on any other subject that has come before us in this 92d Congress, this is from the Omaha Livestock Exchange.

I am writing you today in regard to the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 which is without doubt one of the most obnoxious pieces of legislation in recent years and stands alone as a classic example of paternalism. Imagine its application to a business such as ours, the Omaha Stockyards. Practically all of our 32 commission firms, which are separate and independent businesses, have less than 10 employees and none more than 25. There is no manufacturing, no danger of falling objects, explosions, air contamination, excess sound decibels, and so forth. Latest rumor is that at an early date our cattle and hog salesmen and buyers will be forced to wear hard hats because of the requirements of the law. Imagine, if you will, our livestock handlers working under acres of blue sky and wearing hard hats to protect them from falling objects. Think of the one employee office forces already inundated by Government reports having still more to maintain as required by OSHA.

Then from a small town in my District, Lyons, Nebr., from Mr. F. A. Cropper:

So many questions are coming up concerning the so-called Safety Act that I am writing you for information. It seems our small business places are in a turmoil over what has to be done in order to stay in business. Several of our small business places in Lyons and Burt County will surely close if some of the reports are true.

I own a building in which a dime store operates. A man and his wife run the business and occasionally hire one extra person during busy seasons. He has been told that the building must be rewired and above all an extra toilet installed because he has women, his wife and part-time clerk, working in the store. Is this true? What other nonsense is included in this bill? We have never seen any · official or any literature on the subject. Can you help us?

And a construction superintendent who writes:

I have been notified by my employer that he is seriously considering to dissolve his business on account of the ridiculous parts of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. It is a terrible shame that such an act should force a successful businessman to come to such a conclusion.

He goes on to relate that the company has had hardly any accidents since 1945. He points out one part of the act that he finds sort of typical of the regulation:

Recently we have been harassed by some of the fine print within this act. I take this opportunity to relate on one single violation that we were assessed with such as "unused drinking cups (single service) were not provided in a sanitary container." It has been general practice to use the container that the drinking cups are purchased in. But this now means that the box in which they come is not sanitary. Also, I would like to take this opportunity to relate about two of the many parts of this Act, such as "mushroom heads on chisels" which in many cases are furnished by the worker as his own personal tool, such as "power-actuated tools."

The Act states "only employees who have been trained in the operation of the particular tool shall be allowed to operate same." Such conditions or requirements should be handled at the union level. I, myself, have had instruction on the use of power tools at the expense of my employer, but is it fair to an employer to have to train each person who is hired through a union hall that must have to use such a tool?

Finally, another letter:

What kind of monster have you legislators created? A man from OSHA walks into our plant because of an employee complaint, investigates the complaint and says that it is invalid. But while he is there for the first time he looks into an area with five employees and fines the company $1,260 ($254 per employee) for alleged minor violations to the Federal standards for health and safety. Such unbridled power and its indiscriminate use will force many plants with excel

lent safety records, as ours, to close their doors. Please establish control over OSHA.

And then an ad that appeared in the Oakland, Nebr., independent newspaper, saying:

Thanks to our customers for all past patronage. We're sorry. We are unable to remain in business because we feel we cannot afford to fix up the premises in compliance with the Williams-Steiger Occupation Heath Act of 1970. We have closed down our cleaning operations. However, the office will be open through Saturday for pickup of clothes on racks.

OAKLAND CLEANERS.

The note on it is: "sixteen years of service to a community gone. Two ladies out of a job."

I say again that no subject has had such a volume of mail, such bitter complaint, such a sense of outrage on the part of the constituents in the Second District of Nebraska. I think amendment is required both as to the differentiation of classes of industry and to permit the opportunity for inspection without the necessity for a fine being levied at the time; to give a reasonable period of time, such as 6 months. for the business to conform to the requirements of the new act after an inspection has been made.

I thank you gentlemen for the opportunity to testify.

Mr. HUNGATE. Thank you very much for your assistance to the committee.

Are there any questions?

Mr. McKevitt.

