Mr. ABOUREZK. Well, that is what OSHA says now.

Mr. ROE. In the regulations there are no provisions for complaints from persons other than employees or their representatives. You are now talking about a third party.

Mr. ABOUREZK. I am glad you brought that up. In talking to the investigator from the Labor Department today, Jim Jura-he is sitting over here in the hearing room right now-he said that they are not supposed to take complaints from insurance companies. I don't know if that is in the regulations, but apparently that is part of the Department's regulations.

Mr. HUNGATE. Now, this is part of the dispute in some of the testimony we had earlier today.

In Senator Curtis' testimony, this was one of the issues brought up. One of our witnesses made the point that they say they can't report an accident; that the employee or his representative is the only one that can do this, and you are distinctly contradicting this.

On page 5 (b) of the testimony of Senator Curtis today:

I have tape-recorded evidence of inaccurate information disseminated by the Labor Department. The Area Director of OSHA in Nebraska has told groups of employers that the person who complains of a hazardous condition, leading to an inspection must be "an employee or his representative." The law states that an employee or his representative may complain, but does not limit it to that.

So, the information furnished to Senator Curtis was that only an employee or his representative could complain, so that would eliminate the insurance company although Senator Curtis and others appear to completely disagree with that interpretation of the law by the Labor Department.

Mr. ABOUREZK. Well, even aside from the fact that the regulations may not provide for an insurance company to make a complaint, it is very strange that on the day that I talked to the inspector, in the last part of May, he did not mention a word about the insurance company or the accident. Later on, when he finds himself being investigated by his own Department he comes up with this accident and the story that the insurance company has tipped him off earlier.

Mr. ROE. And the accident only happened in one plant. It didn't happen in both?

Mr. ABOUREZK. No; it happened in the feed mill.

Mr. HUNGATE. I think your point is well taken. It would certainly put you off if the fellow had come back and said, "Now, Congressman, we have had an accident there." But he did not say that.

Mr. ABOUREZK. Well, it could have been one of the easiest things to say, I think.

Mr. HUNGATE. I want to thank you, Congressman Abourezk, for your useful and good work and your constant concern for the people in the rural areas and the small businessman.

We are pleased to have you.
(Additional statements follow:)

STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFFORD P. HANSEN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF

WYOMING

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to appear before this distinguished Committee today to express my concerns and those of the citizens of Wyoming about provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 and the administration of that Act. I congratulate you and your Committee, Mr. Chairman, for

holding these hearings. I can truthfully say that no one issue has been more controversial in Wyoming in my years of public service than the Occupational Safety and Health Act. I have long urged that the Congress stop, take a look at this legislation and correct the abuses. Your hearings today are a good place to start. It is my hope that my colleagues in the Senate will follow your example and soon hold hearings on OSHA in the Senate.

The issuance of standards to implement OSHA and the enforcement of those standards has caused great confusion, concern and anger in the State of Wyoming. Wyoming may seem far off, and because of its sparse population, unrepresentative of the country. But the problems there cannot be ignored. If the Congress enacts legislation applicable to the entire nation, then that law must be workable throughout the entire nation. If it is not, equity requires that the law be amended.

The Congress has decided that occupational safety and health should no longer be left solely to the States. In making that decision, it has an obligation to provide federal legislation that is flexible to meet the needs of significantly varying situations throughout the nation. It cannot enact laws designed to serve only one paricular set of circumstances in one region and then apply those laws nationally. We must recognize that problems do exist with the present Occupational Safety and Health Act and that the Act can be made beter.

However, I am inclined to believe that the problems with the present OSHA law are not confined to the sparsely populated states which are not centers of manufacturing and heavy industry. I believe the problems surfaced in these states first because the lack of large firms meant that many smaller firms and businesses were inspected at an early dote. When similar size busineses are inpected in the more populous state, I believe similar problems will be uncovered. I do not want to mislead the Committee. I support the goals of the Occupational Safety and Health Act and voted for the bill in the Senate. But the fact that the cause is good and the intent of the Congress is good does not alter the fact that problems exist. The Act is not perfect, and the Act should be amended to prevent inequities and abuses.

National consensus standards form the heart of the standards adopted by the Department of Labor under OSHA. While these standards may be reasonable when applied to the industries for which they were intended, they become absurd when applied to every employer in the United States. The Act should be amended to require the Department before assessing a penalty that the failure to meet a standard actually has created a hazard for an employee which would not have existed if the standard had been adopted in that particular instance. If the federal government requires employers to incur costs (which incidentally may be passed on to the consumer in many cases through higher prices) without being able to show that the cost is justified by improving employee working conditions, then it is no wonder that citizens question the sanity of government. For this same reason, the Act should be amended to make it clear that an employer is not responsible for matters over which he has no control or to comply with standards of which he has never been given notice.

