these workers have not been brought back, and their
programs are not operating, despite Secretary Kennedy's claims
that they are just being reorganized. I am sorry to say, but
Secretary Kennedy was lying at yesterday's Senate hearing when
he claimed that no working scientists at HHS were fired.
Hundreds of working scientists and engineers at NIOSH have been
RIF-ed.
Before closing, I want to emphasize the importance of some
of the standards that OSHA should prioritize. First, the Heat
Standard. More workers died from heat working in construction
than any other industry last year. At least 55 workers died
from heat on the job in 2023, which was a 28 percent increase
from 2022, and 121 workers died from the effects of heat from
2017 to 2022.
The solutions laid out in OSHA's proposal are simple,
flexible, inexpensive, desperately needed, and long overdue.
COVID-19, Ebola, Avian Flu, Tuberculosis, MRSA, are just a few
of the infectious diseases that healthcare workers are not
protected from because, aside from bloodborne pathogens, there
is no infectious disease standard.
The danger is obvious. Thousands of health care workers
died from COVID during the COVID pandemic. Assaults against
health care workers and social service workers are a serious
problem, and a standard is clearly needed. In fact, this House
has twice passed bipartisan legislation requiring OSHA to issue
a standard.
To restore OSHA's mission and prevent underreach, Congress
should first significantly increase OSHA's enforcement and
standard setting budget. Second, pass legislation enabling OSHA
to quickly update antiquated standards for toxic substances and
other hazards.
Third, urge OSHA to issue heat, infectious disease, tree
care, violence and emergency response standards, and finally
permanently restore NIOSH. Thank you.
[The Statement of Mr. Barab follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Mackenzie. Thank you. Last, I will recognize Ms.
Watson for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF MS. FELICIA WATSON, SENIOR COUNSEL, LITTLER
MENDELSON, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Ms. Watson. Good morning, Chairman Mackenzie, Ranking
Member Omar, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today about the important topic of
ensuring OSHA's mission without overreach. I am here today to
emphasize the shared goal of increasing compliance with the OSH
Act, while safeguarding the ability of employers and employees
to thrive in their chosen professions.
With more than two decades in the residential construction
industry, I have observed some consistent themes within OSHA's
regulatory and enforcement effort and would like the
Subcommittee to consider these points. First, OSHA already has
the ability to address worker walk around employee
representation, instance-by-instance, and the Severe Violator
Enforcement Program.
OSHA has shifted away from its original mission of focusing
on workplace safety, into the role of a disciplinarian,
evidenced by the update to the instance-by-instance policy, and
expansion from applying only to willful citations, to all
others, including other than serious violations specific to
record keeping.
Multiple record keeping violations do not improve workplace
safety. Likewise, the Worker Walk Around Amendments were
unnecessary because they addressed a non-existent issue. There
was no actual concern to be remedies.
Processes already existed to ensure employees were fully
able to participate in any inspection, but the agency broadened
who could participate as an employee representative to non-
party, third party--excuse me, non-employee third-party
representatives, but with no requirements that these
individuals have any particular expertise, which seems contrary
to the regulation's requirement of good cause and reasonably
necessary.
Even more problematic is that the OSHA inspector has
ultimate authority to decide whether good cause and reasonably
necessary requirements have been met. This expansion also
leaves employers with no recourse if the OSHA inspector decides
to allow a non-employee third party to participate in that
inspection.
As with the worker walkaround, OSHA's updates to the
instance-by-instance and Severe Violator Enforcement Program,
it can already be addressed by rules that are currently in
effect. Neither of these add anything to improving safety.
OSHA's stated purpose for changing instance-by-instance is to
make OSHA penalties more effective.
How does that comport with OSHA's own statement that a
general contractor, for example, can end up on the Severe
Violator Enforcement Program, even if none of its own employees
are exposed to the hazard? These changes ignore the underlying
causes, and the focus instead should be away from penalizing
employers and finding solutions to these issues.
The burden on employers involving paperwork requirements
has increased exponentially, taking the pending heat
regulation, the focus is so much on having written plans,
updating these plans, keeping records of indoor temperatures,
that it leaves employers with little time to focus on safety.
Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your questions.
[The Statement of Ms. Watson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Mackenzie. Thank you. Under Committee Rule 9, we
will now ask questions of the witnesses for 5 minutes, and I
will recognize myself first. First, Mr. Parson, if the
Department of Labor were to move forward with establishing a
heat standard, your written testimony calls for a performance-
oriented approach to mitigate heat related hazards.
What are the benefits of that kind of approach versus the
approach that the Biden administration proposed under their
heat standard?
Mr. Parson Thank you for the question. It really provides
flexibility. A performance-oriented approach would tie specific
standards to specific areas, and help industry craft a solution
that makes sense for where they are and so, an overall standard
sets it up really to fail, and the record keeping associated
with it, and the time taken to administer it would almost be
impossible.
It is not a novel ideal necessarily for OSHA. Most
employers take great care at looking after heat exhaustion of
their employees as it is, and so a real local performance-based
approach makes a lot more sense.
Chairman Mackenzie. Well, I appreciate that. Again, I think
we share the desire for worker safety and having standards in
place to protect against heat related hazards, but again, I
think you correctly identified the lack of flexibility, the
overzealous paperwork requirements that kind of bog down this
proposal, and ultimately make it unworkable across the country.
Mr. Tresselt, in your written testimony you highlight the
benefits of putting a Federal tree care standard in place.
Those benefits would likely extend to employers, employees, and
even OSHA compliance and safety officers conducting
inspections, or helping with compliance assistance efforts. Can
you further explain how creating a standard would be a win/win
for everybody involved?
Mr. Tresselt. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. The
standard, as you know in our industry, is very hazardous. We
have a lot of things going on. We have many workplace problems.
A standard would help unify that so that we can work in
conjunction with our employees, our employers, and OSHA. By
unifying this standard, we would get rid of the patchwork that
occurs right now.
We do not really have a standard that addresses all of our
concerns as far as what we see on a daily basis in safety. I
know in my business we have a lot of concerns because if we had
an OSHA inspection, we might be called out on things that might
not pertain to exactly what we are doing, and we might be doing
something that is completely safe under the Z133 but may not be
a standard that is already in the OSHA Rule.
Unifying this would help us protect our workers. It would
help employers have a guideline on how to help their workers
and would give all the citation over to the OSHA people a clear
picture of what we are doing, and judge us on that, not on a
standard that would not reflect what we actually do out in the
workplace.
Chairman Mackenzie. Well, thank you for that. That was a
prime example of where I think we can improve worker safety,
and do it in partnership, in conjunction with the feedback that
we are getting from the industry. It has been a missed
opportunity I think for a long time that administrations in the
past have talked about it, ultimately been unsuccessful in
doing that.
In the last administration, my opinion is they were again,
because of their overreach and focus on things that OSHA should
not have been doing, they were missing the actual opportunity
to protect and improve worker safety in an industry like yours,
so thank you for that.