Mr. McKEVITT. Obviously, Parkinson's law is no longer funny in Nebraska or any other State. Maybe we should sell saws to convert round toilet seats to split toilet seats. Do you have any suggestions on changes in the law you would like to see right away?

Mr. MCCOLLISTER. The first is the one I mentioned, to allow for an inspection to be made and it doesn't have to be free. I am sure most employers would be happy to pay for it-to be able to know what it is they must do. There is a great ignorance on the part of employers as to the details of what is required of them.

I think if our goal is truly to create a safe and healthy environment for the worker, that approach is more likely to lead to that result than the present approach.

Second, I think there ought to be a better opportunity for States to institute their own inspection. I know the law now allows for States to provide for their own inspection, and yet the details of it are such that very few States-I don't think any States have so far taken advantage of the opportunity to provide for their own inspection.

Mr. McKEVITT. You bring up a good point. Couldn't we have for example minimum standards? We have this under the workmen's compensation laws and industrial safety requirements. Could we impose that?

Mr. McCOLLISTER. If I might respond to that question, and at the same time answer a question asked by Congressman Bergland, what would you do about the company employing five or so employees where it is obviously dangerous, I would say we need to distinguish between the imminent hazard and the application of minimum standards. Where there is an imminent hazard I don't think anybody could

disagree, that stringent regulation and immediate enforcement are

necessary.

In my own subcommittee in Commerce and Finance, where we have product safety, we distinguish between the imminent hazard and general application of the rules and provide for different enforcement proceedings, provide for different timetables during which action can take place. Where this is an imminent hazard, where workers are in immediate danger, I think you can rely on the provisions of this law to shut it down until they are fixed. But most of what we are talking about is not that. It is the evolutionary process of creating a safer place to work that concerns us.

The provisions of the law as they now exist don't allow for that because the impact of the fine very often has an effect on small business that threatens them with the immediate closedown of everything they have without the opportunity to evolve those better working conditions that is the goal of the act, and a very worthy and notable act. Mr. McKEVITT. Thank you.

That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. We talk about needing inspections without fines, but if the rules and regulations were reasonable so one could find out exactly what they are, they wouldn't need these so-called advisory inspections, would they?

Mr. MCCOLLISTER. Yes; I think both are needed. I think there certainly needs to be some clear way of expressing what the rules are so that people may understand them better. But even then I think that the application of the rules would be such that in many instances where the hazard is not imminent there needs to be a time where the corrective measures can be taken without the day-to-day fine being imposed. Both are needed.

Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Bergland.

Mr. BERGLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In your testimony under the general heading of pertinent comments relating to manufacturing, on page 2, you make reference to a fertile field for so-called safety engineers.

I think this is a very valid point. It would seem to me that in view of the fact that most small businessmen, in particular, who are not well informed on the provisions of the law, could be susceptible to some real shyster organizations out trying to sell them some kind of a system that may be valid or invalid. Have you had any experienceon this point?

Mr. MCCOLLISTER. No, I don't have any specific experience, other than that which is quoted from these surveys. But even where the safety engineer is not a shyster, where perhaps he represents an insurance company who has the manufacturer as his insured, where inspections are made and advice and counsel is offered-and there is much of that now, of course-it very often happens that that advice given doesn't hold up when the inspection is made because of the discretion that the inspector has in determining what is a violation and what is not.

It is almost impossible to enforce this law because of the specific detailed requirements of it and the difficulty that anybody has in

interpreting how the inspector is going to interpret what the conditions are.

Mr. BERGLAND. You are saying, then, that an employer may retain a qualified safety engineering firm to survey his place and make certain recommendations. The employer could then comply with the recommendations and vet still be in violation of the rules?

Mr. MCCOLLISTER. Yes, because the impact of the law is so total, because it affects every possible aspect of the working conditions. I think it is virtually impossible for any safety engineer with any certainty to know how that OSHA inspector is going to look at the same things he has just looked at.

On another subject, but related, on the subject of the attitude of the OSHA people, there was a meeting in Omaha sometime last summer that I attended, where the OSHA people were making their presentation to heavy contractors.