The Department is now working to rescind standards which are inapplicable in many instances and in some cases downright ridiculous. I commend the Department for taking this corrective action. The problem is that the citizens don't know that the Department recognizes it has made a mistake and is in the process of dropping a particular standard. So the good, law abiding citizen who has waded through hundreds of pages of standards which in many cases require reading supplemental materials before they can be understood goes to the expense of making changes to meet a standard even though he and the government both know the standard is foolish.

You might ask why a citizen would take such action. The Department has continually told me that there is no need for worry, that penalties are not assessed for violation of these questionable standards and that the Department is concentrating its inspections on target industries. But in Wyoming, the people know that the law is applicable to every employer, not just to the employers in target industries or to employers who get caught. They want to abide by the law. They also know that fines are levied without giving an employer an opportunity to correct violations of which he was not aware and which are pointed out by the inspector. So he has done his best to inform himself about the standards, and in reading the standards, he has no way of knowing that the Department which wrote the standards has now decided in less than a year that some of the standards are bad.

OSHA officials have told me that the problems experienced in Wyoming are the result of misinformation. I have done my best to cooperate with federal agencies, businessmen and citizens to present facts and correct misconceptions. But, if misinformation is at the heart of the problem, I ask who is responsible for the misinformation. The answer is the federal government.

The Act is implemented by the Department of Labor by the adoption of hundreds of pages of standards. I have already mentioned the fact that some of the standards are unworkable when applied to all American employers. On top of this, copies of the standards are not readily available. I have received complaints from employers who have tried for months to get a copy of the standards from the government.

If a copy of the standards is available, then the citizen must wade through the document. Even though many of the standards do not have application to particular businesses, there is no way of knowing which standards are applicable to your business. The Department has not prepared copies of the standards which are applicable to a particular business. So a small businessman who does not hire individuals to specialize in employee relations is overwhelmed with reams of material, most of which may not be applicable to him. Steps must be taken to provide OSHA information in a precise and understandable form for individual employers. After reading through the standards, an employer learns that many are meaningless without reading through supplementary manuals which define terms and explain equipment. Then the job is to get copies of those manuals.

But what is going on while an employer is trying to figure out the regulations so that he can comply with the Law? OSHA inspectors are in the field, inspecting businesses and levying fines for violations of standards which the federal government has not had the ability to explain to the employers. The employer with the best of intentions of complying with the law is given no opportunity to comply once the standards are explained to him. He is branded a lawbreaker and fined.

Presently only four specific standards are applicable to agriculture. The Department has published a brochure carefully setting out these standards. This sounds simple enough. But in the text of the brochure, not set off as are the four standards, the Department mentions the general duty of the employer. On questioning OSHA officials, one will learn that the general duty clause is much broader than the four standards, and indeed an agricultural employer might be fined for violations of other standards under the general duty clause. Therefore an employer who has read the four agricultural standards and in good faith complied may find out later that OSHA inspectors will fine him for violation of standards which were not specifically set forth in the agricultural brochure prepared by OSHA itself.

I can understand that the administration of a new law applicable to every employer and employee in the nation is a most complicated and demanding undertaking. I do not expect the federal government and its agencies to be perfect from the very beginning in the administration of this law. I know it takes time to train new inspectors and administrators. It will take time, and certainly mistakes have already been made. But if it will take time for the federal government to get its own house in shape under OSHA, I cannot understand why the federal government insists on demanding perfection from its citizens. Why can't citizens be given a period of grace to learn and comply with the standards? Why must they be fined without being given an opportunity to comply? Of all the fines levied against Wyoming citiens, only one fine was for a "serious" violation.

The Congress has an obligation to see that our citizens are treated fairly. OSHA is a complicated law. We now know what some of the problems are and the legislation should be amended to see that the problems are corrected and that they will not recur. I do not believe that it is the desire of the Congress to give American employers a persecution complex. But if the Congress fails to act, and act soon, that is just what the result of the well intentioned law will be. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the time to give my views on OSHA and to explain the problems encountered in Wyoming. I have files of mail in my office from Wyoming citiens expressing their concern. Some are upset with the inability to get information. Others are angry at standards which are expensive to comply with and which will not improve employee health and safety in their particular circumstances. Many employers resent the unfairness in being penalized and called lawbreakers even though they have not been given an opportunity

to comply with the standards. One citizen has expressed concern over the impact which OSHA will have on his program to provide useful jobs for the physically and mentally handicapped. A mother with the responsibility of supporting her three sons is worried that her employer will be forced to close his business. Some Wyoming employers have closed their businesses because of the inability to meet standards.

Mr. Chairman, these citizens are genuine in their concern and I hope that this hearing today is an indication that the Congress is at last ready to address itself to the problems created by the passage of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.

STATEMENT OF HON. J. J. PICKLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. Chairman, it is with some regret that I feel compelled to offer testimony before this Committee today. Regret, because my remarks are directed toward a piece of legislation I supported at the time of its passage. I speak, of course, of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.

Congress passed this act with the aim of substantially reducing the more than 14,000 deaths and 2,000,000 disabling injuries that occur each year in job-related accidents. That is a laudible goal that I supported then and support now. Both labor and management generally supported the bill as it passed.

