[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 77 (Friday, June 17, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 17, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
     INTRODUCTION OF THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REFORM ACT

                                 ______


                        HON. WILLIAM F. GOODLING

                            of pennsylvania

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, June 17, 1994

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, today I am joining Representative Fawell 
and 22 of our colleagues in reintroducing the Occupational Safety and 
Health Reform Act. The bill is for the most part identical to H.R. 
2937, which Mr. Fawell introduced last August. What I said about H.R. 
2937 then applies as much to the bill we are introducing today:

       This legislation will force the Occupational Safety and 
     Health Administration to reorient its compliance philosophy 
     from one of confrontation--a philosophy which measures 
     success by the number and amount of penalties levied and not 
     by results--to one which will help employers comply with the 
     law and one which will provide incentives to employers to 
     undertake meaningful steps to improve workplace protection.

  The two parts of H.R. 2937 that are changed in the bill we are 
introducing today involve: First, making sure that the voluntary 
programs at OSHA, some of which we are creating or codifying in our 
bill, receive adequate administrative attention and funding within the 
agency and increased recognition as an essential part of what OSHA's 
role is, and second, retaining current law with regard to coverage of 
State and local governments.
  The second point is particularly important to me because of my 
concern about the Federal Government's increasing reliance in recent 
years on carrying out its policy objectives through unfunded mandates 
on State and local governments. Our earlier version of the bill 
provided for a 3-year delay in coverage of State and local governments, 
with a cost study of the impact of this change completed within 1 year 
of passage. The intent was that with the cost study Congress could 
revisit the issue before coverage was triggered.
  Numerous letters from our constituents and others convinced us that 
the better approach is not to trust that this issue would be revisited 
after the cost study was done. Instead, the issue of how Congress 
should treat State and local governments should be dealt with directly 
in this legislation. We believe that current law, which allows but does 
not require States to adopt OSHA standards and provides 50 percent of 
the funding for enforcement and administration if the State seeks and 
obtains approval of its program by the Department of Labor strikes the 
appropriate balance between recognizing state's independent role and 
priorities and protecting worker health. Alternatively, if Congress is 
determined to impose the OSHA rules on all State and local governments, 
including schools and other public agencies, then the Federal 
Government should pay the full cost of the mandate.
  We offered both of these choices during the markup of OSHA reform 
legislation in the Education and Labor Committee, but both were 
rejected by the majority on the committee. Thus, the OSHA reform bill 
comes to the House with a clear choice between those who support more 
unfunded mandates on State and local governments, and those who do not.

                          ____________________