[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 121 (Friday, September 6, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10020-S10021]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 OSHA VIOLATIONS BY FEDERAL CONTRACTORS

 Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, this Monday we celebrated the 114th 
annual Labor Day, honoring working Americans for their daily 
contributions to the most productive economy in the world. Also on 
Monday, we learned from a new General Accounting Office [GAO] report 
that the U.S. Government has been routinely awarding billions of 
dollars in Federal contracts to companies that have repeatedly and 
flagrantly endangered the health and safety of their workers.
  According to the report, entitled ``Occupational Safety and Health: 
Violations of Safety and Health Regulations by Federal Contractors,'' 
the Federal Government in fiscal year 1994 awarded $38 billion in 
contracts to companies that were found to have committed significant 
Occupational Safety and Health Act [OSHA] violations in that fiscal 
year. In fiscal year 1994, more than 1 in 5 Federal contract dollars 
went to 261 companies that were found to have committed significant 
OSHA violations during that fiscal year.
  The violations cited in the GAO report were not merely technical 
errors or minor infractions. On the contrary, 35 fatalities occurred at 
workplaces of the cited companies during the period covered by the 
report. These fatalities included, just to cite examples from Illinois 
and the greater Chicago region, that of a Danville, IL worker who was 
sucked into a grain mill he was cleaning, and the deaths of two workers 
who were trapped in a fire at an Inland Steel Co. plant in East 
Chicago, Indiana. A supervisor involved in the latter incident 
committed suicide a few days after his coworkers had been killed.
  In preparing this report, the GAO investigators confined themselves 
to cases involving significant initial proposed penalties, defined as 
those of $15,000 or more. This definition narrowed the study to the 
most serious 3 percent of OSHA violations discovered during fiscal year 
1994.
  Eighty-eight percent of the violations covered by the study involved 
at least one serious violation that posed a risk of death or physical 
harm to workers; 69 percent of the violations were deemed to have been 
willful.
  This report demonstrates that the Federal Government is not doing as 
much as it could to improve the worker health and safety standards of 
Federal contractors. The Federal Government has enormous contracting 
power: 22 percent of the entire U.S. work force is employed by Federal 
contractors. The Federal Government ought to use this power to 
encourage companies it contracts with to maintain high standards for 
worker safety and health.
  We already hold Federal contractors to high standards in a number of 
different areas. For example, Federal contractors must comply with 
Executive Order 11246, which requires them to develop affirmative 
action programs for their workers. Similarly, the Davis-Bacon and 
Service Contract Acts require Federal contractors to pay area-
prevailing wages when performing Federal construction and service 
contracts. Given these requirements, it is not unreasonable for Federal 
contractors also to be held to a higher standard in the area of 
occupational safety and health.

  To address this issue, I have introduced legislation that would give 
the Secretary of Labor the authority to debar firms that show a pattern 
and practice of OSHA violations from receiving Federal contracts for up 
to 3 years. This legislation, the Federal Contractor Safety and Health 
Enforcement Act (S. 781), would provide strong new incentives for firms 
that contract with the Federal Government to maintain high safety and 
health standards.
  Even without legislation, there are steps the Federal Government can 
take to facilitate the exchange of information between OSHA and agency 
awarding and debarring officials to help improve contractor OSHA 
compliance. The GAO report recommends that OSHA develop policies and 
procedures, in consultation with the General Services Administration 
[GSA] and the Interagency Committee on Debarment and Suspension, to 
first, ensure that agencies share health and safety information on 
Federal contractors; second, determine whether and how it will consider 
a company's status as a Federal contractor in setting priorities for 
workplace inspections; and third, assess the appropriateness of also 
using this information with respect to companies receiving other forms 
of Federal assistance, such as grants and loans.
  The GAO noted that the development of such information-sharing 
between agencies ``would increase the likelihood that a company's 
health and safety record [will be] considered in decisions to award a 
contract or to debar or suspend an existing contractor.'' The report 
also noted that, under the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards 
Act, OSHA already has authority to debar companies specifically for 
safety and health violations, but that this authority is seldom invoked 
because of the high cost of litigating debarment decisions. As the use 
of contractor debarment for safety and health violations becomes more 
common and courts develop a clear set of guidelines for assessing 
debarment decisions, we can expect that such litigation costs would 
decline.
  American taxpayers should not be expected to foot the bill for 
lucrative contracts to companies that flagrantly and willfully 
disregard the health and safety of their employees. We should put 
safeguards into place to ensure that Federal contractors are held to 
high standards of worker safety and health. Rather than using the power 
of the Federal treasury to reward lawbreakers, we should use that power 
to reward firms that demonstrate a strong commitment to the safety and 
wellbeing of their employees.
  I have no personal knowledge of the health and safety records of the 
Federal contractors discussed in the GAO report. The list that follows 
was compiled by the GAO. It contains the names of selected Federal 
contractors with significant OSHA violations and their corporate 
headquarters.
  The list follows:

                    Parent Company and Headquarters

       Aluminum Co. of America, Pittsburgh, PA.\1\
       B.R. Group, Inc., Orange, MA.\2\ \3\
       B.T.R. PLC (All-Steel, Inc.), Stamford, CT.\1\
       Bethlehem Steel Corpl, Bethlehem, PA.\1\
       Biocraft Laboratories, Inc., Fair Lawn, NJ.\1\
       Blaze Construction Co., Browning, MT.\1\
       The Boeing Co., Seattle, WA.\1\
       Boise Cascade Corp., Boise, ID.\1\ \2\
       Chrysler Corp., Detroit, MI.\2\
       Clean Harbors Environmental Services Inc., Quincy, MA.\2\
       ConAgra, Inc., Omaha, NE.\1\
       Cooper/T Smith Stevedoring, Inc., Houston, TX.\1\ \3\
       Crowley Maritime Corp., Oakland, CA.\1\
       Crown Central Petroleum Corp., Baltimore, MD.\1\
       Dainippon Ink & Chemicals, Inc., (Sun Chemical), 
     Cincinnati, OH.\1\ \3\
       Dana Corp., Grand Haven, MI.\1\
       Dell Computer Corp., Austin, TX.\1\
       Federal Paper Board Co., Montvale, NJ.\1\ \2\
       Ford Motor Co., Dearborn, MI.\1\ \2\
       Fulcrum II Limited Partnership (Bath Iron Works Corp.), New 
     York, NY.\2\
       General Motors Co., Detroit, MI.\1\ \2\
       Georgia-Pacific Corp., Atlanta, GA.\1\
       Imperial Americas, Wilmington, DE.\1\
       International Paper Co., Purchase, NY.\1\ \2\
       Kohler Co. Mill Division, Kohler, WI.\2\
       Kone Holding Inc. (Montgomery Elevator), Louisville, KY.\1\
       Lockheed-Martin Corp., Calbasas, CA.\1\ \2\
       National Beef Packing Co. LP, Liberal, KS.\2\
       National Fruit Produce Co., Winchester, VA.\2\
       National Health Labs Holdings, Loyolla, CA.\2\
       P.M. Holdings Corp. (Purina Mills, Inc.), St. Louis, MO.\1\
       Pepsico, Inc. (Frito-Lay, Inc.), Purchase, NY.\1\
       Rhone-Poulenc, Inc., France\1\ \2\
       Roadway Express, Inc., Akron, OH.\1\
       Salvation Army, Alexandria, VA.\1\
       Sears Roebuck & Co., Hoffman Estates, IL.\1\
       Shell Oil Co., Houston, TX.\1\ \2\
       Simplot J.R. Co. (S.S.I. Food Services, Inc.), Boise, 
     ID.\2\
       Stone Container Corp., Chicago, IL.\1\
       Tenneco Packaging, Inc. (Packaging Corp. of America), 
     Houston, TX.\1\
       Trident Seafoods Corp., Seattle, WA.\1\
       Trinova Corp. (Vickers, Inc.), Omaha, NE.\1\ \3\
       Tyco International, Ltd. (Allied Tube & Conduit Co.), 
     Exeter, NH.\1\ \2\
       U.A.L. Corp. (United Airlines), Arlington Heights, IL.\1\
       Union Camp Corp., Wayne, NJ.\1\
       United Parcel Service Amer., Inc., Atlanta, GA.\1\ \2\
       Whirlpool Corp., Benton Harbor, MI.\1\

     \1\ Assessed significant proposed penalties ($15,000) or 
     more) in more than one inspection closed in fiscal year 1994.

[[Page S10021]]

     \2\ Assessed proposed penalty of $100,000 or more for safety 
     and health violations.
     \3\ The GAO could not determine the parent company 
     headquarters, but the location where the violation occurred 
     is provided.

     Source: General Accounting Office.

                          ____________________