Final question goes to Ms. Watson. Your background includes
decades of experience with home builders. Can you speak to the
elements of the Biden proposed Heat Rule that would have had a
significant impact on the construction industry?
Ms. Watson. Thank you for the question. Yes. The elements
of that rule that would affect the home building industry,
residential construction, actually all construction when you
think about it. You have got to have a written heat plan if you
have ten or more employees on the job site. Most residential
home builders do not have that many employees.
Oftentimes, that is an industry that is filled with
specialty-trade subcontractors, and so, they would not be their
employees, so a small home builder might only have two or three
or four people, so in theory they would only need to have a
verbal plan. To show compliance and demonstrate compliance with
all of the requirements in the proposed heat rule they would
effectively have to have a written plan, because otherwise how
can they demonstrate to OSHA that they have analyzed all the
jobsite hazards for those workers that they have trained them
on heat, and all the 16 elements in the training requirements
that they have done the emergency response, that everybody
knows what the phone numbers are to summon emergency medical
services.
All of those things can be extremely burdensome, and then
the fact that they would have to, per the regulation, post it
at the jobsite. If they do not have to have a written plan, per
the proposed regulation, how are they going to post something
that is not required to be written?
Chairman Mackenzie. Appreciate your feedback there. Housing
affordability is a critically important issue for so many
people all across the country, and we hear time and time again
that one of the things impeding home building is the amount of
regulations, just a pile of regulations that make it difficult
for them to operate.
Next, I will go to our Ranking Member for her 5-minute
questioning.
Ms. Omar. Mr. Barab, in your testimony, you stressed the
critical partnership of NIOSH with OSHA and MSHA. What happens
to the work of OSHA and MSHA to protect workers, including
firefighters and miners, if the Trump administration continues
down the path to fire large numbers of NIOSH employees?
Mr. Barab. Yes. NIOSH plays an extremely critical role in
protecting both miners, as you have mentioned, and
firefighters. Let me start with firefighters. Firefighters are
known to suffer a very high incidence and disproportionately
from cancers as well as respiratory disease.
NIOSH basically assembles a register of firefighters that
protects them and identifies the risks that firefighters face.
They are the only agency that does this, and although some
positions at NIOSH have been restored, the firefighter registry
has not been restored yet, which leaves firefighters across the
country--these are the guys that rush in to homes to protect
us, you know, without the kind of knowledge and protections
they need to prevent them from getting cancer and heart
disease.
The mine issue is much more critical. Miners are suffering
a much higher rate of black lung disease because of their
exposure to silica in the mines these days. A disease called
progressive massive fibrosis, which hits miners at a much
younger age, you know, miners in their 30's and 40's are unable
to climb the stairs. They end up dying many decades earlier
than they would have.
It is a tragedy, and a preventable tragedy, and NIOSH
provides the kind of--they provide surveillance, health care to
miners, they require miners to be transferred to less dusty
positions. They are critical for the safety of miners.
Now, some of those positions have been restored as well,
but none of the mine functions that deal with safety in mines,
with the machinery in mines, other things like developing
technology that will measure silica exposure on a daily basis,
instead of having to send the samples out and waiting weeks
until you find out if you were overexposed 2 weeks ago. All of
those functions are gone.
Ms. Omar. Yes. I know that yesterday Secretary Kennedy
announced a reinstatement of around one-third of the NIOSH
staff who were targeted for reduction in force. What are some
of the NIOSH workers that will be left unstaffed if the NIOSH
employees are not reinstated immediately?
Mr. Barab. Yes, well I mentioned firefighter staff, and
some of the--a lot of the mine safety staff, but also NIOSH
does health hazard evaluations, for example. They go in, and
they investigate when you find a lot of workers getting sick in
a workplace for no discernible reasons.
NIOSH will go in there and try to figure out what is
happening. NIOSH plays a role in preventing the transmission of
Avian Influenza in workplaces. Fishermen and agricultural
workers have some of the highest death rates and injury rates
in the American economy. NIOSH works on technical issues and
researching ways to make jobs safer for those workers.
There is just an enormous number of things that NIOSH does
that nobody really knows about, except for the workers whose
lives are extended and the injuries are prevented from the work
of NIOSH.
Ms. Omar. Thank you. I ask unanimous consent to enter into
the record a letter from the National Safety Council of the
importance for business leaders of the work of OSHA and NIOSH.
Chairman Mackenzie. Without objection.
[The information of Ms. Omar follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Omar. As I mentioned in my opening statement that there
is a NIOSH-funded Education and Research Center in my district
that will be impacted by these cuts. This center, and others
like it are in universities around the country, fulfill NIOSH's
responsibility under the Occupational Safety and Health Act,
not only to facilitate important research, but also to ensure a
steady supply of experts.
Mr. Barab, how important is it to have a field of experts
trained specifically in occupational safety and health?
Mr. Barab. It is crucial. I mean these are the people that
run our health and safety system, and not just at OSHA, or not
just in NIOSH, throughout industry as well. You know, these are
people that received their education largely through NIOSH
Education and Research Centers, Resource Centers.
You can look at doctors and occupational physicians, NIOSH
runs these ERCs, run the residence programs for the ERCs to get
to train occupational physicians. I went to a conference,
actually a New York City conference a couple of weeks ago in
New York, and I asked--so this is probably a couple hundred
people there--I asked how many of their--and these were people
from I mean they were from businesses, from unions, from
universities, from health groups, I asked how many of them
either in whole, or in part whose careers depended on the work
that the ERCs did. Every single person in the room raised their
hand.
If we lose this pipeline, if we lose those people we will
have a major shortage of health and safety professionals in
this country, and that can do nothing but not only endanger
workers, but also raise the price, you know, for companies who
are trying to hire health and safety professionals who have to
deal with these shortages.
Ms. Omar. Thank you, I yield back.
Chairman Mackenzie. Next, we will go to Mr. Messmer from
Indiana.
Mr. Messmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for all
the witnesses for being here today. As currently proposed,
OSHA's Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule is unworkable,
overly prescriptive, and out of step of the practical realities
of balancing regulatory compliance and operational needs.
It is a one-size-fits-all framework. It fails to account
for a wide variation in work environments across the
industries, including differences in job functions and
geographic climates. Ms. Watson, while we all agree on the
importance of protecting workers' health and safety, how could
this rule be revised to allow employers to tailor compliance
strategies to their specific circumstances?
Ms. Watson. Thank you for the question, sir. I think one of
the main reasons, or one of the main ways that it can be
revised to actually be workable is to really focus on even
something that formed the basis of OSHA's national emphasis
program on heat, and that is water, rest, shade, but also
having training, which is also part of OSHA's existing national
emphasis program.
Really focusing on what it means, what it looks like, how
to recognize the signs and symptoms of heat illness, and heat
stroke, what to do in that emergency, and focus on those
elements, providing water, providing shade.