I sat in a corner listening. That was my purpose, to see how the inspector presented this information to the people there. We haven't had a lynching in Omaha in a long time, but I wanted to move as far away from that representative of the Federal Establishment as I could so that I would not, just by association with him, be charged with some of the same attitudes that he has.

I had a tape recording taken of another meeting where the presentation was made. It shocks me to see the Federal Government adopt that kind of a stance and attitude in dealing with the citizens. Others have referred to the outrage of people. I will tell you it is real. I tell you that unless some change is made in this law all of us are going to be he'd accountable for it, and we should be.

I would hope that some effort to get modification of the law will be made in order that some of these complaints of people could be remedied.

Mr. BERGLAND. Thank you very much.

Mr. McKEVITT. I have one more comment. You serve on a committee where you talk about imminent danger. Of course, there are needs like covering of solvents and things like that. But a lot of this is sheer idiocy that is going on, whether it is the split toilet seat doctrine or the separate toilets for each sex, the ice water problem or what-have

του.

How do you actually put a damper on that? You can have that abuse of a large employer as well as a small employer, or light or heavy industry. In short, how do we curb the fourth branch of Government, namely bureaucracy?

Mr. McCOLLISTER. That abuse occurs because of the requirement in the law that the inspector is not permitted an opportunity to come onto the premises without making an official inspection. Anything that he finds there, however small and trivial it may seem, is subject to the provisions of the law. He cannot do otherwise.

I think that feature-and we are accepting the imminent hazard danger-in those cases you ought to give an opportunity for the inspector to make just as long a laundry list of difficulties as he wishes, but then to give that company an opportunity within a reasonable. period of time, which I would judge to be 6 months, to effect those changes. And then come back and reinspect and put the stamp of approval on.

Mr. McKEVITT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HUNGATE. Do you have the names of any of these officials who gave these lectures? You mentioned a couple of cases.

Mr. MCCOLLISTER. I don't have them with me but you can bet I have access to them.

Mr. HUNGATE. It would be helpful if you would supply us with those as soon as you could, and not later than July 17. It would be nice to have them when the Department of Labor is here.

Mr. MCCOLLISTER. It will be long before July 17, like maybe 2 o'clock this afternoon.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(The information follows:)

Warren Wright, Omaha Office, OSHA,

Mr. HUNGATE. Our final witness this morning will be our colleague Keith Sebelius.

TESTIMONY OF HON. KEITH G. SEBELIUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS

Mr. SEBELIUS. I will ask permission that my statement be printed in the record and I will present a few brief comments.

Mr. HUNGATE. That may be done, without objection.

Mr. SEBELIUS. Mr. Chairman and members of this subcommittee, I have just come back from my district, where I visited five towns. I say towns in the sense that I don't have a large enough town to qualify for any of that extra one-third in the revenue-sharing bill.

But I have 57 counties out there on the prairie. The small business involved is just slowly dying in many ways unless we come through with other things.

The OSHA Act is pronouncing a death knell to many, many businesses that are today marginal but are serving a wonderful purpose in their communities.

I have had dozens of phone calls and letters, of course. Yesterday, I was announcing for reelection, and we had a press conference in each of these five towns. The farm problem wasn't it. The entire, main thrust of everything that took place as far as conversations or questions to me was about OSHA.

I say that completely, that that was the entire thing. In fact, the members of the chamber of commerce in Great Bend, Kans., about 17,000, they had a delegation, the mayor, the chamber president, their hired employees, a member of the Fuller Brush staff now going into this town and making it their main plant, came with one thing in mind and that was to thank the Congress for what they did last Thursday, on the subject of just trying to get enough time to get organized and work at it.

The man who is training manager for Fuller Brush said, "Can you get me some things? We are building a brand new plant and we can't get anybody to advise us on what to do here that will comply." Those are the things I have witnessed in my area. Truly, the small businesses may employ two or three. I will state this, that because of the noise that I did make, Mr. Robbins, the administrator, and two of his assistants have been to my office. We have had prolonged discussion.