[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 156 (Saturday, November 8, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2247]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


 INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION TO ALLOW EMPLOYERS OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE 
   ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF PROTECTION IN MEETING SAFETY AND HEALTH RULES

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. CASS BALLENGER

                           of north carolina

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, November 7, 1997

  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago, when President Clinton 
promised to ``reinvent'' OSHA, he promisted ``to make sure that worker 
safety rules [would be] as simple and sensible and flexible as they can 
be.'' I think we all appreciate the President's goal. Certainly anyone 
who has had to deal with OSHA's rules would not describe them as 
simple, sensible, or flexible.
  Unfortunately, OSHA has made little progress in addressing this 
aspect of reinvention. The Subcommittee on Workforce Protections 
recently completed hearings on the progress made in reinventing OSHA. 
It was apparent that little progress has been made in changing the 
regulatory progress. Even OSHA's Director of Regulatory Affairs was 
recently quoted as saying that ``regulatory reinvention is not a 
subject that has gotten much attention.''
  The legislation which I am introducing will go a long way to make 
OSHA's rules ``simple, sensible, and flexible''--without any 
diminishing of employee's safety. This legislation simply allows an 
employer to meet the same level of protection of employees that is 
mandated by OSHA's rules, but allows employers the flexibility to do so 
through means, methods, processes, or operations that are different 
than those which may be mandated by OSHA.
  It may be argued that the Occupational Safety and Health Act already 
provides flexibility to employers in meeting occupational safety and 
health standards, by providing that employers may apply for a variance 
from any standard. In reality, OSHA's variance process is unwieldy, 
lengthy, and expensive. But the test for granting a variance--that the 
employer's alternative method of protection will provide protection of 
employees equal to or greater than that provided by the standard--is 
the same test as would apply under my legislation. What my legislation 
in effect does, is make the variance process more useable and useful 
for employers.
  In short, this legislation gives employers precisely what the 
President promised: flexibility in worker safety rules without 
diminishing worker protection. I invite my colleagues to join me in 
supporting this step forward in reinventing OSHA.

                          ____________________