[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 129 (Thursday, July 31, 2008)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1632]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  INTRODUCING THE ``PROHIBITING THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR'S SECRET RULE 
                                 ACT''

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. GEORGE MILLER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 30, 2008

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, today I am 
introducing a bill to stop the Department of Labor from proceeding with 
a new proposed rule that would seriously undermine the ability of the 
Federal Government to protect workers' health. The Department's 
proposal is the product of a flawed, politicized process.
  On July 7, 2008, the Department of Labor submitted a proposed 
regulation entitled ``Requirements for DOL Agencies' Assessment of 
Occupational Health Risks'' to the Office of Management and Budget, 
OMB, for E.O. 12866 regulatory review.
  This proposal is being made in contravention of a number of rules and 
processes. No notice of this rule was published in the semi-annual 
Regulatory Agenda as required under Executive Order 12866. Furthermore, 
unlike all other DOL regulatory submissions to OMB, the information 
provided on the OMB Web site did not originally contain the rule's 
abstract, legal authority, timetable, agency contact, and other 
information required by the Executive Order. Although the intent is to 
finalize this rule before the end of the Bush administration, this 
submission violated the White House's own directive prohibiting 
submission of new regulations to OMB after June 1 except in 
``extraordinary circumstances.''
  What are the ``extraordinary circumstances'' that are being used to 
rush through this last minute, secret regulation on a subject as arcane 
and technical as ``risk assessment?'' Assessing risk is the backbone of 
any OSHA or MSHA standard that addresses hazards posed by chemicals or 
other health hazards. Changing the assumptions underlying risk 
assessment to those favored by industry can seriously erode the 
effectiveness of all future OSHA or MSHA standards far beyond the life 
of this administration.
  The Department claims that this proposal was not published in the 
most recent regulatory agenda because when the last regulatory agenda 
was issued, they had not yet decided whether they would issue a 
proposal. But the Washington Post has revealed that they have been 
working on this regulation as far back as September 2007, when they 
paid $349,000 to outside consultants to conduct a study of the risk-
assessment process.
  The entire proposal appears to have been designed and originated by 
political appointees at the Department of Labor, bypassing the real 
experts at OSHA and MSHA. According to the Washington Post, when a 
draft was finally shown to health scientists in MSHA and OSHA, they 
objected to both the legality and substance of the proposal and 
suggested that the proposal not be issued. The political appointees at 
the Department went ahead anyway.
  In the last 7\1/2\ years, the Department has only managed to issue 
one health standard--and that was done under court order. It has failed 
to meet its own deadlines on regulations to protect workers against the 
health effects of silica, against the health effects of beryllium, or 
against the serious health effects of diacetyl, which causes popcorn 
lung.
  Yet, suddenly, the Department of Labor has decided that further 
weakening the ability of OSHA or MSHA to issue any future health 
standards has become its highest priority.
  No one is arguing that OSHA or MSHA do not need guidance for risk 
assessment. But the Department of Labor already has such guidance. This 
new regulation, however, which clearly has the potential to weaken 
worker protections, will be codified, binding all future 
administrations. Other agencies that have such guidance, such as the 
Environmental Protection Agency, note that ``because the science of 
risk assessment continues to develop rapidly . . . risk assessments 
will be modified to use different approaches if appropriate.''
  The new Labor regulation, on the other hand, would add an entire 
additional layer of review to the already overstressed regulatory 
process by requiring notice and comments for all risk-related studies 
before a proposal can be issued. This would be in addition to numerous 
economic reviews, small business reviews, OMB reviews, public comments 
and public hearings that are already required before a standard is 
issued.
  This Congress will not stand for further weakening of worker 
protections, particularly when it's done secretly--as this 
administration heads out of town. This bill would forbid the Department 
of Labor from issuing, administering or enforcing any rule, regulation, 
or requirement derived from the proposal submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget. The Department's proposal is the product of a 
flawed, politicized process that has failed to properly consider the 
views of experts or the consequences for workplace health.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

                          ____________________