Have you had a chance to do a survey in the State of Nebraska as to how businesses would be affected by the continued enforcement of the act as it is now applied?

Senator CURTIS. I have not made any estimates.

I think that most of them are hanging on, but reports have come to me of individuals having closed up because this burden being added to the existing burdens of operating businesses this day is just more than they can handle.

Mr. McKEVITT. I might add that OSHA is no longer a proper noun or proper name in the State of Colorado; it is a swear word, because of the application that has been given to it.

Senator, I want to thank you very much for your testimony today. Senator CURTIS. Well, thank you.

I might add that there is one community in my State where a number of employers wanted information about OSHA, and the area director advised that he could not come to that particular plant because, if he did, he would have to cite them and fine them. I have a letter to that effect to an employer in another town.

Well, they asked him if he could have a meeting with them away from their places of business in another town and discuss this with them. He picked the date and he agreed to be there. Sometime before the meeting arrived he sent word he could not be there but that one of his employees would be. The involved people in that community gathered for the meeting and no one appeared, and a little bit later they got a telephone call from an adjoining town where the man said he had car trouble. It was a town large enough where he could have rented a car.

Mr. McKEVITT. Well, this is one of the most idiotic situations, that has been confirmed by the testimony all day, this reluctance to have meetings. Where did this all get started?

Senator CURTIS. Well, this is one of the most idiotic situations, that was finally passed in the act-this philosophy of bearing down on the employer, the hate-the-employer philosophy. I am not going to argue with people about their economic views or labor versus management, but the point is that it does not produce safety or improve health standards because it drives the employers into a position of having to make a compliance that may not be the right compliance, and there is, certainly, nothing in this act that promotes or encourages safety programs with employees.

As a matter of fact, in my amendments, and similar amendments that are pending in the House, there is a provision making it lawful and not in violation of existing labor laws for an employer to set up a committee with the employees and work with them on the safety aspects, but they can't do it now.

Mr. McKEVITT. One thing I found, by the way, is the fact that labor agrees with management in many respects, that there are many abuses in inspection to the point where labor is antagonistic as well. We found this in our area. We asked them if this program was meeting their needs on safety, and they felt that it was going beyond or that it was too extreme. It has destroyed the original intent of the act.

Senator CURTIS. I think that is correct.

Any criticism that I have voiced against unions, I want the record to show that I am referring to those expressions of a few leaders. I think there is no question but what the rank and file of labor people, both organized and unorganized, are very reasonable and fair and trustworthy in all of their dealings with the Government and with their employer and everybody else. But there has been, in some instances, too much of a liaison between the inspector and certain union organizers.

Mr. McKEVITT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HUNGATE. Thank you.

Mr. Bergland?

Mr. BERGLAND. Senator, I can hardly see you for the pile of redtape on the witness table.

It is not a wonder, therefore, that there is so much difficulty about the country in applying the terms of this program.

You are an attorney?

Senator CURTIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. BERGLAND. You have read the act?

Senator CURTIS. I have read the act; yes, sir.

Mr. BERGLAND. To what extent do you think this outrageous amount of redtape is required by law and how much of this can be directly attributed to the whims of some bureaucrat in the Department who has gotten carried away with his own importance?

Senator CURTIS. I think the law is at fault. I believe that the Congress must assume that responsibility, but they are not at fault for all of it, of course.

I believe that the Labor Department has failed utterly in promulgating understandable regulations. I think the first obligation of all people in Government is to be just and fair, and I believe that when they found there were provisions in this law that prevented them from carrying out a good program and writing understandable regulations, that they had a responsibility to immediately ask for some changes in the law. I believe that the conduct of the Labor Department in the field, so far as the State I represent, leaves very much to be desired. I believe that the attitude of the inspectors, the area directors, and others has been most hostile toward many of our citizens.

Mr. BERGLAND. Senator, on page 11 of your statement you state:

It is quite apparent that the regulations promulgated by the Labor Department are written by someone not familiar with the subject matter or industry affected.

