[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 121 (Monday, September 14, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H7647-H7648]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                POSTAL EMPLOYEES SAFETY ENHANCEMENT ACT

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
Senate bill (S. 2112) to make the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 
1970 applicable to the United States Postal Service in the same manner 
as any other employer.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                S. 2112

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Postal Employees Safety 
     Enhancement Act''.

     SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF ACT.

       (a) Definition.--Section 3(5) of the Occupational Safety 
     and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 652(5)) is amended by 
     inserting after ``the United States'' the following: ``(not 
     including the United States Postal Service)''.
       (b) Federal Programs.--
       (1) Occupational safety and health.--Section 19(a) of the 
     Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 668(a)) 
     is amended by inserting after ``each Federal Agency'' the 
     following: ``(not including the United States Postal 
     Service)''.
       (2) Other safety programs.--Section 7902(a)(2) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting after 
     ``Government of the United States'' the following: ``(not 
     including the United States Postal Service)''.

     SEC. 3. CLOSING OR CONSOLIDATION OF OFFICES NOT BASED ON OSHA 
                   COMPLIANCE.

       Section 404(b)(2) of title 39, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) The Postal Service, in making a determination whether 
     or not to close or consolidate a post office--
       ``(A) shall consider--
       ``(i) the effect of such closing or consolidation on the 
     community served by such post office;
       ``(ii) the effect of such closing or consolidation on 
     employees of the Postal Service employed at such office;
       ``(iii) whether such closing or consolidation is consistent 
     with the policy of the Government, as stated in section 
     101(b) of this title, that the Postal Service shall provide a 
     maximum degree of effective and regular postal services to 
     rural areas, communities, and small towns where post offices 
     are not self-sustaining;
       ``(iv) the economic savings to the Postal Service resulting 
     from such closing or consolidation; and
       ``(v) such other factors as the Postal Service determines 
     are necessary; and
       ``(B) may not consider compliance with any provision of the 
     Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651 et 
     seq.).''.

     SEC. 4. PROHIBITION ON RESTRICTION OR ELIMINATION OF 
                   SERVICES.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 4 of title 39, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding after section 414 the following:

     ``Sec. 415. Prohibition on restriction or elimination of 
       services

       ``The Postal Service may not restrict, eliminate, or 
     adversely affect any service provided by the Postal Service 
     as a result of the payment of any penalty imposed under the 
     Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651 et 
     seq.).''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 4 of title 39, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

``415. Prohibition on restriction or elimination of services.''.

     SEC. 5. LIMITATIONS ON RAISE IN RATES.