Many of the home builders I have spoken with across the
country when this first--when this rule first hit OSHA's radar
of doing a rulemaking, prior to even the advanced notice of
proposed rulemaking was how do we keep this simple? How do we
get this so everybody understands what they are supposed to do,
and that they can comply with it, and it needs to be flexible.
I have talked to builders in New Mexico who say 80 degrees
is a great day to build. It is perfect weather. You might have
something completely different in Florida, so the heat triggers
are a little bit difficult, but really the focus of a program,
or a regulation should be water, rest, shade, rest breaks when
they need them, not necessarily mandated every 2 hours, under
the heat trigger is proposed.
Having something that is clear and straightforward and
provides that flexibility for the type of jobsite it is, or
workplace it is, but also, that the employees can understand.
It needs to use terms that are simple and clearcut. A lot of
employees struggle with that word ``climatization.'' How do you
say it? What does it mean? What does it really look like in
practice?
That reality needs to be that it has to be something that
is workable that everybody understands. It is simple and
straightforward. The more complex, the more burdensome the
regulation is for rulemaking and record keeping. That just
makes it harder for small businesses, especially to handle.
Thank you.
Mr. Messmer. Mr. Parson, the Biden OSHA ignored calls from
employers to consider the climate, that the climate varies from
region to region. What may be considered an extreme temperature
in one part of the country could be normal in another. How does
the geographic location of employees determine the best way to
protect them from heat related injuries and illnesses?
Mr. Parson. I think it is similar to what Ms. Watson said,
the challenges in Texas are different than the challenges in
Maine, and the geographies are different. The employees are
different, and they are used to working in different climates,
and so having a standard that says this fits everybody and is
going to work for everybody makes no sense.
In my career, we are paving roads in Austin, Texas in July,
and you could imagine the heat involved with that. Local
management, providing local solutions, and looking after your
own employees there on the ground makes much more sense than
prescription in this case, and so trying to figure out what
that means is going to be important.
Mr. Messmer. OK. Thank you. Could you go into detail on if
the Heat Rule was enacted, you know how the Heat Rule would
negatively impact members of your Association, and what changes
you would have to make to comply with the rule?
Mr. Parson. It would definitely increase costs, and likely
decrease productivity, so it is going to get in the way of
making progress on the things that we are trying to do.
Mr. Messmer. OK, thank you. Ms. Watson, is there a way
under existing law that the Federal Government could supersede
State heat standards to regulatory action?
Ms. Watson. Your Honor, excuse me, sir, I think the problem
with that potentially is in not having looked at this issue in
detail, is that the OSH Act itself allows states to come up
with their own plans, provided that they are at least as
effective as Federal OSHA. Now, while Federal OSHA has never
identified or defined what, at least is effective as means, the
states do have the ability to come up with their plans.
With respect to any type of preemption, that would be
difficult, and that would take thorough analysis, which I do
not think the Committee needs to hear at this point, but it
should be something that is focused and consistent across the
states. I mean I think that is one of the issues with a lot of
the people I have spoken with that fall under the scope of this
is that the rules in all these different states are
conflicting.
If a business has multiple locations, each one is going to
be slightly different, and I think that inconsistency is
extremely problematic.
Mr. Messmer. Thank you, I yield back my time.
Chairman Mackenzie. Thank you. Mr. Casar from Texas.
Mr. Casar. Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Parson, so to be clear,
your organization, you all are advocating against the heat
standard as proposed under the last administration. Is that
correct?
Mr. Parson. That is correct.
Mr. Casar. You were just talking about paving streets in
Austin, Texas. I happened to be an Austin City Council member
just recently, helping make sure that we pave those streets,
and it sounded like you were saying that we have different
conditions in Maine, as we do in Texas.
What I am confused about is when it is 90 degrees in
Austin, or 90 degrees in Maine, 90 degrees is still about 90
degrees, correct?
Mr. Parson. Correct.
Mr. Casar. Do you think that it is appropriate for someone
to have to work outdoors paving streets, or up on a scaffold in
90-degree heat, or 95-degree heat, or 100-degree heat for four
or 5 hours without being allowed to come off the scaffold, or
without being allowed to take a water break?
Mr. Parson. No, sir.
Mr. Casar. Would your organization be in favor of having a
baseline requirement that let us say it is a 90-degree day that
you are not allowed to have somebody out there working on the
scaffold, without coming down, for four or 5 hours without
taking a water break?
Mr. Parson. Yes, I think our view would be more flexibility
in the mandate, so exactly what you are saying. When does that
make sense? How do you manage it? How do you implement it,
rather than a hard and fast rule.
Mr. Casar. You--so you would oppose a rule that said if you
are working in 90-degree heat, and 90 degrees happens more
often in Austin than it does in Maine?
Mr. Parson. Correct.
Mr. Casar. It does happen in both places. If you were
working paving a road in Austin, Texas, or in Maine, would you
be opposed to a rule that said you cannot go--have to go work
four or 5 hours and without taking a drink of water in 90-
degree heat paving a road?
Mr. Parson. No. I would not be opposed to a rule that says
that.
Mr. Casar. You would not be opposed to that rule?
Mr. Parson. Correct.
Mr. Casar. Thank you for that. I appreciate that answer.
Ms. Watson, could you tell me the same? If somebody is working
in 90-degree heat for four or 5 hours paving a road up on a
scaffold, would you be opposed to a rule nationwide that says
no, we cannot have somebody working four or 5 hours in over 90-
degree heat without being able to take a break?
Ms. Watson. No, sir. There would be no opposition to that,
and the idea being working in temperatures like that is that
they take their rest breaks as needed.
Mr. Casar. Yes. I think that people likely need to take
rest breaks more often than that, but I think it is helpful to
hear because I heard your advocacy. I appreciate that while
there may be some differences around the Biden-era rule as it
relates to acclimatization, which I understand is yes, not the
easiest word to say, or differences or questions on some of the
different triggers, that at least it sounds like there is some
level of agreement between the witnesses here.
Me, a progressive Democrat that was for the Biden-era rule
at least on saying we should not have folks out there working
four or 5 hours straight in over 90-degree heat without being
allowed to take a drink of water, having that kind of a
rulemakes sense it sounds like to me, across industries and
across the aisle, and that is very helpful, and I appreciate
it.
Mr. Barab, I thought that one of the things you said
earlier about OSHA was very important, when you said that at
current staffing levels it was going to take a really long time
for OSHA to investigate every workplace in America. Can you
remind us how many years it would take for OSHA to investigate
every workplace?
Mr. Barab. Yes. In 2024, it would take 185 years, that is
almost two centuries.
Mr. Casar. With OSHA getting stretched so thin, I think
that major employers that do not focus enough on workplace
safety can count on their workplace never being investigated.
Last year, at a Tesla factory in my district, a worker was
electrocuted to death because Tesla failed to follow OSHA
regulations that would have protected him.
