to aid employers, such as small business loans. To my knowledge, there have been eight loans in the United States processed by the Small Business Administration, of all the employers affected in the United States. These are very impractical ways of getting aid.

If the inspector would come out like any other State inspector, safety inspector, and say, "You have violation. We would like for you to correct it," the employers would do it. But they don't. They come out and say, "You have that in violation and we are going to fine you." Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HUNGATE. Thank you very much. Your testimony has been very helpful.

Mr. Roncalio, of Wyoming, is our next witness. We are glad to have our colleague with us.

TESTIMONY OF HON. TENO RONCALIO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

Mr. RONCALIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am grateful for an opportunity to appear before this committee. I have labored long, and so far in vain, in an attempt by legislation or interpretation to do something about this act. I hope to be able to convey to your committee the effects of the Occupational Safety and Health Act on small businessmen, small ranchers and farmers in my State, the State of Wyoming, that I represent at large.

Our Governor, Stanley K. Hathaway, has also referred to the techniques used by the Department of Labor as gestapo tactics. I mention his words because they sum up in a nutshell some of the indignation, some of the outrage, some of the fury and panic, really in a way, that has come up from the citizens of my State over this legislation.

Nothing has happened in my lifetime like it since prohibition when Federal agents were shot and killed for entering the premises of people where there was bootleg whiskey in their basements. I submit to you in seriousness that there will be some deaths of Federal officials if something isn't done about this law. That is how indignant small businessmen are from the treatment they have received from the examiners from Billings, Mont., and Denver, Colo., who have invaded their premises in Wyoming.

I have a sheaf of some 40 letters I intend to put into the record to sustain my observations.

I am certain all of us this morning are aware of the confusion created by the act, particularly among small businessmen, ranchers, and farmers, who have never before been so completely affected by Federal safety laws or any other Federal law.

From the hundreds of letters I have received, I can say to you that the major concern of my State is not that businessmen, farmers, and ranchers must now run safe places of business, for I find my constituents more than willing to comply with reasonable safety requirements. I don't favor any amendment of this law exempting employees of 25 people or less. That is ridiculous. The philosophy of this law was all employers shall have safe premises for their employees. Who can quarrel with that?

The tragedy was that we, as terribly busy lawmakers, delegated to the bureaucrats downtown the right or the sacred duty to promulgate

rules and regulations, giving those rules and regulations full force and effect of criminal statutory law so they make their fines upon the first visit to a man's premises. They don't stop and see what kind of protection they can have, or see what they can do with the lift problems. "You are in violation. I come to your place to help you, Mr. Employer, and I have to fine you if you are in violation. I can't come and help you. I have to fine you." And fine him he has.

I have been waiting for 5 months for Mr. Daniels, with his legislative committee, to at least give me a hearing so we can have a 2-year education period or a 1-year education period for employers of 10 or 20 or less and help them comply with these regulations, or change the regulations if they are onerous or if they are capricious or arbitrary or wrong, and to remit the fines of those people who will comply with the act when they have been asked to comply.

We don't need this law as a revenue producer, but that is what it is being used for.

I submit if the Department of Labor of this administration meant to torpedo occupational health in this country, they couldn't have been doing a better job of it.

What further bothers my constituents is the rudeness and lack of cooperation and the fact that there is no adequate recourse for them to appeal the fines.

The chairman of the chamber of commerce and several businessmen and farming organizations in Wyoming are to be commended for their efforts. They did hold seminars for area residents attended by Department of Labor officials in an effort to explain the rules. But even these efforts have been unsuccessful due to the fact that the officials have been unable to adequately answer questions on the particular problems concerning safety regulations for them.

Obviously, the picture I have noted in my State of Wyoming is not unique to Wyoming alone. The committee report accompanying the Labor-HEW bill last week stated the committee has received many complaints of overly zealous enforcement officers and other complaints of great difficulty in getting assistance from the Department for interpreting the standards and regulations in order to determine whether or not a particular workplace is in compliance or what would be required to get it in compliance.

This is the reason for my amendment, legislation which I have introduced but which I can't get a hearing on, allowing a 1- or 2-year education period, and, too, that the fines levied shall be reimbursed to the employer if he complies forthwith with the recommendations for a safe premises.