When this legislation passed, it was felt that the complexities involved, and the varying conditions presented by size and type of business, required that broad discretion be placed in the Secretary of Labor to meet the safety problems posed by these complexities and conditions.

After more than a year of experience with this Act, we find that the discretion placed in the Secretary of Labor has been destroyed and grossly abused.

We find that the Secretary of Labor has handed down blanket rules and regulations with insufficient regard to size or type of business.

We find that he has imposed voluminous, complicated and often meaningless edicts, which have little or nothing to do with safety and fall most heavily on small businesses. The May 29, 1971 Federal Register alone contains 214 pages of these rules and regulations in small print.

Typical of these rules is the one prohibiting water coolers in which ice comes in contact with the water. Now this may have been a good rule 50 years ago when ice was not always sanitary, but what useful purpose could such a rule serve today?

How many of us who in the years past experienced this refreshing break in the workday ever thought we were endangering our health?

How many of us anticipated when this legislation passed that it meant federal inspectors peering into the water can on the small construction job in Bastrop, Texas, or Smithville, Texas?

Perhaps this seems trivial and far-fetched, but it does point up the absurdity of the edicts of the Secretary of Labor and is an example of his curious methods. This "health standard" was devised by the American National Standards Institute in 1935, nearly 40 years ago, when dry ice and unsanitary ice was in use. Without study or concern whether they have validity, the Department of Labor has made these rules, formulated by private organizations years ago, the law of the land. Such is the callous disregard for the employer and employee who have to comply with these edicts. More important than such absurd regulations as this--and there are many more of them-are the absurd regulations that require large sums of money to comply with-and there are many of these also.

One example is the detailed regulations concerning the construction of restroom facilities. Again, how many of us ever thought we would see the day we would have federal inspectors in our District inspecting restrooms, ruler in hand, to make sure the measurements met federal standards. These regulations are absurd and costly to comply with.

One of my constituents, an automobile dealer, has estimated it will cost him over $30,000 to conform to all the regulations and yet there has been only one serious accident at his dealership in over 50 years of operation. My files are full of similar letters.

Further, Mr. Chairman, it appears that in the enforcement of these thousands of regulations, the Secretary of Labor and his coterie of inspectors are more concerned with issuing citations and assessing penalties than with helping businessmen understand and conform to the rules.

80-497-72-10

This Committee is well aware of the problems of small businesses. It is well aware that the small businessman cannot afford to hire lawyers and experts to interpret and comply with the thousands of rules and regulations handed down by the Secretary of Labor. Neither can they afford the legal and clerical help needed to fill out all the forms required.

This Committee is also well aware that there are vast differences between small businesses and big businesses. The ability to hire safety experts, lawyers, and clerical help is only one.

It should be obvious to all that the problems of safety encountered in a small non-manufacturing concern, where there is a close relationship between employer and employee, are vastly different than those safety problems in a large, impersonal manufacturing concern. The Secretary of Labor or his agents fail to appreciate this distinction in the rules and regulations he has laid down.

An onerous burden has been placed on the shoulders of small businessmen without proof of appreciable enhancement in the safety of the employees of these businessmen. There is a pressing need for this burden to be lifted.

A start in the right direction would be greater flexibility on the part of the Secretary of Labor in approving state regulations for health and safety. State agencies are more cognizant of local problems and needs. They are in a position to be closer to the particular problem.

An extremely important step was taken this past week when the House of Representatives voted not to pay federal inspectors who are assigned to firms with fewer than 25 employees.

Last week the House of Representatives attached an amendment to the LaborHEW Appropriation Bill which indicates the strong concern of Congress as to the manner in which the OSHA is being enforced. The House approved an amendment that would prohibit any of the funds appropriated for the Department of Labor to be used to pay the salary of federal employees who inspect firms employing 25 persons or less for compliance with the OSHA.

Along with other members who had sponsored similar legislation, I supported this action. I am heartened with the show of concern by this Committee to the problems small businesses have encountered with the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Perhaps through your efforts and the efforts of all of us, some relief can be obtained without sacrificing our goal of health and safety for employees.

Hon. WILLIAM HUNGATE,

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., June 21, 1972.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Environmental Problems Affecting Small Business, House Select Small Business Committee, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR BILL: Thank you for the opportunity to present my statement regarding the Occupational Safety and Health Act which I have enclosed for inclusion in the hearings record.

If the committee has any further questions about my statement or would like an amplification of my remarks, I will be happy to comply.

Sincerely,

Enclosure.

DON FUQUA, Member of Congress.

STATEMENT OF HON. DON FUQUA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE

OF FLORIDA

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity to present testimony regarding the arbitrary and inequitable manner in which the Occupational Safety and Health Act is being administered. These hearings are most appropriate and timely-especially in light of the amendment which was adopted by the House to the Departments of Labor and HEW Appropriation bill calling for a one year moratorium from the harrassment by federal inspectors of firms employing fewer than twenty-five people-and I commend the committee for providing industry and other interested parties this forum.