That was the second death at that factory in my district in
Southeast Austin. Tesla was fined just $50,000 for their
worker's death. For a company valued at about a trillion
dollars, that is a drop in the bucket. In fact, on his Federal
Government contracts alone, Elon Musk makes that $50,000 back
in 9 minutes, and in my view, workers' lives are worth much
more than 9 minutes of that man's time.
What kind of penalty is that really? In my view, this is
not--we are not facing a situation where we are talking about
OSHA overreach. In my view, what we need to have is a
sufficiently staffed OSHA that all employers feel like they
have got to play by the rules because an employer does not feel
like--they do not know if they are that one employer that gets
inspected every 180 years.
We have got to be protecting workers lives, and I actually
really do appreciate the testimony today, where even if there
is some disagreement on things like a baseline Heat Rule, that
maybe we could at least agree, gosh, if you are working in
Texas, where in my district in the San Antonio part of my
district, we might hit 105 this week, the highest temperature
ever recorded in San Antonio history in the month of May.
We have got to be able to come together and say workers'
lives are worth a lot more than they are being priced right
now. Thank you so much, and I yield back.
Chairman Mackenzie. Thank you. Ms. Miller from Illinois.
Ms. Miller. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you to our
witnesses for being here today. Just to set the record
straight, republicans support common sense policies that reduce
regulations, while keeping our workplace environment safe. Our
mission is to protect workers, not just from hazards, but also
from the crushing weight of Washington's failed bureaucratic
overreach.
Time and again we have seen top-down mandates that
negatively impact job creation, and workers across the country.
Employers are job creators and should be seen as active
partners in creating safe work environments. Democrats continue
to treat employers as greedy, money grabbers who do not care
about the well-being of their employees.
For instance, the Biden administration's OSHA issued a
rushed proposal on heat injury and illness prevention that had
the potential to wreak havoc on businesses and communities
across the country. Republicans, on the other hand, understand
that government red tape can hinder a business, and its
employees, rather than create a positive work environment.
The bottom line is that the Biden Harris OSHA drafted
regulations, based on party politics for cheap votes, were not
keeping workers safer. Republicans are here to fix the problem,
so my question is for Ms. Watson. Your written testimony says
that Biden's OSHA took the form of a ``strict disciplinarian,''
citing the expansion of the Severe Violator Enforcement
Program, and instance-by-instance citation policy.
Can you please discuss what those policies were, and how
they were expanded under President Biden?
Ms. Watson. Yes. Good morning, thank you for the question.
The instance-by-instance policy used to focus on willful
violations. What that meant is if there was a willful
violation, that is something where an employer had been acting
badly, basically, repeatedly, so that would lend itself to
repeated violations that would end up putting them on the
willful scope.
Those citations, they could be cited for every instance of
a violation of that standard. The problem is that with the
expansion it is focused on the instance by instance now also
includes record keeping. Let us say for example, an employer
does not fill in their 300 logs, the OSHA logs that they are
supposed to complete, and maybe they do not check a box, and
maybe they miss that box every single time they fill out that
form.
Each one of those failures to check that box is a
violation. That is an instance-by-instance. It is a paperwork
issue. It is not a safety issue. Another example that I used in
my testimony is, let us take OSHA's proposed Heat Rule. You
have employees. You have maybe 8 or 10 employees on a job site
who run out of water, but no one tells their manager.
Nobody tells their supervisor, so the employer doesn't know
about that. Then let us say that an OSHA inspector comes out
and finds that they ran out of water, so the employer would get
cited--could be cited ten times for failing to provide water
for their employees on that job site, even though the employer
did not know about it.
Let us say that that water was not suitably cool. That
could be another element of another instance-by-instance
violation. While the failure to provide water is a safety
issue, if the employer did not know about it, and nobody told
the employer that they were out of water, then obviously that
is a problem, and the employee should have been able to tell
the employer, but the fact is that--and they can litigate that
certainly.
They have that ability to go and do that, but in that
instance, in that situation they could be subject to up to 20,
if you have 10 employees for each time that they violated those
requirements it is per employee. That is problematic. I think
the record keeping is really problematic because it is a
paperwork thing.
The paperwork violations do nothing to help and improve
safety.
Ms. Miller. Well, I guess that is an example of the
crushing weight of Washington's bureaucratic overreach. Mr.
Parson, the Biden administration released its proposed heat
standard in July 2024, but this rule was just a mandate
designed to appease climate change activists. The proposed rule
fails to account for the vastly different climates in different
parts of the country, and so how did this--how would this
proposed rule negatively impact your business?
Mr. Parson. Yes, we talked about that a little bit earlier.
I think definitely more administrative need, and more costly
goods to produce. It is going to make everything more
expensive. The safety of our teams is our No. 1 priority, and
that is true for all businesses that I have been a part of
anyway.
If you set that as kind of the baseline, we are going to
try to do whatever we can to keep our employees safe and
productive and willfully employed and so, trying to figure out
how to craft that is priority No. 1 for us.
Ms. Miller. Thank you.
Chairman Mackenzie. Thank you. Next, we have Ms. Stevens
from Michigan.
Ms. Stevens. Mr. Tresselt, last night at about 10:30 I sent
my dad a text message. It was a screenshot of a I guess what
would look like a poster, but its title was, ``Advice from a
Tree. Stand tall and proud. Go out on a limb. Remember your
roots, drink plenty of water. Be content with your natural
beauty, enjoy the view.'' Would you agree with the message that
I sent my dad?
Mr. Tresselt. Thank you, Congresswoman. Absolutely I would
agree with that. I think that is a lovely poem.
Ms. Stevens. I also just messaged my father to see what he
was doing because I thought he would really like to meet you.
My dad is a landscaper. He loved trees. He loves arborists. He
loves people who are in the business you are in. He was born in
1945 in Detroit on Comstock Street.
He has been in this tree space for a long time. He ran a
landscape business. He actually still runs a landscape
business. Every day I call my dad and ask him, ``Dad, are you
drinking enough water,'' because he is out there in these
jobsites still, you know, he has got his Ford F-150 with
Stevens Landscape on the side of it.
He is signing up jobs. Again, dad turned 80 in January, but
I think you might understand why somebody like a proud Michigan
man like my father loves what he does, and loves to design, and
loves to work with people like yourself. I just wanted to take
a moment of personal privilege to share an exchange on that,
and I will have to followup with you potentially after the
hearing.
Would you say you are a small business, sir?
Mr. Parson. Yes, that is correct.
Ms. Stevens. Yes, so you know, you are signing up jobs, you
are working, you know, and you are taking care of your crew and
your team I have to imagine. Look, I appreciate what Mr. Casar
shared about this terrible death in the factory, and that
should not have happened, and it is outrageous.
You are nowhere near the size of Tesla, is that right?
Mr. Parson. No, ma'am.
Ms. Stevens. Yes, so, you know, I am sure you also care
that, you know, we have got these, you know, maybe some of this
mismanagement, and we should not have any loss of life. To Mr.
