[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 11 (Thursday, January 19, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H373-H374]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            WORKPLACE SAFETY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, today we begin the debate on the issues 
surrounding H.R. 5, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act. As we consider 
this matter, let us not be blind supporters of a bill that may threaten 
the well-being of Americans, a bill that seems to threaten to eliminate 
Federal standards for workplace safety. Mr. Speaker, safety in the 
workplace has been a priority for the Federal Government since 1938, 
when President Roosevelt signed into law the Fair Labor Standards Act.
  Subsequently, in 1970, with the passage of the Occupational Safety 
and Health Act, this commitment to high standards for the safety of our 
workers was solidified. I believe that laws such as these should be 
exempt from the provisions set out in H.R. 5. In fact, the sponsors 
claim that the safety and health areas are excluded. As a former county 
official, I am very sensitive to, and well acquainted with the 
potential [[Page H374]] financial and administrative burdens that 
Federal unfunded mandates place on State governments. I strongly 
believe, however, that when giving thought to reducing those burdens, 
we do not sacrifice the rights of American workers.
  Entities within the Sates, sometimes, because of other pressures and 
interests, fail to follow minimum standards of safety, and fail to 
adequately protect the public. That is why the Federal Government has 
historically exercised a role in the area of health and safety. I am 
reminded, for example, of the Hamlet fire that occurred in my home 
State of North Carolina in 1991. Two hundred people were at work that 
day in a chicken processing plant, mostly young women, trying to 
support families. Suddenly, a hydraulic hose broke, its oil catching 
fire when it hit an open flame used to boil oil to fry the chicken.
  Twenty-five workers lost their lives. The owner was found guilty of 
manslaughter, and numerous safety violations were found. I am proud to 
say that after the fire my home State of North Carolina met the 
responsibility headon, doubling its number of OSHA inspectors and 
putting nine million more dollars of funding into the program to ensure 
that we met the Federal standards, that we protected the public.
  It should not take a tragedy like the fire in North Carolina, 
however, to spur entities on in their responsibility. States can 
benefit from and these entities, public and private, and need Federal 
imposition of minimum health and safety standards. I intend to sponsor 
an amendment that will make clear that Federal workplace safety 
standards will not be abandoned by language that is overreaching and 
overly broad. If we pass the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act without making 
that principle clear, we may find that on worker health and safety 
issues we have turned the clock back more than half a century. Without 
an express and specific exemption for workplace safety laws, that step 
back in time is a real possibility. More importantly, it will become a 
real possibility as soon as the unfunded mandate law takes effect. That 
is because we are sure to be considering the basic workplace safety 
laws during this and future sessions.
  It should not escape our attention, Mr. Speaker, that workplace 
safety laws were first adopted by the States. Massachusetts passed the 
first law in 1877. By 1890, 21 States had passed occupational safety 
and health laws, and by 1920 every State in the Union had enacted such 
a law. But these laws did not go far enough. These laws lacked the 
teeth to adequately protect the public and workers on the job. That is 
why the Federal Government stepped in.
  Before the enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Act and, ultimately, 
the Occupational Safety and Health Act, there were an estimated 14,500 
persons killed annually as a result of accidents on the job. Another 
2.2 million workers were disabled on the job each year, causing the 
loss of some 250 million employee work days. And some 390,000 new cases 
of occupational diseases occurred on an annual basis. As a consequence 
of these deaths and injuries, more than $1.5 billion was wasted each 
year in lost wages, and the Nation lost an estimated $8 billion from 
its gross national product.
  It is obvious, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that the issue of workplace 
safety is an issue which we in the Congress have a right, indeed a 
constitutional duty, to insure.
  The cost to the States of meeting the minimum standards imposed by 
the Federal Government are not so severe as to abandon this very 
important principle. Indeed, the Federal Government pays for the 
workplace safety inspectors. But, the cost to the public if we abdicate 
our responsibility and surrender workplace safety protections can be 
quite severe.
  Just ask the families and friends of those who died in the Hamlet 
fire. Just ask the loved ones of those whose lives were cut short or 
whose limbs were lost before we imposed minimum standards. Mr. Speaker, 
this is not a matter that should be rushed through and rubber stamped 
because some Members believe it is more important to make some point in 
100 days than it is to save 100 lives. I hope every reasonable 
amendment will be considered as we seek to perfect this bill. The 
public is entitled to nothing less.

                          ____________________