The Department of Labor is derelict in this matter, Mr. Chairman. It is for this reason that I voted for the amendment rather reluctantly that no moneys can be used for inspection of premises employing 25 or less.

I want to repeat I will not support an amendment exempting an employer of any number because the philosophy of this law was all employers shall have safe premises for their employees and none can quarrel with that. No one is entitled to an exemption from that philosophy of law. But everyone is entitled to relief from the capricious and arbitrary delegation of authority which we gave to the Department

of Labor and which they have abused by promulgating this plethora of stuff to which you have heard reference this morning.

I would like to include some of those representative comments I have referred to. Most of them have been written to me after attempting to read and understand OSHA rules. Several were written after attending the community seminars. Several were written to me after paying fines. These are responsible, leading citizens.

They are finding it impossible to comply with OSHA. I am hopeful that this Congress will do something and do it soon. Something must be done to keep from driving a greater wedge, really, between the public and the people that serve them, who are supposed to serve them, as a result of this legislation.

I have heard you ask for 30 minutes and I hope I haven't used more than about 5 or 10. I would like to go through some of the letters, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HUNGATE. You have at least 5 minutes and with your eloquence you are liable to persuade us to grant you a longer time.

Mr. RONCALIO. First is the Teton Homes, a little industry in a little State, in Casper, Wyo. They make mobile homes. The objection is that the man came onto the premises and despite cooperation and compliance they received a $200 penalty levied against them. In their estimate it is un-American and they don't intend to pay it. They believe in maintaining standards. That was the first visit of an examiner on a little guy with seven employees.

Mr. HUNGATE. Without objection, we will make any of these letters you wish to submit exhibits to be filed with the record.

Mr. RONCALIO. The next exhibit is the Harres Welding Service, in Worland, Wyo. Again it is a case of trying to appeal to reason after examination.

Then the Collins Communications Co., of Little Gillette, Wyo., struggling along with very few employees.

Then the Fremont Beverages, owned by a very outstanding man, of Worland, Wyo. He says, "I think that there would be no opposition to what the act is trying to do if it was presented in the light of assisting the various businessmen to conform rather than the Gestapo tactics now being used by the Department of Labor." He elucidates them in a 2-page letter.

Mr. McKEVITT. Would you give us some examples.

Mr. RONCALIO. This is from Mr. Newell B. Sargent, Fremont Beverages:

I am today in receipt of your letter of April 7, addressed to "Federation of Independent Business Member," in which you enclosed a copy of an amendment to the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, which you introduced into the House of Representatives on March 20.

This is to advise you that two inspectors of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, regional office at Billings, Mont., made an inspection of the Fremont Beverages, Inc., premises on March 31, which resulted in citations and fines being assessed in the amount of $170. For your information I am enclosing photostatic copies of the citation that was issued to us. I am not so concerned with the fine that was assessed to us, but I am upset by the fact that we are making an earnest effort to bring our premises into compliance with the law. They were in the process of complying.

You will recall that 2 years ago we installed a new canning facility. This is precisely what my predecessor testified to. Two years ago it complied with all the regulations.

It is highly automated and a high-speed canning line requiring a number of electrical motors. At the time of the inspection, we were fined $85 because we did not have guards around the shafts running from the electric motors to the pumps, and in addition to the fines, we are going to be put to the expense of installing guards on equipment that is only 2 years old equipment manufactured by and purchased from reputable manufacturers. True, these OSHA requirements were not in existence at the time this machinery was manufactured ; but I am sure that had the manufacturer thought this equipment hazardous, that they would have installed guards at the time it was installed in our plant. In other words, we are being fined for an omission by a manufacturer.

I am just as interested in having a place that is safe for our employees as is the Government. I approve of what they are trying to do but I object strenuously to the way they are doing it. I firmly believe that if the Department of Labor is really interested in protecting the employee, that the inspector should first meet with the various companies and discuss these requirements with them and give them an opportunity, within a reasonable time, to bring their premises into conformance with the requirements of the act. If you will examine the manual that is furnished businesses, it contains about as many words as the Holy Bible, and it requires one man many, many hours to read it and to assimilate the information that is in it.