       Section 3622 of title 39, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Compliance with any provision of the Occupational 
     Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) shall 
     not be considered by the Commission in determining whether to 
     increase rates and shall not otherwise affect the service of 
     the Postal Service.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Martinez) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, speaking for the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Greenwood), S. 2112 passed the Senate by unanimous consent on July 31, 
1998. The bill is nearly identical to H.R. 3725 which was introduced by 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood). H.R. 3725 was passed 
by the Committee on Education and the Workforce on June 10 by voice 
vote, passed by the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight on 
July 23 by voice vote. S. 2123 allows the Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration to issue citations and fines against the U.S. 
Postal Service for violations of OSHA standards and requirements in 
postal facilities and workplaces. Under the Occupational Safety and 
Health Act of 1970 the Postal Service monitors its own compliance with 
OSHA requirements, and while OSHA may conduct inspections of postal 
facilities OSHA may not issue citations or penalties.
  As the U.S. Postal Service competes more and more directly with 
private companies, it is appropriate that it do so on a level playing 
field with regard to such issues as compliance with safety and health 
regulations. Furthermore, worker safety has been a significant concern 
at the U.S. Postal Service, concern that has often been blamed in the 
lack of OSHA enforceability. For both of these reasons we believe it 
time to bring the postal service under OSHA enforcement. We are pleased 
that the Senate has agreed and has already passed this bill. By passing 
the Senate bill today we can send the bill on to the President for his 
signature.
  I want to particularly commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Greenwood) for his efforts in moving his bill through two committees of 
the House and also commend Senator Enzi for moving his bill through the 
Senate, and I urge support for this legislation.
  The U.S. Postal Service has raised two issues with the language of S. 
2112. I would note that the Postal Service has raised these concerns 
only in recent days, after S. 2112 was passed by the Senate and 
companion bills were passed by two committees of the House. Nonetheless 
I do want to address the Postal Service's concerns.
  First, the Postal Service expresses concern that S. 2112 does not 
include a delay in the effective date of the legislation. The Postal 
Service has, since 1970, been subject to section 19 of the Occupational 
Safety and Health Act, which obligates the Postal Service to 
``establish and maintain an effective and comprehensive safety and 
health program which is consistent with [OSHA standards.] So for the 
most part, S. 2112 does not subject the Postal Service to new standards 
and requirements. It simply gives OSHA the authority to enforce those 
standards and requirements. However, there may be a few specific new 
requirements as a result of the enactment of S. 2112, particularly, 
with regard to recording injuries and illnesses. Similarly, some state 
OSHA programs, which under S. 2112 will have enforcement jurisdiction 
over Postal Service facilities in 21 states, may have requirements that 
deviate from the federal requirements which the Postal Service was 
required to meet under section 19.
  Where there are these new requirements, I encourage the Postal 
Service to work with OSHA and the state programs on a reasonable period 
for coming into full compliance as quickly as possible. And I would 
expect that similarly OSHA and the state OSHA agencies would work with 
the Postal Service, to bring the Postal Service into full compliance as 
quickly as possible. Given the discretion that these enforcement 
agencies have, I do not believe that a legislated delay in effective 
date is necessary, particularly given the fact that for the most part 
the Postal Service has been long subject to most of OSHA's standards, 
and that where there are changes and new requirements, a reasonable 
time for coming full compliance can be worked out between OSHA or the 
states and the Postal Service.
  Second, the Postal Service has raised concerns with the language used 
in section 5 of S. 2112. Section 5 amends section 3622 of title 39 of 
the U.S. Code to add the following provision: ``Compliance with any 
provision of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 shall not 
be considered by the Commission in determining whether to increase 
rates and shall not otherwise affect the service of the Postal 
Service.'' The Postal Service has claimed that this language could mean 
that the Postal Service would not be able to spend any funds generated 
from postal fees and rates to fund its safety and health programs and 
expenditures necessary to comply with OSHA standards, regulations, and 
the general duty clause.
  This concern is unwarranted. First of all, the interpretation 
suggested by the Postal Service would be absurd: the purpose of S. 2112 
is to improve safety and compliance with OSHA standards at Postal 
Service workplaces. The

[[Page H7648]]

interpretation of section 5 suggested by the Postal Service would have 
the opposite effect. Secondly, the interpretation of section 5 
suggested by the Postal Service is not required by the legislative 
language itself, and is clearly contrary to the legislative history, 
particularly the statements of Senator Enzi, who sponsored and wrote 
this legislation. During debate in the Senate, Senator Enzi explained 
that this provision is intended to ``prevent the Postal Rate Commission 
from raising the price of stamps to help the Postal Service pay for 
potential OSHA fines. Rather the Postal Service should offset the 
potential for the fines by improving workplace conditions.'' (emphasis 
added) Senator Enzi's statement makes very clear that Section 5 is 
referring only to any penalties or fines that may be assessed against 
the Postal Service for not complying with OSHA requirements.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2112, the Postal Employees 
Safety Enhancement Act on behalf of the ranking Democrats on the 
committee and subcommittee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) and 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens). As my colleague from 
Pennsylvania did such a thorough job describing this, I will not take 
too much time and keep my comments brief.
  Currently the Federal agencies including the postal service are 
subject to OSHA inspections and are required to comply with OSHA 
standards. I agree that all public employees should enjoy full 
protection of OSHA and believe that when a Federal agency fails to 
fulfill its lawful obligation to comply with OSHA standards it should 
be subject to sanctions. However the Department of Labor and many State 
agencies currently lack the authority to issue citations to the Postal 
Service making enforcement very difficult. S. 2112 merely makes the 
Postal Service liable to the same extent as private employers for 
failure to comply with OSHA standards.
  With regards to my colleague's comments earlier, there was talk about 
Section 5 of the act, and our side agrees that this is not a detriment 
to the Postal Service. Section 5 merely prohibits the Postal Service 
from raising the price of stamps to pay for potential OSHA fines that 
the Postal Service should be avoiding in the first place through 
improved working conditions. As a matter of fact, my only objection to 
this legislation is that it does not provide full or does not extend 
full OSHA protections to all public employees. However extending the 
full protection of OSHA to thousands of postal workers throughout the 
country is a worthy accomplishment, and this is a good first step.
  I urge the Members to support S. 2112.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. I, too, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 2112.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the Senate bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________