Senator CURTIS. I had a number of examples of this. I had one called to my attention where a contracting firm was one of the larger ones and they had always used soil analyses to determine the safety requirements when they would excavate for one or two stories below the ground, and they pointed out that the regulations in reference to that were not in accord with the best information available.

Mr. BERGLAND. Senator, I have been informed that the people in charge of developing these regulations do not have on their staff persons who are competent safety engineers. Do you know if that is a correct statement?

Senator CURTIS. I am sure it must be. I have made no survey of it; but I am sure it must be, judging by the finished product.

80-497-72-8

Mr. BERGLAND. Who are these people, do you know?

Senator CURTIS. I do not know. They recruited some extra people, but I am sure they are inspecting many, many types of work where they have no experience at all.

Mr. BERGLAND. Thank you very much, Senator.

Mr. HUNGATE. Once again, Senator, we certainly appreciate your testimony here.

As I understand it, you think that the Department that promulgated these regulations could unpromulgate some of them that do not seem to be applicable?

Senator CURTIS. Yes, I think they should revise their regulations, make them fair and understandable; and when they get to a point where that can't be done, they should come to the Congress and say so. Mr. HUNGATE. Thank you very much. It has been very helpful, your entire statement.

And, without objection, the bill will be put in the record at its appropriate place.

Senator CURTIS. Thank you.

Mr. HUNGATE. The next witness before the committee will be our colleague, the Honorable Arthur A. Link.

Mr. LINK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BERGLAND. May I say for the record that our colleague from North Dakota has served with me on the Committee on Agriculture now for a year and a half, and he is one of the outstanding farm lawmakers. I am certainly delighted that Congressman Link is here this afternoon to present his views.

Mr. HUNGATE. I might say I look forward to hearing him. I had the privilege of serving with him on the District of Columbia Committee. He was the only nonlawyer on the Judiciary Subcommittee, and he frequently pointed out the holes in our arguments. So, I thought he was very helpful.

TESTIMONY OF HON. ARTHUR A. LINK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

Mr. LINK. Gentlemen, you flatter me with your statements.

I appreciate your sentiments, and I thank you for the opportunity to appear and share with you some of the concerns I personally have and those of the people I represent in the State of North Dakota.

I commend you for taking a close look at the impact of administration of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) on small businessmen and farmers.

I know of no one who is against safety and health. Although I was not a Member of the Congress that enacted OSHA, I believe everyone agrees with the purpose of the law: "* * * to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions and to preserve our human resources

At the same time, Mr. Chairman, I believe that there is room to question the manner in which the Department of Labor is implementing the act.

The Occupational Safety and Health Act, known as the WilliamsSteiger act, has generated more spontaneous constituent concern than

any other issue in the year and a half that I have been in Congress. The almost universal concern is that this act, by unduly restrictive and burdensome requirements, will severely hamper the operations of the small businessman and the farmer.

The major failure of the Department of Labor in its administration of the act is its failure to see that accurate and understandable information regarding the act reach the small businessman and farmer.

This is the first-time coverage for millions of small businessmen and farmers. The Department of Labor should have devoted much more time and effort toward explaining what is required under the act and toward helping people to comply. To cite just one example, it was mid-April of this year before my office received an information packet on OSHA. It took numerous calls from my office before I could get a list of requirements that apply to agriculture. If Members of Congress have such a hard time obtaining information, imagine the frustration of an automobile dealer or a gasoline station operator in rural North Dakota !

There is no reason why the small business, the farm, or the auto machine shop should be allowed to be more unsafe than a steel mill or furniture factory. Safety and health should apply to both large and small employers. But at the same time, I think that the Department of Labor needs to be aware that:

The grocer with five employees is not in the same position as large industry with a full-time health and safety staff;

Such small concerns lack a large legal department to interpret the language found in the Federal Register; and

A fine of $5,000 for a business grossing $100,000 annually has a more far-reaching impact than a similar fine on one grossing $5 million.

