[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 116 (Tuesday, July 18, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H7075-H7076]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                     OSHA REFORM--MYTH AND REALITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger] is recognized for 4 
minutes.
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the campaign of 
distortions already begun by opponents of OSHA reform.
  Since we introduced H.R. 1834, which now has over 100 cosponsors, 
opponents of reforming OSHA have been saying that our legislation will 
result in more workers being killed and seriously injured. Such 
rhetoric pretends that all that stands between workers and serious 
injury or death is the strong arm of OSHA. Simply put, that's a false 
picture of what OSHA does.
  Most of us know that OSHA is not the primary reason that most 
employers are concerned with employee safety. There is overwhelming 
evidence that--even if we ignore the humanitarian concerns that 
motivate most people--workers compensation and other medical and human 
resource costs related to employee injuries are far more compelling 
reasons for employers to provide safe workplaces. OSHA's role is, at 
best, a helpful complement and sometimes necessary backup to these 
factors. But more often OSHA has become simply a revenue collector for 
the Federal Government, finding nitpicking violations of the thousands 
of pages of OSHA requirements, without regard to whether any workers 
are actually being harmed by unnecessary risks. That's why our OSHA 
reform bill is necessary.
  The distortions being made are not only of OSHA's role, but of the 
provisions of H.R. 1834. I hope that the following responses to three 
of the distortions are helpful to my colleagues in understanding what 
H.R. 1834 really provides.
  Myth No. 1: H.R. 1834 means turning our back on the tragedy at 
Hamlet.
  Fact: No one from North Carolina, as I am, will ever forget the 
tragedy at Hamlet. The deaths of 26 workers at a chicken processing 
plant in Hamlet, NC in September 1991 were caused by the fact that 
workers could not get out of the plant when a fire broke out because of 
locked fire doors and unmarked fire exits. Several laws prohibiting 
such locked doors were broken, and the owner of the plant eventually 
went to jail. H.R. 1834 does not change the laws or reduce the criminal 
penalties under which the owner of the plant went to jail.
  The question of Hamlet, however, was why did no one report the locked 
doors, especially those Government meat inspectors who regularly 
visited the plant? Under H.R. 1834, OSHA would be directed to establish 
programs with other Federal agencies such as USDA and with State and 
local government inspection agencies, to check facilities specifically 
for fire code violations, and to report those, if necessary, to OSHA. 
Had that simple step been in place, the deaths of most if not all of 
the Imperial Food Products workers would have been avoided.
  Myth No. 2: H.R. 1834 would prohibit OSHA from enforcing the law for 
serious safety and health hazards.
  Fact: H.R. 1834 provides that if an employee is injured, killed, or 
placed in imminent danger due to a violation of an OSHA requirement, a 
citation and penalty should be issued immediately by OSHA, just as 
under current law. In other cases, not involving such serious hazards, 
the employer would have a period of time, set by OSHA, to correct any 
alleged violations before a citation and penalty would be assessed. But 
in no case would the employer have the option not to come into 
compliance--OSHA would still enforce the law, both for serious and 
nonserious hazards.
  Why establish this right to fix nonserious violations? First, it is 
fairer to employers, most of whom cannot possibly know or consistently 
follow all of the details of OSHA regulations and interpretations of 
those regulations. Yet OSHA routinely fines employers thousands of 
dollars when they are found to be in noncompliance, even when there is 
no apparent threat to workers' safety. Second, allowing employers the 
right to fix nonserious violations will help OSHA focus its enforcement 
resources more effectively. Most often employers will simply make the 
correction and no citation will be issued. Today, OSHA automatically 
issues a citation, which the inspector must carefully document in case 
the citation is challenged. The emphasis, both in inspectors' time and 
attention, becomes documenting violations, rather than improving safety 
and health.
  In fact, the Clinton administration is now claiming that they want to 
give employers the same right to fix OSHA violations, but their 
proposal is weighed down with more regulatory conditions and left to 
inspector discretion. Legislation is necessary because OSHA has too 
often focused on collecting penalties rather than on safety and health.
  Myth No. 3: H.R. 1834 strips away every working American's right to 
secure an OSHA inspection for serious safety and health hazards and 
exposes workers to serious retaliation if they contacted the agency.
  Fact: H.R. 1834 provides that employees should first seek to correct 
health and safety problems with their employers before filing 
complaints against the employer with the Federal Government. The bill 
does not take away any employee's right to complain to OSHA.
  H.R. 1834 also recognizes that employees who do bring items to the 
employer's attention, and, if necessary, complain to OSHA about the 
employer, should be protected by law against retaliation for doing so. 
The bill enhances the antidiscrimination provisions under the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act in several ways, most importantly by 
giving employees who believe they have been retaliated against because 
they filed a safety or health complaint, a private right of action with 
make whole remedies if in fact retaliation did take place.
  Finally, let me mention some of the statistics which opponents of 
OSHA reform are using. First, the claim is made, in support of leaving 
OSHA the way it is, that since OSHA was created the workplace fatality 
rate has dropped by more than 50 percent. Thankfully, the workplace 
fatality rate has dropped since 1970, but it has also decreased 
steadily since the mid-1940's, and the rate of decrease has not really 
changed since OSHA's creation. The decrease in the fatality rate, while 
something we are grateful for, does not really argue for OSHA's 
continuation.
  Second, Secretary Reich has begun repeating a figure of ``55,000 
work-related deaths per year.'' In fact, the Bureau of Labor Statistics 
reports that in 1993 there were 6,271 work-related fatalities. We spend 
lots of money on 

[[Page H 7076]]
BLS to collect
 these numbers--and they are the most accurate numbers available. The 
Secretary's use of a figure nearly 10 times what his Department reports 
hardly seems justified.

  I believe that OSHA can be made both more effective and more fair--
more effective in redefining OSHA's role, and more fair to the 
employers of this country who provide the jobs on which the economy 
depends. I urge my colleagues to study the issues, to resist the 
rhetoric of those who want to keep OSHA as it is, and to help us pass 
meaningful OSHA reform in H.R. 1834.


                          ____________________