I think that there would be no opposition to what the act is trying to do if it was presented in the light of assisting the various businessmen to conform rather than the Gestapo tactics now being used by the Department of Labor. I am heartily in accord with your amendment and I hope that you can secure the support of other Representatives as well as Senators to secure a modification of this act.

Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Roncalio, clearly the shaft should have a guard. But this fellow didn't know that he was not in compliance and didn't really have a way to know what was needed before they came out there, is that it?

Mr. RONCALIO. I would say that letter proves that some coordination with manufacturers would have been in order before the promulgation of the rules and regulations.

Mr. SMITH. He didn't really know he was in violation before the inspector came.

Mr. RONCALIO. That is right. His position is that he ought not have been fined. He could have been told to get some guards on the shaft, and if they were not on there in 3 months maybe he could have been hauled into a court and fined $50. But why leave his premises on the first visit and fine him?

Mr. HUNGATE. As I understand a good bit of your testimony, you are not seeking any exemptions or necessarily any relaxing of necessary safety precautions, but you think an educational period would be most helpful.

Mr. RONCALIO. All my legislation would propose, and I hope they will have a hearing on this, is a 1-year education period, with remission of fines if compliance is made within a certain time.

Mr. BERGLAND. Have you any evidence from any of your constituents indicating that they are unable to get some of the equipment to meet the standards?

Mr. RONCALIO. Only one such complaint, from Ed Collins of the Collins Communications Co. in Gillette, Wyo. He wrote that one could not find a three-wire extension cord, hard hat, or many of the other items needed to comply with OSHA in town, because there was a run on these items.

Mr. BERGLAND. It has been suggested by some of my constituents that they have ordered the equipment but the manufacturers are so deluged with requests that they can't make the deliveries.

Mr. RONCALIO. I didn't know there was a major objection we didn't have in Wyoming but that must be one we don't have.

Mr. BERGLAND. I want to have the record show this is one Democrat who very ably represents a Republican constituency.

Mr. RONCALIO. Here is one from the Bar 13 Ranch, a cow operator: There is quite an uproar here about the Williams-Steiger safety bill and the town is making a determined effort to write their Congressmen and Senators to ask them to vote for the bills which exempt small businesses.

I have read the law and it is really very difficult to understand and I know that it will likewise be hard to enforce. The exemption of small businesses and the individual employers could well be met and would, I think, avoid imposing a needless burden on those of us who are trying to operate as individuals.

The law supports exemptions which I don't happen to support. I don't think anyone should be exempt from the philosophy of the law that says all employers, whether industrial or occupational, whether a rancher, a farmer, or a shoeshine stand, shall maintain premises safe. I think the most important thing is the occupational health facet of this. This is why I am indignant with the Department of Labor in this administration. They have torpedoed what could have been an excellent opportunity to preach industrial health so badly needed in America today.

Here is an outfit called Industrial Engine Service in the little town of Mills, Wyo., maybe 500 people:

As the owner of a small business and an employer, much of my time has been spent trying to wade through and decipher which parts of the Williams-Steiger Act will apply to me. We have always been safety minded and open to any reasonable suggestions, but the tactics employed in administrating this Act are not the American way.

Surely you, as a representative of the people, can seek and find an alternate to this law.

Here is one from John Campbell, of Campbell Oil Field Service. He attended a seminar. He is a small independent businessman who started from scratch.

One of the items in the Federal Register is that ice in employees' water cans is unhealthy. I believe this is a personal decision to be made by employees and not a dictate of the government.

He went on to complain about that. There are many.

Here is a little outfit employing 75 or 80 people in Newcastle, Wyo., run by my friend Peter Field. He picked up the phone and called the Denver office. He had a brand new plant. U.S. Plywood built it not 3 years ago, with the newest and finest equipment.

I returned to the practice of law in 1967 in Cheyenne, Wyo., as some of you remember. This was one of my clients.

Mr. Field, with the passage of this act, called Denver and said:

Will you please come up and let us go through the plant point by point, the milling plant, the saw mill, where the stumpage comes in from the woods?

Sorry, Mr. Field, we cannot do that. We cannot come up to your premises. If we do, you must understand that whatever we find is not in compliance we must fine you under the provisions of our regulations.

Mr. BERGLAND. Where is it located?

Mr. RONCALIO. Cambria Forest Industries, Inc., Newcastle, Wyo.