Parson, you know, what your enterprise is up to is really
fantastic, you know, and we like that you are paving roads in
Austin. We want you to pave roads in Michigan too, and we know
you do. We know you do.
It is really quite remarkable because, you know, we have
the snow and the ice, and we are always having to repave our
roads. We have got a lot of potholes, OK, and we want people at
work, and we are really proud of frankly the bipartisan work
that you have been a part of, and I really see you as a part of
it because you helped us pass an Infrastructure Bill.
We needed to do that. We need the people working in
infrastructure. Now, Mr. Barab, OK, you were in charge of OSHA?
Mr. Barab. I was Deputy Assistant Secretary.
Ms. Stevens. Deputy, OK. You are right, you know, it is 185
years to go. We do not want it like coming down on these small
businesses. We want you partnering with people properly. We
want people drinking water. We do not want people in the heat.
How many people from OSHA that you remember, you know, came out
of the, you know, maybe the businesses that Mr. Parson and Mr.
Tresselt were a part of?
Did you employ a lot of people like that at OSHA?
Mr. Barab. We did have a lot of people that, you know,
started off in business, and they are often safety managers in
businesses, and then decided they wanted that as a career, yes.
Ms. Stevens. Yes. How did we get to the place where people
are not being supported in these heat environments? Not
everyone has a daughter like me that cares if their dad is
drinking water?
Mr. Barab. Right. Well, that is why you need a standard
because it actually tells employers what they have to do. The
funny thing is we are, you know, talking about performance
standards, or you know, specification standards. Small
businesses usually like specification standards better, the
word standard actually tells you what you have to do because
otherwise they have to figure it out for themselves, and that
is hard to do.
Small businesses also have something called the Onsite
Consultation Program. They can get free help to comply with
OSHA standards and to make sure their workplaces are safe, so
OSHA is very conscious about the needs and the problems of
small businesses.
Ms. Stevens. Yes. I mean it is an absolutely fascinating
topic because we are experiencing greater heat in this country
and around the world, and you know, it is the next couple of
decades are projected, and you know, it sounds cute, but we do
need to take it seriously. You know, Mr. Chair, I am so proud
to be on this Committee. I am also on the Science Committee,
and I do a lot with the standards there, and standards are
important. Coming out of COVID, standards, health-safety, very
important. The voices on this hearing today are phenomenal, and
we salute you.
From one tree gal to another, you know, man who is in the
tree business, we salute you, sir, and we thank our friends in
the infrastructure with CRH as well. Thank you and I yield
back.
Chairman Mackenzie. Thank you. Next, we go to Mr. Comer
from Kentucky.
Mr. Comer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Parson, it is
great to see you here today. I am glad we have an affiliate
from Hinkle Contracting in Kentucky here speaking at our
Subcommittee hearing. As you know in the mountains and farmland
of Kentucky where Hinkle operates, employers have adapted to
muggy summer temperatures.
Kentucky businesses follow Federal OSHA standards and are
able to meet the needs of their employees as they see fit. OSHA
is set to conduct a public hearing on June 16th to review a
proposed Federal heat standard. The proposed changes include
the implementation of a mandatory 15-minute rest break every 2
hours when the heat index is 90 degrees or higher.
Could you provide some context around how this standard
would disrupt employers' heat protection plans, which are
working in states like Kentucky?
Mr. Parson. I appreciate that question. It is a good one,
and something I have been thinking about a lot in preparation
for this testimony. It sounds easier than it would actually be
to implement. If you think about how that would actually apply
in a business like Hinkle, or like ours, you are out paving, or
you are crushing rock in a quarry.
To be able to manage the schedule that way rather than when
someone needs a break, they are allowed to take a break. I
think we are not little kids, and so we do not necessarily need
a rule that says everything we need to do. We do right by our
people, and we put safety first, and that is worked great for
us to your point. It has worked well.
Mr. Comer. I wonder if that bureaucrat that wrote that
regulation had ever worked 15 minutes in 90-degree weather
doing manual labor.
Mr. Parson. I do not know.
Mr. Comer. Yes. I would not want to bet on that. During the
last administration we saw one-size-fits-all standards
overpower the motions of the American's business's employees.
That was a huge complaint that I had, and many employers had
with the Biden administration. They tried to overregulate with
a one size fits all strategy.
Mr. Parson, what advice would you give the new
administration when considering changes to regulations for
America's diverse manufacturers.
Mr. Parson. I think that is the key word. That is what I
was going to use as well as diverse, so even in our own
industry and infrastructure, we do so many different things. If
you think about all of manufacturing across the United States,
it varies widely. It is indoors, it is outdoors, it is freight,
it is so big that it is impossible to create a standard that
applies to all.
Trying to sort through and figure out something that people
can--that will work, or empowering management is what I would
say, to take care of their people and do the right thing, that
is going to be more powerful.
Mr. Comer. I agree. I would like to say this publicly. I
would strongly encourage the Trump Department of Labor to
consider states which have allowed businesses to maintain
flexibility in meeting the needs of their employees, when
issuing their final Heat Standard Rule, and any other planned
action over the next few years.
You know, some states have had great success. The employees
are happy, you know, they are productive, getting good results
for the taxpayers. In your case, that funding is infrastructure
projects.
Hopefully, the Trump administration would deviate from the
Biden administrations over--regulatory obsession and one-size-
fits-all solutions, so thank you again for being here. I
appreciate Hinkle in Kentucky. I yield back.
Chairman Mackenzie. Thank you. Next, we will go to the
Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr. Scott from Virginia.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Barab, thank you
for joining us again. You have done good work in this
Committee. You have heard about the heat standard. What is
wrong with letting the states decide what the heat standards
would be?
Mr. Barab. Well, I mean nothing is wrong with that. The
problem, I mean in some states, you know, there are about a
half a dozen states now that have very good heat standards that
actually protect workers, but that still leaves, you know, the
rest of the states that do not.
Ideally, you know, what you want is a strong national
standard. If states want to have stronger standards than that,
then that is fine, and that is worked out very well over the
last 50 years, but you really need a strong standard. In the
meantime, the states are doing what they can to fill in the
gaps left.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. There is a Walkaround Rule which has
people joining the walkaround. You mentioned that inspections
can happen once every 185 years, so I suspect if an inspection
is going on there is some concern that has been raised. What
harm, or what good is there for the employees to be able to
select a person to join in the inspection?
Mr. Barab. Yes. The OSHA inspector, when the OSHA inspector
goes to a workplace, there is only so much the OSHA inspector
can figure out, you know, by him or herself. Workers provide an
enormous resource to inspectors, informing them about what is
going on in the workplace, things they may not see, what kind
of processes may be running, or may not be running that day.
Unfortunately, what the law says essentially is that only
workers in unions can have walkaround representatives,
otherwise OSHA has to just kind of randomly talk to other
workers.
What this does, and you know, it existed even before to a
certain extent, it allows OSHA to talk to other experts, or
allows--I should say allows the workers to bring in other
experts to help them, maybe with language difficulties, maybe
with technical issues that the OSHA inspector may not be
familiar with, or to avoid retaliation.
