[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 141 (Monday, October 3, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 3, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                            THE OSHA PLAGUE

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, here is the lead from an article in The 
Chieftain, the leading newspaper in Pueblo, CO:

       Pueblo's construction boom came to a halt this week but not 
     because of the weather, economics, or labor problems. What 
     shut down many of the new homebuilding projects in the city 
     and county was word that the Occupational Safety and Health 
     Administration was in town. *** One stucco contractor said he 
     visited a number of sites in the city and in Pueblo West and 
     found no one working. ``It was like a plague,'' he said, 
     ``Really spooky.''

  The OSHA plague. Employers across the country are protesting the 
activities of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and 
with good reason.
  OSHA fines have quadrupled in recent years, even as onsight 
inspections have declined. Worse, the Clinton administration is 
proposing regulations covering indoor air--price, $8 billion; ergonomic 
regulations, $10 billion; and mandatory workplace safety committees, 
$25 billion.
  Before these regulations become final, I believe it's time Congress 
had a real debate on OSHA. Instead of debating how to expand OSHA's 
mission, we should debate the mission itself.
  After 24 years and billions of dollars, it's time to ask OSHA for an 
honest accounting.


                             imperial food

  Let me give you an example of what is wrong. We have all heard about 
the fire at Imperial Food Products chicken processing plant. That fire 
killed 25 employees and injured an additional 55.
  Imperial Food's owners is currently serving a 20-year-sentence for 
manslaughter. He's bankrupt and facing millions in lawsuits.
  Meanwhile, $16 million in workers compensation has been distributed 
to the victims and survivors.
  What did OSHA have to do with any of this? Nothing.
  OSHA failed to prevent the fire or the injuries. The law used to 
convict the owner was a State manslaughter law not the OSHA law. 
Finally, OSHA itself was sued by the victims for failing its mission.
  As an OSHA official from North Carolina pointed out, the whole 
purpose of OSHA is to prevent this type of tragedy from happening. But 
somewhere along the way, OSHA's mission of prevention took a backseat 
to its enforcement activities.
  In the process, safety has been short-changed.


                          what osha does best

  How did OSHA lose sight of its mission? Through Congress, of course.
  Consider the 1990 Budget Reconciliation Act. That act called on OSHA 
to increase its collections by $900 million over 5 years.
  After some lipservice to safety, the conference report states:

       Changes in OSHA Act civil penalties will produce nearly 
     $900 million in new Federal revenues over 5 years. The 
     conferees expect OSHA to assess significantly higher 
     penalties across the board given the sevenfold increase in 
     the maximum allowable penalty. All revenues collected will be 
     deposited in the U.S. Treasury for purposes of Federal 
     deficit reduction.

  OSHA has responded to this mandate with gusto. In 1992, Builder 
magazine noted that fines of homebuilders almost quadrupled in 2 years.
  In my State of Colorado, OSHA penalties rose from $298,000 in 1990 to 
$803,000 in 1992, an increase of 170 percent.
  I think it is obvious that Colorado's workplaces weren't three times 
as dangerous in 1992 as they were in 1990--but then, it is also obvious 
these fines have little to do with safety.
  Consider that of the top 10 most frequently cited fines, paperwork 
violations make up the top 7. Almost 70 percent of OSHA citations are 
paperwork violations.
  So instead of working to ensure the safety of their employees, 
employers are forced to spend their time filling out forms and posting 
signs.
  But then, that is what you get when you put bureaucrats in charge of 
safety--safety on paper.


                          let the market work

  While OSHA is busy collecting fines for missing files and warning 
labels, the market is busy making the workplace safer.
  Market economics and criminal laws combine to punish employers who 
recklessly endanger the lives of their employees. Consider the 
following:
  According to Robert Reich, employers in 1992 paid out $52 billion in 
workers compensation. Wage replacement and medical costs add an 
additional $38 billion. Finally, William Ford points out that injuries 
cost employers $116 billion in lost production.
  Add those numbers up, and you get $206 billion lost by employers in 
1992 due to workplace deaths and injuries.
  That same year, OSHA proposed $72 million in penalties for workplace 
safety violations.
  Which has a bigger impact?


                               conclusion

  We need to reform OSHA. Not expand it--refocus its efforts into more 
profitable channels. If OSHA is supposed to prevent accidents, then 
let's allow OSHA officials to concentrate their efforts on prevention.
  That means taking away OSHA's enforcement powers and expanding its 
consulting responsibilities. If Congress thinks it is necessary for the 
Federal Government to preach safety to employers, we can do it without 
the bully-boy mentality.
  The bottom line was summed up nicely by Robert Reich when he noted 
that ``work accidents make up only 20 percent of all accidents.'' All 
things being equal, you're safer on the job.
  I'm introducing legislation to reform OSHA, and focus it on 
prevention, which was what it was supposed to do in the first place.

                          ____________________