[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 62 (Tuesday, April 4, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H4107-H4108]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                               TRUE LIES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 1995, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] is recognized 
during morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, Joe Dear, the head of the Occupational 
Safety and Health Administration recently testified before Congress 
that virtually all of the stories being told about 
[[Page H4108]] OSHA--stories about OSHA outlawing the Tooth Fairy, 
prohibiting chewing gum on roofs, and fining employers for hazardous 
dishwashing detergents--are false.
  Having focused on OSHA issues for years I find, the only thing false 
about these stories is their distortion by people who support OSHA. Let 
us look at the facts.
  Specifically, Mr. Dear told the committee, ``OSHA does not require 
material data safety sheets for the normal use of consumer products 
like Joy.''
  I have a $2,500 citation and notification of penalty from OSHA, 
issued just last year, which states, ``The company did not have a 
written hazard communication program. The primary chemicals used are 
used in the kitchen and bathroom areas. Chemicals used, but not limited 
to: automatic dishwashing detergent and bleach.''
  This is not the first time OSHA has cited a small business for 
failing to have a MSDS sheet on ordinary household products. Contrary 
to Mr. Dear's assertion, it has happened more than once. OSHA has also 
issued citations for hazardous bricks, sand, gravel, chalk, et cetera.
  Mr. Dear went on to say that ``OSHA has not banned the tooth fairy; 
dentists can give children their extracted teeth.'' Although this 
statement may be true now, it was not always.
  When OSHA published its final bloodborne pathogen rule on December 6, 
1991, the regulation provided no exceptions for baby teeth or any other 
body part defined as contaminated waste. All contaminated waste--
including baby teeth--was to be disposed of in the OSHA-defined proper 
manner.
  It was only after America's dentists raised concern and several 
newspapers lampooned the new OSHA regulation that OSHA clarified that 
it would not cite dentists for allowing children to keep their teeth.
  Last, we have the question of gum chewing on roof tops. Once again, 
Mr. Dear provided Congress with a half-truth. He said, ``OSHA does not 
prohibit workers from chewing gum, although we do restrict asbestos 
removal workers from ingesting food where a high level of asbestos is 
present, since ingestion of asbestos causes cancer and lung damage.''
  Setting aside the question of how ingesting asbestos causes lung 
damage--breathing asbestos is linked to lung damage, ingesting asbestos 
is linked to gastrointestinal cancers--Mr. Dear is simply wrong. OSHA 
itself has admitted that it prohibited chewing gum in asbestos 
workplaces, including rooftops where roofers were using tiles 
containing small amounts of asbestos.
  In a memorandum to OSHA's regional administrators dated January 13, 
1995, OSHA stated, ``OSHA prohibited eating, drinking, chewing tobacco 
or gum, where activities take place involving removal or repair of 
asbestos containing building materials, regardless of measured 
breathing zone exposure levels.''
  The memorandum proceeds to admit that these regulations are 
excessive, will ``result in negligible reduction of exposure,'' and 
therefore OSHA should not issue citations for their violation.
  In other words, Joe Dear would have you believe that OSHA never 
prohibited chewing gum on rooftops when OSHA itself has not only 
admitted doing it, but issued a retraction as well.
  The battle over OSHA reform is not about whether OSHA does stupid 
things. With over hundreds of regulations governing every possible 
hazard, real and imagined, OSHA cannot help but do stupid things. By 
challenging the veracity of OSHA's more notorious missteps, OSHA 
defenders are wasting their time and hurting their own credibility.
  OSHA did fine people for failing to have material safety data sheets 
on common household products like Joy, its regulations--without 
clarification--did prohibit dentists from giving children back their 
baby teeth, and its regulations--once again, without clarification--did 
prohibit roofers from chewing gum.
  To suggest otherwise is to fib, obfuscate, and otherwise distort the 
truth. In his testimony, Mr. Dear stated, ``If these stories were true, 
I might be asking the same questions about the need for OSHA.'' Those 
stories are true, Mr. Dear. Start asking.


                          ____________________