A lot of workers really do not want to talk--do not feel
safe talking to OSHA inspectors on the job. We know this is not
problematic because it has been done before. The Mine Safety
and Health Act, for example, allows, you know, third party
worker representatives to walk around with MSHA inspectors.
There has never been a problem with that. There has never
been disruption in the workplace. There has never been
undercover organizing, you know, activities. This whole
opposition to the Walkaround Standard is really kind of a red
herring.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Have you noticed any rational basis
on who was being fired at NIOSH?
Mr. Barab. No. They fired the entire agency. They brought
back parts of it that had, you know, a strong interest in West
Virginia, where we have some powerful Republican Senators, and
there was a lot of news, a lot of media about some of the coal-
related stuff, and those are the things they happen to bring
back.
Unfortunately, NIOSH----
Mr. Scott. Well, what is wrong with letting politics decide
who gets called back?
Mr. Barab. Yes.
Mr. Scott. There was a news article this morning has a
Republican legislator bragging about the fact that he got NIOSH
programs back in his district. What is wrong with letting that
happen?
Mr. Barab. Well, you know.
Mr. Scott. What could go wrong?
Mr. Barab. Unfortunately, you have districts where you do
not have, you know, may not have powerful Senators or
politicians. A lot of what NIOSH does is crucially important,
but does not make as many headlines as, you know, coal miners,
suffering from black lung. You know, the firefighters, the
fisher people, agriculture, you know, those do not make as many
headlines as miners.
Their lives are just as valuable, and unfortunately, they
are just at risk in many places as miners are. All workers in
the United States need equal protection, not just those that
get the most publicity.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. You served in the inside at OSHA. We
have asked what access DOGE has at the Department of Labor. We
have not gotten an answer. What do you think DOGE has access
to, and why should we be concerned?
Mr. Barab. Well, yes, right, we do not know exactly what
kind of access DOGE has, but it is extremely important that
crucial information in the entire Department of Labor, but
particularly in OSHA, be kept confidential. I mean you do not
want business owners to know what kind of, the inside, you
know, what is going on with an investigation of their own
companies.
There are, you know, there are a lot of retaliation
concerns among workers. OSHA enforces retaliation laws. We have
25 different retaliation laws. It is, you know, confidentiality
of workers in those cases was also extremely important. You
expand out, you know, from OSHA to the BLS.
I mean BLS assembles an enormous amount of confidential
information, information that can, you know, as they say, move
markets, so obviously you do not want business executives to
know that information ahead of time, or have access to that
information where they can, you know, determine, you know, what
kind of investments they are going to make in the stock market.
That information needs to remain absolutely confidential to
everyone.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the transcript of the report from this morning's news
outlining the West Virginia situation be entered into the
record.
Chairman Mackenzie. Without objection.
[The information of Mr. Scott follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Scott. Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Mackenzie. Thank you. Next, we go to Mr. Grothman
from Wisconsin.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you. We will go to Ms. Watson. OSHA's
proposed rule right now, and we have talked about this before,
adopts a one-size-fits-all rule for heat illness and injury
prevention. Identical requirements across indoor, outdoor
environments, across all sectors, including agriculture,
construction, manufacturing, without differentiation.
This broad application fails to consider critical
distinctions in worksite conditions. How does OSHA justify
imposing identical obligations on such a broad and diverse
range of workplaces?
Ms. Watson. Thank you, sir, for the question. Their
justification obviously is to protect workers. I know that
during the rulemaking process, during the SBREFA panels, those
discussions and the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking,
many, many people requested industry specific standards that
apply to the unique differences among their industry.
I am familiar with construction, residential construction,
so I will speak to that. Jobsites change daily, sometimes
hourly, depending on what is going on. What works in
manufacturing, where you might have a static situation,
obviously not all manufacturing, but there are circumstances
where you have a static work environment that doesn't change.
That is much easier to manage than a constructionsite where
you have got roofers coming in there installing the roof, and
then they are going on to the next job site, and then you have
got people coming in and doing the house wrap. That constant
changing is not helpful, and I think that the concern among
stakeholders that I have spoken with is that if you treat
everyone exactly the same with limited flexibility, it makes it
difficult to get a robust plan that is specific to the
industry.
Mr. Grothman. It is the type of thing that causes people to
hate government, right?
Ms. Watson. Maybe, yes.
Mr. Grothman. Maybe, OK.
Ms. Watson. Sometimes, yes, sir.
Mr. Grothman. OK. You raised many questions about the Walk
Around Rule; we are going to touch on this again. Can you
expand on potential liability, employer liability in the event
of a third-party representative is injured during a walk around
inspection?
Ms. Watson. Yes, sir, thank you. OSHA actually addressed
that because a number of stakeholders raised those during their
comments in this process, and OSHA basically responded in the
final rule saying that there were plenty of statutes available
at the State and local level, tort liability, those types of
things, and so OSHA was not going to comment or make a
determination on that.
Essentially, OSHA is not involved in that piece of it if
someone is injured, and they end up suing the employer where
the jobsite was. It is up to the State Court systems to sort
it.
Mr. Grothman. Well, ask Mr. Barab a question here. As I
understand it in my district, we had just a tragedy in which a
young man died in an agriculture accident. It was a small farm,
I guess the guy had maybe three or four employees. It kind of
surprised his mother that OSHA would not apparently do an
investigation, even if somebody died. Could you elaborate on
that?
Mr. Barab. Yes. You are talking about Stacy Sebald, and her
19 year-old son, Mitch McDaniel, who was killed by an auger in
a farm in your district. Yes, OSHA, the Congress has put a
rider on OSHA's appropriations bill since the 1970's, saying
that OSHA cannot basically step foot on a farm with 10 or fewer
employees.
They cannot go in for investigation, even a fatality
investigation. They cannot even go in to pass out fact sheets.
Yes, it is a terrible injustice, and we are seeing, you know,
we see a lot of workers, including young workers like Mitch
McDaniel, die in these workplaces that, you know, from hazards
that are preventable, and where the employer, and all employers
could learn from an OSHA investigation, yet OSHA is not allowed
to go onto those workplaces.
Mr. Grothman. In other words, if there were 11 guys on the
farm, they could have investigated it.
Mr. Barab. Exactly. With 10, 10 workers could die on a
farm, and OSHA still would not be able to go onto the farm.
Mr. Grothman. Yes. You could have, if it was a little
bakery with 5 employees, OSHA could get involved?
Mr. Barab. If somebody got killed in a bakery with 5
employees, OSHA could--would get involved.
Mr. Grothman. For some reason, can you think of any
philosophical reason why if somebody dies, we are not even
going to talk about somebody becoming a paraplegic for the rest
of their life, somebody dies under the current law, but we just
we apparently do not express it?
