[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 14, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3088-H3089]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                        OSHA'S REGULATORY EXCESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 1995, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Norwood] is recognized 
during morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the American people are 
frustrated by regulatory process that creates impossible standards. 
Every day, small businessmen and women are pulling their hair out 
trying to keep up with unrealistic and overreaching regulatory mandates 
they cannot possible comply with. I know that the guardians of the old 
status quo will scoff at this, but I need only to point to a proposed 
OSHA rule to make my point.
   Mr. Speaker, allow us to consider for a moment OSHA's proposed 
revision to its confined spaces standard. This applies to people who 
work in sewers or air ducts or in similarly tight quarters. In the 
abstract, this is a very reasonable subject for OSHA to be concerned 
with and employers have a responsibility to workers working in such 
confined spaces to make sure that their work spaces are as safe as 
possible.
  However, OSHA has taken this a step further. Now OSHA wants to 
regulate what happens after an accident. If the revised standard is 
implemented, employers who rely on rescue squads and other outside 
rescue services to respond to emergencies would have to, and I quote, 
``ensure that the outside rescuers can effectively respond in a timely 
manner to a rescue summons,'' end quote.
  Since most employers do not have an entire team of emergency medical 
technicians standing on guard at their worksites, it is reasonable to 
assume that these employers will be dependent upon the performance of 
professional rescue squads to meet OSHA's standards.
  Mr. Speaker, accidents do happen. We funded OSHA to try to cut down 
the chances that a workplace accident would occur. Now OSHA wants an 
employer to ensure the rescue of a worker after an accident. What 
bothers me is OSHA's use of the word ``ensure.'' The word ``ensure'' 
places an unrealistic burden on the employer, given OSHA's past 
behavior.
  Mr. Speaker, perhaps the bureaucrats over at OSHA have doubts about 
an employer's desire to ensure a worker's rescue in case of an 
accident. I have little doubt that employers, often in family 
businesses, care about their employees, but given OSHA's history, I 
have serious doubts about allowing OSHA to define when an employer has 
done enough. I can just see OSHA slapping the employer with a huge fine 
if a rescue squad gets stuck in traffic.
  [[Page H3089]] Even if the employer makes a good-faith effort to 
provide rescue services, he or she could still be hit with a 
prohibitive fine if it does not meet with OSHA's ambitious standard.
  Mr. Speaker, now OSHA claims that the employers' compliance with this 
proposed revision will not be based solely upon a rescue service's 
actual performance during any single incidence, but rather upon the 
employer's total effort to ensure that the prospective rescue service 
is indeed capable in terms of timeliness and training and equipment of 
performing an effective rescue, but what we have seen in the past is 
that OSHA implements a rule or a standard that sounds very reasonable 
in the Federal Register or before a congressional hearing; however, 
when a rule is enforced out in the field, it is used as a big stick to 
harass hard-working Americans.
  Is this just another way for OSHA to fine hard-working Americans and 
collect more money for the Federal Treasury? Not until a great outcry 
is heard does OSHA consider providing a clarification of its standards 
or rules in order to ensure that it is not used to harass hard-working 
Americans. OSHA has shown again and again that regulatory excess is an 
addiction and they just cannot seem to kick the habit.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that in this case, OSHA's enforcement of its 
rules does not cause more problems than it is intended to prevent. You 
can be sure that I will be watching and listening just in case this is 
not true.
  OSHA is one agency that has turned a reasonable and an important 
mission into a bureaucratic nightmare for the American economy. Common 
sense was long ago shown the door over at OSHA. OSHA is one agency that 
needs to be restructured, reinvented, or just plain removed.


                          ____________________