[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 15]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 21311-21312]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        OSHA'S FAILURE TO ESTABLISH AND ENFORCE SAFETY STANDARDS

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. MAJOR R. OWENS

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, October 5, 2004

  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, since 2001 the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration, OSHA, has failed to carry out its core mission of 
protecting the health and safety of American workers. By withdrawing 
more rules aimed at workplace safety than it has promulgated over the 
past 4 years, OSHA has set an appalling track record indeed. As such, 
OSHA and the Bush administration have earned the dubious distinction of 
definitively turning back the clock on worker safety.
  As documented by the Government Accountability Office, GAO, in a 
March 2004 report, OSHA has decreased the proportion of its budget 
dedicated to enforcement activities by 6 percent at the same time it 
has increased by 8 percent the proportion reserved for its Voluntary 
Protection Program, VPP. Under the VPP, OSHA offers regional 
partnerships with certain industry associations--such as construction--
to reduce worker injuries and illness. In return for keeping injury 
rates 25 percent below the industry average and holding comprehensive 
training sessions for workers, participating contractors receive a 
lower priority for scheduled OSHA inspections. Although certain 
contractors participating in the VPP have met with some success in 
reducing injury rates, this can never suffice as a substitute for 
adequate enforcement of U.S. safety standards.
  In its budget request for fiscal year 2006, the Bush administration 
promises to undermine even further OSHA's ability to develop and 
enforce essential safety and health standards through funding cuts of 
$12 million. This is a clear subversion of congressional intent in 
passing the OSHA Act more than 3 decades ago. Let me remind my 
colleagues that OSHA's clear statutory mandate is to ``assure every 
working man and woman in the United States safe and healthful working 
conditions.''
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that an article that appeared in 
today's Washington Post, outlining OSHA's woeful neglect of worker 
safety, be printed in the Record at this point.

                [From the Washington Post, Oct. 5, 2004]

         OSHA Withdraws More Rules Than It Makes, Reviews Find

                          (By Cindy Skrzycki)

       It's no secret that the Bush administration prefers 
     voluntary, collaborative efforts on the part of companies to 
     improve their safety records. Since the administration took 
     over in 2001, the Labor Department's Occupational Safety and 
     Health Administration has forged hundreds of agreements with 
     companies and business associations to improve their safety 
     records while rulemaking has been sharply curtailed.
       According to OSHA Assistant Secretary John Henshaw, the 
     approach has resulted in safer workplaces with fewer 
     fatalities, injuries and illnesses--what he calls the triple 
     bottom line. ``I've seen what works and doesn't work on the 
     shop floor,'' said Henshaw, reflecting his own career as a 
     safety and health professional at chemical companies, 
     Monsanto Co. and Astaris LLC, before he came to the safety 
     agency.
       But labor unions and some watchdog groups would rather OSHA 
     play its more traditional role, issuing regulations.
       ``We have a preference for an actual regulation that is 
     enforceable and fair across the board,'' said J. Robert 
     Shull, senior regulatory policy analyst at OMB Watch, a 
     nonprofit group funded mostly by foundations that has three 
     union officials among its 15 directors.
       Adds Peg Seminario, director of occupational safety and 
     health for the AFL-CIO: Setting and enforcing standards is 
     part of their mission. ``So why aren't they?''
       Since fall 2000, the agency has not been regulating in the 
     traditional sense, OMB Watch found in a series of reviews. 
     Twenty-four rules that were in some stage of development on 
     OSHA's agenda were withdrawn by the administration. Nine 
     rules were completed, but none were major and several were 
     related to recordkeeping.
       In examining the agency's December 2003 and June 2004 
     regulatory agendas, which track the progress of its rules, 
     OMB Watch found that since last December, OSHA has revised a 
     rule on commercial diving operations, reexamined one on 
     mechanical power presses and changed how musculoskeletal 
     disorders are reported. It completed one rule, to protect 
     shipyard workers from fire hazards, and yesterday proposed 
     new standards to protect workers from hexavalent chromium, a 
     chemical used in chrome plating. That was under a court 
     order.
       ``It's a meager output. It's the black hole of 
     government,'' Shull said. ``OSHA cleared the decks of its 
     agenda. Just swept it clean.'' His group maintains that 
     gutting the agency's regulatory agenda is a sop to business, 
     which won a big victory when the Bush administration 
     cancelled a final rule to protect workers from ergonomic 
     injuries.
       Early in the Bush administration, Henshaw said he didn't 
     put much stock in the regulatory agenda, calling it a wish 
     list that contained proposals that had been incubating for 
     years with no result. He said he preferred a ``to-do'' list--
     which OMB Watch now calls a ``do-nothing'' list.
       That list has 24 items, including whether employers have to 
     pay for protective equipment for their workers.

[[Page 21312]]

       Said Henshaw, who inherited the protective equipment 
     proposal from the Clinton administration: ``We're reviewing 
     the comments now and we're committed to taking the next step. 
     But I don't want to say exactly what the next step is.''
       His emphasis, he said, has been on cooperative efforts with 
     business and stepped-up enforcement of ``bad actors'' who are 
     responsible for most safety problems.
       The agency has formed 231 long-term alliances with trade 
     associations and companies since 2002 that emphasize 
     outreach, education, and sharing ``best practices.'' OSHA 
     under Henshaw has forged 214 active strategic partnerships 
     that set safety goals involving 4,762 employers, and there 
     are 1,153 voluntary protection program sites, where companies 
     with exemplary safety records forego routine inspections.
       Critics of the agency are leery of these arrangements, 
     where union participation is minimal. And they don't entirely 
     trust the numbers OSHA uses to support its claim that injures 
     and illnesses are decreasing. Unions don't consider the 
     reports dependable, she said, because they are furnished by 
     employers.
       Seminario points out that there have been two major changes 
     in the way employers collect injury and illness data since 
     2002, making comparisons to earlier years difficult. For 
     example, the incidence of musculoskeletal injuries on the 
     job--injuries from repetitive work and poorly designed 
     workplaces--is no longer reported separately.
       Data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on days 
     missed from work for illness show that over the past few 
     years, the percentage of days taken off due to injuries and 
     illnesses related to ergonomic issues has remained constant--
     about 34 percent--though the overall number of injuries and 
     illnesses has decreased.
       The business community said it wasn't that focused on the 
     proposed rules OSHA axed but wanted to prevent new 
     regulations. And groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 
     have been unhappy that the safety regulators issued citations 
     for ergonomic violations under a broad enforcement authority. 
     Since Congress killed the ergo rule two years ago, OSHA has 
     opened cases against seven companies for ergonomic-related 
     violations.
       Randel Johnson, vice president of labor, immigration and 
     employee benefits for the chamber, called the trend 
     troubling. ``The agency has aggressively pursued ergonomics 
     citations . . . demanding abatement measures that sound much 
     like the repealed regulation and micromanaging targeted 
     employers with a laundry list of requirements. Despite what 
     the unions may allege, our life with OSHA has been no rose 
     garden.''

                          ____________________