[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 145 (Friday, October 7, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 7, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
    INTRODUCTION OF THE SMALL BUSINESS OSHA COMPLIANCE INCENTIVE ACT

                                 ______


                          HON. JAMES A. HAYES

                              of louisiana

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, October 7, 1994

  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, over my eight year tenure in this body, no 
problem has been more apparent and of paramount concern to the many 
small businesses located in my Southwestern Louisiana District than the 
egregious regulatory burdens placed upon them by the Occupational 
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Ninety-five percent of the 
business in Louisiana, not accounting for government or farm workers, 
employ 100 or less workers, and OSHA's costly paperwork requirements 
and perpetual threatening demeanor not only exemplify the inefficiency 
of this agency but also reduce our overall economic productivity and 
hamper competitiveness.
  Therefore, in an effort to improve the responsiveness of OSHA in 
meeting the need of small businesses in Louisiana and throughout the 
country, today I am introducing ``the Small Business OSHA Compliance 
Incentive Act.''
  I have been especially disturbed by OSHA's propensity to propose 
reactive solutions to the problems associated with safety and health 
hazards in the workplace. The emphasis on punishing employers, rather 
than working with them, has diverted crucial financial and human 
resources from preventing potential risks to employee safety. Instead, 
employers must sift through a maze of red tape.
  My bill would change OSHA's primary focus from reactive to proactive 
policy strategies. The provisions are summarized below:
  First, the bill would increase the incentive to states to establish 
their own safety and health programs. The 23(g) formula would be 
changed from a 50%/50% Federal-to-State match to a maximum of a 75%/25% 
split. This will increase the number of section 18(c) State-Plan-State 
Enforcement Programs and decrease the amount of Federal dollars 
currently being spent to enforce OSHA requirements. The amount of 
Federal enforcement monies saved would be directed to 23(g) 
consultation services to better assist small businesses develop 
effective safety and health plans. This provision would also provide 
statutory authority for the consultation service program, which 
currently can be eliminated with the stroke of a pen.
  Second, the proposal would exempt small businesses from any fees that 
may be instituted by OSHA for use of consultation services, should 
those small businesses request and utilize consultation assistance.
  Third, the bill would also exempt small businesses from OSHA 
inspections where these businesses implement recommendations from the 
consultation service for enhancing preventive strategies and for 
abating hazards.
  Fourth, finally, the bill would limit the penalties on small 
businesses that are able to abate non-willful hazards in a reasonable 
time period and that exhibit a cooperative and diligent approach to 
mitigating such hazards.
  Officials from the Occupational Safety and Health Consultation 
Programs (OSHCON) estimate a significant backlog of requests from small 
businessmen to assist them in meeting OSHA standards. Establishing 
health and safety plans can range from six months to two years. 
Dwindling resources have restricted OSHCON's ability to maintain 
qualified competent staffs and provide timely service. To keep up with 
inflation alone, in 1991, OSHCON programs would have required an 
approximately $8 million budgetary increase. While OSHA's enforcement 
budget has grown only sightly due to overall fiscal constraints within 
the Department of Labor, the overall fiscal constraints within the 
Department of Labor, the State and Federal dollars allocated to 
enforcement, however, have been more than six times greater than those 
going to consultation.
  Clearly, with such scarce resources available for health and safety 
assistance, the Federal Government should allocate its resources in a 
more prudent manner. We must redirect them to a more constructive means 
of achieving OSHA's laudable and necessary goals. Concentrating on 
enforcement sends the wrong message.
  Most small businesses have put forth a good faith effort to protect 
their employees. It is, after all, impractical, fiscally irresponsible, 
and counterproductive to implement procedures and processes that 
endanger employees. But, if OSHA does not have adequate resources to 
provide all the tools needed to do its job protecting health and 
safety, then why should we presume that small businessmen, most of whom 
live on the margin as it is, have the technical expertise and financial 
resources to do so. They need our help.
  This is a work in progress. I introduce this bill today in an effort 
to inform my colleagues, small business owners and employees, 
regulators, and others of my thoughts on these important issues and to 
enlist suggestions for improving this legislation. My intention is to 
consider these recommendations over the course of the next few months, 
make revisions that are appropriate, and introduce the bill again early 
in the 104th Congress. In this way, we may transform OSHA's 
overregulatory approach and provide the relief that small businessmen 
everywhere desperately need.

                          ____________________