I have introduced a bill, H.R. 14393, which would assist the businessman and farmer in complying with the Williams-Steiger act. My bill would change the law to allow courtesy inspections and permit correction of dangerous conditions without penalty.

In summary. I recommend that the Department of Labor work more closely with the small businessman and farmer to achieve the main objectives of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HUNGATE. Thank you for your statement. It was well written, succinct, and to the point.

Mr. Bergland?

Mr. BERGLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Link, you were just recently in North Dakota and, as you traveled about the State and listened to your constituents, did you find evidence to suggest that some businessmen may be driven out of business because of some of these regulations?

Mr. LINK. I have correspondence in my file in my office and by personal contact and by telephone calls, where many small businessmen have indicated a deep concern. Many of them are merely hanging on, and their margin of profit and return on their investment and operations is such that extensive remodeling requirements could tip the scale and suggest to them that they had better get out of business. They have expressed this as a very real possibility.

Mr. BERGLAND. I am sure that neither you, nor I, nor any member of the committee, nor the House, in fact, is interested in changing the law or the regulations to such an extent that it could lead to unsafe working conditions.

Mr. LINK. Absolutely not.

Mr. BERGLAND. Our concern is really trying to separate those things that really do not make sense and preserve those parts of the regulations that will enforce strict codes and maintain conditions conducive to health and safety.

Mr. LINK. Let me state, Congressman Bergland-and with your permission, Mr. Chairman-that a little over a week ago while back in my district, I was invited to attend a part of the annual convention of the North Dakota Stockmen's Association. I took with me two pieces of congressional legislation that I thought dealt directly with the interests of livestock people in my State. I was invited to sit in at their initial meeting of the resolutions committee prior to the official beginning of the convention. As I went into the room and sat down at the table, the first thing that the chairman of the resolutions committee asked me was: "Can you explain the total effect of OSHA?" This was the first thing, before I even got into the things that I thought they were meeting for.

And they had already drafted an initial resolution, a very strongly worded resolution, actually quite a forceful statement, against the whole act.

(The information follows:)

The meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m. on the 15th day of April, 1972 by the president of the North Dakota Managers Association, Alvin Orth of Casselton.

The men present introduced themselves. A registration list is enclosed. The president explained the purpose of the meeting saying that there was so much confusion about the Williams-Steiger Health and Safety Act that they thought there should be some more explaining done about the Act. So Don Young. who is a representative from the National Farmers Union and calls on all of the Farmers Union Oil Companies and Farmers Union Elevators across the Northwest area, was asked to explain the Act a little bit. Some of the questions that came up in the morning was "Can we come up with some changes to send to our Representatives and Senators in Washington, D.C.?" One of the big questions seemed to be, "What can a federal inspector do and what can't he do?" After full discussion there was a lunch break at 12:30.

It was decided the afternoon should be spent on trying to come up with some suggestions of revisions for the understanding of the law.

Suggestion #1: Insist that merchandise received from supplier meets the federal standards under the Occupational Safety and Health Act. (For example, all office equipment should be grounded, then there should be a three-wire prong on all office equipment. Likewise with pop machines and dispensers of this kind. If they must be grounded, they should have a three-pronged outlet.)

Suggestion #2: We feel the simplication of the wording in the Federal Register, as it applies to each business, in small pamphlet form. (For example, as it applies to service stations or elevators or trucking firms, etc., so a layman can understand the Act as it pertains to them.)

Suggestion #3: Federal inspectors have the power to regulate the federal fines or to forgive the fines on violations, mostly on character. We feel the federal inspectors should not place so much value on character judgment. Personality clashes should have no bearing on the fines. (The forgiveness or the amount.) Suggestion #4: If reports of meeting prove that employees have been instructed properly, and an employee then disobeys orders, management should then be excused of all penalties.

Suggestion #5: We would ask that the entire control of the inspections be turned over to the State of North Dakota Workmens Compensation Bureau as soon as possible.