Mr. Barab. I think we are dealing with the power of the
agriculture industry and the so-called sanctity of the small
farm. I do not know. This is kind of a myth again, that was
created, and this again, has been on the books since the
1970's. It makes no sense, and workers are dying because of it
so.
Mr. Grothman. Well, thank you for pointing that out.
Chairman Mackenzie. Thank you, and next we will go to
Chairman of the Full Committee, Mr. Walberg from Michigan.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for having
this hearing today. It brings a lot of memories back to me of
some of the things we have dealt with since 2006. Mr. Tresselt,
I do want to start with you.
Your written testimony states that the tree care industry
has a fatality rate estimated to be 10 to 30 times higher than
the national average, with more than 1,000 injuries each year,
all significant, all important. Do you believe there would be a
significant reduction in your industry's fatality injury rate
if OSHA had a significant standard in place?
Mr. Tresselt. Thank you, Congressman. Having an OSHA
standard in place would help. We are never going to
unfortunately get rid of all our fatalities, but it definitely
would help. It would take the ANSI Z133 Standard, which is a
consensus standard in our industry, and make it the platform on
which we could--which OSHA could take and distribute to all
those companies.
The fatalities that we mostly see are what is called
``struck by's'', things falling out of the tree hitting people.
The ANSI Z133 addresses that very specifically by making sure
that those areas are very well defined. In our company, when we
have a job briefing prior to starting a job, working the loft,
we take the time to note where the things are going to fall
from the tree.
We mark that area off as a no-go zone, and everybody on the
crew knows that. That is one of the examples that we would
utilize through the ANSI Z133, that currently OSHA does not
have that in their general duty clause, that we could help a
lot of our problems.
Taking this standard and making it uniform across the
board, with all of the Z133 Standards would help tremendously.
I would like to say that we could reduce it significantly, but
there are always those things. We work with nature.
Mr. Walberg. Yes. You have been asking for the standard
since 2006.
Mr. Tresselt. Correct.
Mr. Walberg. As it was left out on a limb with multiple,
sometimes conflicting patchwork of standards across the United
States. What do you believe is the reason for the delay?
Mr. Tresselt. I do not really have a direct answer for
that. I think maybe other priorities in OSHA had taken
precedent over our small industry, compared to what the broad
spectrum that OSHA has to regulate.
Mr. Walberg. Well, we are talking about lives in this case
where it is amazing the industry itself is asking for it.
Mr. Tresselt. Correct.
Mr. Walberg. That does not happen all the time, and I think
that is unique. Thank you. Ms. Watson, your written testimony
highlights six concerns over the Biden administration's Worker
Walk Around Rule. I want to go back to that. It greatly expands
the opportunity for third parties to gain access to jobsites.
The rule seemingly opens the door for a union official to
serve as a third-party employee representative when the union
is not an exclusive bargaining representative at the workplace.
How does this rule overstep the OSH Act, and potentially
conflict with the National Labor Relations Act?
Ms. Watson. Thank you for the question. Yes, sir. I think
it is a different--OSHA has a different mission. OSHA's remit
is different than the National Labor Relations Act. OSHA uses
employee representative, which does not have the safeguards
that are outlined and used in the National Labor Relations Act.
That Act governs workplace representation of unions. When
you have got a worker walk around situation where you have
got--you actually could have a couple of scenarios. You could
have a non-union, you know, worksite, and maybe a union wants
to get their foot in the door, and so they might come and----
Mr. Walberg. Do you believe that would happen? Anyway, I
know the answer.
Ms. Watson. It is not a negative on union representation
because they do serve an important purpose, but the point here
is that a non-employee third-party is able to, you know, talk
to employees, and all it takes, if you have got two people on a
worksite, all it takes is one to say yes, they can come on.
That is potentially the problem. The other problem is that
employee bargaining is governed by the National Labor Relations
Act. It does not fall within OSHA's remit, and so that is
something that is troubling.
Mr. Walberg. OK. Thank you. Mr. Parson, I appreciate your
workforce in Michigan, and I will ask you in a few seconds here
about the Heat Standard, specifically as it impacts movement of
freight with a truck driver. What is the problem?
Mr. Parson. I think freight is really problematic. You are
moving all kinds of different things. We move a lot of stone
and asphalt, ready mix concrete, perishable goods, and so, to
try to figure out how long can a driver be exposed to the heat
when he is cleaning out his truck or whatever, and the break
schedule, where does he take a break if he does not have a
place to take a break? It presents a lot of problems.
Mr. Walberg. OK. Well, thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Mackenzie. Thank you. Our final questioner today
is Mr. Kiley from California.
Mr. Kiley. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and Mr. Tresselt, I also
would just like to reiterate Chairman Walberg's statements
regarding a tree care standard. We did a bipartisan letter on
this last year. It has been a long time coming. I would hope
that OSHA would move expeditiously to finally make this happen.
You know, one of the things we saw in the Biden
administration was that OSHA was focusing a lot on a lot of
things that did not really relate to safety. They were doing
COVID rules well after the pandemic was over. They, of course,
were coming up with regulations to help out political allies.
They even, of course, did--tried to do an illegal vaccine
mandate, that would have affected tens of millions of employees
across the country. That was struck down by the Supreme Court.
Actually, in one of the most stunning moments of the 118th
Congress, the OSHA Director, Douglas Parker, who by the way had
come up from California's OSHA, and had actually instituted a
lot of the crazy COVID rules in California.
He came and testified before this very Subcommittee and
actually tried to deny that any vaccine mandate had ever been
issued. It was like something out of Orwell, who was down the
memory hole. It never happened, was never initiated, was never
promulgated. The Supreme Court actually took up the case and
struck it down.
It was truly a remarkable moment. Getting back to the Tree
Care Standard, you I think gave a very compelling explanation,
Mr. Tresselt, of why this is needed, and sort of the mystifying
delay that we have all experienced. I want to just give you a
chance to maybe cast a little more light on your participation
in the 2020 panel, because I understand there was a broad array
of stakeholders, you had a lot of input.
There was a consensus standard for how we could protect
workers in an industry where the chances of a fatal accident or
incident are 30 times greater than any other industries, and
where the work of the industry is so important toward the
safety of communities when it comes to fire mitigation and
other purposes, so if you wanted to share your experience.
Mr. Tresselt. Well, the SBREFA panel was--thank you, I
appreciate the question. The SBREFA panel was a very broad base
of industries, and all have a stake in what we were doing, but
it was very clear at the end when the conclusion was the ANSI
Z133 should be the framework that we need to work with to build
a standard for OSHA.
Having that in place would help us tremendously, you know,
protect our workers. We are here to--I know I am for myself and
my team and my company, my small company, I want people to go
home, and I want them to enjoy their lives, and you know, to go
home to their kids and their families, and their dogs and their
cats, and you know, their friends, and have the barbeque on the
weekend.
All of this means that we have to work diligently as
employers to keep them safe. The hazards that we face in tree
care are tremendous. We work in public spaces. We work aloft.
