[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 39 (Wednesday, March 20, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Page S2418]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           LABOR COMMITTEE PASSAGE OF OSHA REFORM LEGISLATION

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, last week, the Senate Labor and Human 
Resources Committee completed a long and, unfortunately, contentious 
markup of S. 1423, the Safety and Health Reform and Reinvention Act 
that amends the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.
  While I am very aware of the importance of not overburdening 
businesses with mountains of paperwork and regulation, I am also 
cognizant, as a cosponsor--along with my old friend Senator Jacob 
Javits--of the legislation that created OSHA, of the important need to 
protect the health, safety, and lives of employees.
  Much of the debate and discussion that took place during Labor 
Committee hearings and markups was really over the balance between 
protections for employees and burdens on employers. During one 
committee hearing on the topic, a businessman testified in support of a 
proposal that would prohibit fines on a business if it were to be found 
in substantial compliance with OSHA regulations. The witness went on 
say that substantial compliance ``does not mean perfection or even near 
perfection. It does mean better than average.''
  Mr. President, I would not expect perfectly safe conditions or 
perfect health protections for myself and we probably should not 
attempt perfection under OSHA rules. We should not, however, settle for 
better than average safety. I am sure that none of my colleagues would 
feel comfortable flying on an airline that advertised as having better 
than average safety. Would any of us feel comfortable using a piece of 
machinery or operating an electrical device knowing that there was an 
average chance of being electrocuted or being injured? I do not believe 
``better than average'' is good enough for America's workers.
  Another concern of mine centers on the ability of workers to request 
on-site inspections by OSHA. I recently received some interesting 
material from the Rhode Island Committee on Occupational Safety and 
Health [RICOSH]. One of these cases is a good example of the value of 
OSHA inspections.
  Without an onsite inspection, problems that occurred at a 
Narragansett, RI jobsite may well have taken a different turn. During 
construction, workers noticed that the temporary support structure for 
a poured concrete floor had become dangerously overloaded. The workers 
placed a call to OSHA. At first, the owner and his engineer and 
architect all insisted that the 2 x 4's would support a concrete slab. 
Instead, they suggested to OSHA that the deflection was the result of 
moist sea breezes causing the support timers to swell combined with 
expansion caused when the Sun warmed one side of the timbers. At first 
glance, these all sound like credible explanations. Upon inspection, 
Mr. President, it was learned that structural calculations were based 
on a 2\1/2\ inch concrete slab. In reality, the slab was 3 inches 
thick. Obviously, the inspection was the key to discovering the actual 
cause of the deflection in the concrete slab. Just imagine the number 
of injuries and even deaths that may have taken place if because of a 
phone or fax interview, instead of an inspection, OSHA had determined 
that the culprit was sunny days and humid nights.
  Mr. President, I feel that I also must comment on the commotion 
during the last markup session. After approving three very good 
amendments--two Democratic and one Republican--by voice vote on the 
first day of the markup, the committee was asked to vote again on the 
amendments at the beginning of the last markup. Unfortunately, all 
three of the votes were along party lines and two of the previously 
approved amendments failed. I regret very much that this commotion took 
place and hope that in the future, cooler heads prevail.

                          ____________________