[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 155 (Friday, November 7, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2219]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION TO PROHIBIT OSHA FROM USING PENALTY QUOTAS

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. CASS BALLENGER

                           of north carolina

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, November 7, 1997

  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, over the past 3 years, the Subcommittee 
on Workforce Protections has held numerous hearings on issues 
surrounding OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 
While these hearings have considered a great many issues, time after 
time we have returned to the fundamental question: What is the purpose 
of OSHA? Is it to enforce rules that it has issued against supposedly 
recalcitrant employers? Or is it to promote workplace safety by 
whatever means that are most effective?
  Consider these two quotes, from testimony the Subcommittee on 
Workforce Protections received from two recent directors of OSHA, one 
in the Bush administration, the second from the director of OSHA in the 
first Clinton administration.

       Congress, for years, measured OSHA's effectiveness by the 
     number of inspections completed, the number of serious 
     citations issued, the number of dollar penalties collected, 
     the number of willful violations issued and the number of 
     criminal cases referred to the Justice Department for 
     prosecution. Are these the appropriate measures to determine 
     the effectiveness of this Act? Or should the question be: 
     ``Are hazards in the workplace being abated? Are injury rates 
     being reduced?'' That really is the crux of the issue: what 
     is the most effective approach to achieving hazard abatement 
     and injury reduction. Again, we are talking about changing 
     long standing, systemic problems with the agency. Because the 
     agency's success was measured for years by its punitive 
     activity, it has become organized accordingly.

(Testimony of Dorothy Strunk, Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, 
March 8, 1995).

       Many employers have complained that OSHA inspectors care 
     less about worker safety than they do about meeting perceived 
     ``quotas'' for citations and penalties. While OSHA has never 
     used quotas, it has in the past used citations and penalties 
     as performance measures. I have put a stop to this practice.

(Testimony of Joe Dear, Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, March 8, 
1995).
  My legislation would simply make the Clinton administration's 
commitment part of the law. It makes clear that OSHA's purpose is to 
improve safety and health for employers and employees--not just 
enforcement.
  Why is this legislation necessary if the Clinton administration has 
already stated it agrees with the policy? First, as the above statement 
indicates, OSHA's focus on enforcement numbers is long standing and 
systemic. Saying that the agency will change its personnel policies 
does not necessarily effectuate real change. Second, despite the 
Clinton administration's promise to change, the leadership of the 
agency continues to focus on enforcement measures as the purpose of the 
agency. Earlier this year, the acting assistant secretary for OSHA told 
all OSHA offices to increase the number of inspections in 1997, and to 
increase the number of large penalty cases. Third, putting this 
provision in the statute will help to assure employers and employees 
that OSHA's mission is not to collect money for the Federal Government, 
but to promote safety and health. I view this change as a small step, 
but in conjunction with other steps I am proposing, helpful to 
redirecting OSHA away from its focus on enforcement, rather than on 
safety and health.

                          ____________________