We work a lot of machinery. All of this being said, the SBREFA
panel said you are right, we should do this, this should be
happening.
As the other Congressman said, we have been fighting for
this for 20 years, and we are not looking to be regulated, we
are looking to be helped because we want to keep our people
safe. We do not want to have fatalities. We want to reduce the
amount of injuries. We want to do the things that are right for
our people, and we need OSHA's help.
We are not asking OSHA to reinvent the tree care wheel. We
are asking them to paint it their color. Make it something that
we can all use to keep people safe.
Mr. Kiley. Right now you are sort of left to your own
devices, and I would imagine that you have inspectors who come
in, and are sort of trying to apply standards, regulations that
are not specific to your industry, and that kind of leaves you
guessing as to what exactly you are supposed to do, or maybe
trying to tailor your practices to a standard that does not
really fit. Is that what you have experienced?
Mr. Tresselt. Absolutely. We do not have--there is no
standards directly for tree care, so it is a patchwork of
standards that they pick from, and pick and choose, and
sometimes that is problematic. Take for example the use of a
crane when you take down a tree.
We have trees that are very compromised, that are very
dangerous to climb, we cannot climb those, or we cannot get
aerial lifts to them, or things like that, so we use a crane to
access a climber who will actually go into the tree, and then
safety dismantle and remove it.
The general duty clause says no, you cannot do that. You
are not allowed to do that, but you cannot use the crane,
excuse me, to put a man or a person into the tree to do that,
which then makes it almost impossible to remove the tree
safely, because now we are at a crossroads where we cannot do
it safely, or we have to jeopardize worker safety.
When it comes to my business, we do not jeopardize worker
safety. We would either refuse to do the tree or find something
else. There really is a lot. We have our hands tied at times,
and we want to make sure that we are doing the right thing.
Z133 supports it.
It has been approved. It is an industry consensus standard.
We can do it safely. We have done it safely. Crane use has been
used in our industry for over 50 years.
Mr. Kiley. Thanks very much. We will keep advocating for
it, and I yield back.
Chairman Mackenzie. Thank you. With that, we will go to
closing remarks, and I would like to recognize the Ranking
Member for her closing statement.
Ms. Omar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you once again
to our witnesses for speaking with us today. Yesterday,
Secretary Kennedy sat before our Senate counterparts and tried
to defend his reckless decisions to fire thousands of civil
servants at NIOSH.
A decision that was partially reversed once DOGE realized
that firing the people who prevent workplace injury, illness,
and death might have been a mistake. We have learned today that
his testimony was not even accurate. More than 60 percent of
NIOSH's staff have now been returned to service--have not been
returned to service, and that includes many working scientists.
Secretary Kennedy says that he cares about the harms of
toxic chemical exposure, but he has fired the very scientists
who assess those harms in the workplace. This fiasco with NIOSH
is a prime example of the Trump administration's disregard for
workers lives and livelihoods.
Today's hearing is just the latest attempt to weaken the
institutions of rules that simply keep workers safe and healthy
at their jobs. Since January, DOGE has fired thousands of
Federal workers, targeted dozens of OSHA and mine safety
Offices and hallowed out critical resources and protections for
working people.
Instead of investing the real harms these cuts will cause,
Republicans are once again using this hearing to demonize OSHA,
rather than fund it. Investigations into workplace safety, like
training, protective gear, and common-sense protections, such
as the proposed Heat Stress Rule, are both morally right and
fiscally savvy.
Preventing injuries could save billions of dollars in
health care costs, workers' compensation, and loss of
productivity. Our worker protection agencies do not just save
lives, but they also deliver real financial returns for working
families, and for our economy.
Undermining Federal health and safety agencies will not
improve efficiency. It just puts American workers at a higher
risk of preventable injuries, illnesses, and even death.
Workers deserve a better treatment as pawns in a political
game. Instead of taking a chainsaw to these vital programs that
constituents rely on, we must fully fund these health and
safety organizations to save workers' lives and finally give
workers the protections they have long been promised.
I will end where I began my remarks this morning. No job
should ever cost someone their life, and every worker deserves
to come home every day safe, healthy, and whole. If we cannot
even agree on that basic premise, then we will just continue to
talk past each other in these hearing rooms.
If we can, then maybe we can start the real work of
supporting the health, dignity, and well-being of all workers
across this country. Thank you, and I yield the balance of my
time.
Chairman Mackenzie. Thank you. First I would like to start
by recognizing everybody here today, and on behalf of the
members of the Subcommittee, I want to thank the witnesses for
their perspective that they gave on how we can actually help
OSHA fulfill their mission of worker safety across this
country.
The hearing today was very different, at least my
experience, than what the Ranking Member just spoke about. I
think it was a very clear mischaracterization of this
testimony, and this hearing that we all experienced.
What I heard was I heard employers that are actually
seeking clarity and flexibility in OSHA Standards that they can
actually go out and implement in real world applications, to
provide and ensure worker safety, all across this country.
I think that is something that I think everybody in a
bipartisan fashion, we heard from some of the other testifiers,
or witnesses, who were talking with some of the members from
the minority party about that bipartisan approach that should
actually be implemented.
I thought today was actually a very constructive hearing.
This was not a partisan affair. It was something where we, as
the majority party, republicans are actually recognizing
specific instances where we can improve worker safety. We
talked about the tree care industry, and how one of the most
dangerous industries out there is operating under a patchwork
of applications, and that should be improved.
We think OSHA actually should be issuing regulations in
that space to make sure that those workers are safe. We also
talked a lot about the Heat Standard today. Again, a very
serious issue that does need to be addressed so that worker
safety on jobsites is carried out in a safe fashion.
We heard from testifiers how a one-size-fits-all approach
is not going to work in practice. It is not going to match the
reality of jobsites, and ultimately, it is going to be
something that if it is not done correctly, it is not actually
going to help workers because they will never see the results
of it in their actual experience on constructionsites, and
paving projects all across our country.
With that, I would just like to thank our witnesses again
for the incredible testimony that you have provided. It is so
helpful and meaningful as we do our work here as a
Subcommittee, but also as we communicate with the
administration on their regulations that they have proposed,
and that we are going to hopefully see coming in the near
future.
What we would like to see is, again, making sure that
workplace safety is a key priority for all workplaces across
this entire country, and that those that violate those in
willful repeat violations, do face penalties.
Again, that is a balance that I think can be struck, but
the way that we are going to actually come up with regulations
that do that, and actually can be implemented in practice, are
by hearing and listening to those that are going to be most
directly affected.
I want to thank all of you again and look forward to
working with my colleagues in a bipartisan fashion as we move
to advance worker safety all across our country. Thank you
again, and with that, without objection, there is no further
business, and the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:48 a.m., The Subcommittee on Workforce
Protections was adjourned.]
[Additional submissions from Rep. Walberg follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Additional submissions from Rep. Scott follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Questions and responses submitted for the record by Mr.
Barab follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]