They have been helpful. Perhaps doing away with the two toilets came out of it.

I would estimate I would probably lose 10 businesses per county, about 570 small businesses, if this stays as it is. The older ones have said they would just quite, not because they don't want safety for their employees. They can look back over the 50 or 60 years and they have had safety.

I would only comment on one other thing, Mr. Chairman, and that is the idea that two farmers in a Christian manner exchanging labor or help among themselves, to have one considered the employer and the other the employee is ridiculous. With that I will close my remarks. (The statement referred to follows:)

OSHA STATEMENT BY KEITH G. SEBELIUS

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the privilege to appear before your Environmental Problems Subcommittee of the Select Committee on Small Business to discuss the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.

This committee's longstanding dedication to the principles of free enterprise is most commendable. And, in this regard, during the time I have had the privilege of representing my district in Congress, no action has threatened the small businessman's concept of free enterprise more nor has prompted more anxiety and outright animosity for the federal government than the administration of the Act commonly referred to as OSHA.

The primary intent of this Act was to study the American laborer's working conditions and to provide reasonable and responsible safety regulations and requirements to correct conditions that resulted in the 14,200 fatalities and 2.5 million disabling injuries in industrial related accidents that occur each year. It was generally acknowledged that specific guidelines would have to be tailored to satisfy the unique occupational safety and health hazards in each segment of our complex economic system. Unfortunately, the Act as written in conference. stipulated that the Secretary of Labor put into effect as an interim standard any national consensus standards and any established federal standards within two years after the effective date of the Act.

No one questions the necessity of employers providing employment and a place of employment that are free from recognized hazards likely to cause death or serious harm. However, blanket application of all consensus standards to all segments of business and industry goes far beyond this justifiable goal.

Consider the letter we received early this year from an irate businessman who has been operating an "accident free business" in a small community of 600 for many years when he found out his business operation did not satisfy OSHA standards. In part he stated, "One of the problems-one toilet facility is not enough there must be two (one for each sex) and, to really be occupationally healthy and safe, there must be an open front toilet seat!"

You can imagine the sense of disbelief and frustration that swept this community and the animosity towards OSHA that resulted-completely discrediting the spirit of the law. Today, although the ridiculous "toilet seat and rest room" controversy has been amended, small businessmen are confronted with reams of specifications and standards. Worse, they discover that Federal inspectors are not allowed on the premises of their establishment for compliance clarification without the threat of citations and penalties.

The consensus standards have been imposed without public hearing, without consideration to the unique occupational safety and health hazards of individual business and industries, and without consideration to the human element, often the most important factor in occupational safety and health.

As a result, I have had more legitimate complaints on the part of small businessmen and farmers against the provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970-and the manner in which it is being administered-than any piece of legislation I have seen since coming to Congress.

Part of the reason for this display of public concern stems from the fact we have seen no action regarding legislation I have introduced, and many of my colleagues have introduced, that would exempt farmers and employers of 25 or fewer persons and delay the application of the law to those employing 100 or fewer people.

As the members of this subcommittee know, last week in the House of Representatives, Representative Paul Findley with strong bi-partisan support, won approval of an amendment to the Labor and Health, Education and Welfare appropriations bill that provided no funds appropriated for the Department of Labor and OSHA could be used to pay salaries of inspectors of businesses with 25 or fewer persons.

Mr. Chairman, we in the House of Representatatives take great pride in the concept that our body truly represents the people and is one government institution close to the grass roots political feeling in our nation. I believe this and I also believe this one issue, while not publicized in our national press, represents the number one issue of concern in my congressional district.

As a result, I was not surprised by the vote in the House of Congressman Findley's amendment. After working six months to exempt the farmer and the small businessman from the costly, arbitrary and unnecessary OSHA regulations, making no headway whatsoever, it was apparent the Congress would have to send the Department of Labor and our colleagues serving on the subcommittee handling exemption proposals, a message they would understand. We did just that. We took their money away!

I would hope that our colleagues in the Senate would insist sending the Department of Labor the same message and support similar amendment legislation to the labor appropriations bill.

I would like to take this opportunity to commend the Occupational Safety and Health Administration for recognizing the execessive and burdensome sanitation standards that were initially imposed on the small businessman. The proposed rulemaking to modify these standards is most commendable and an important first step in developing enforceable standards supported by the small business community by both employers and employees.

This, however, is only the beginning. OSHA should initiate this same rulemaking procedure, solicit public comment and develop final standards that are practical and reasonable and that satisfy the objectives of the Act-a working environment free from recognized hazards likely to cause death or serious injury.

These final standards are necessary for States to develop plans "as effective as federal regulations" prior to the December 31, 1972, deadline. Otherwise States will waste much time, money and effort in developing a program in compliance with interim standards and then revising the program to comply with final standards. I need not mention the anxiety, unnecessary investment and "harassment” for the small businessman who is making a conscientious effort to satisfy OSHA provisions without going bankrupt or releasing his employees.

This administrative relief is urgent and the legislative authority and interest has now been established. However, certain modifications will require congressional action. I feel that this comprehensive reform is best encompassed in H.R. 13941, legislation I have cosponsored with many of my colleagues in the House of Representatives.

In short, without Congressional action, the present requirements dictated by OSHA threaten the solvency and very existence of many small business establishments and numerous employment opportunities throughout our nation.

At the time that the Act was considered in the House of Representatives, a better proposal was under consideration. This proposal had the support of the Administration and was introduced as a substitute. I supported that effort. I regret that it did not prevail in conference.

Now a year later, we are seeing the results of the law in action, and it is becoming abundantly clear that there are major defects in the law. Unfortunately, the problems small businessmen are encountering are rooted in the basic law which Congress passed.

The amendments included in H.R. 13941 to which I make reference include the following:

1. An exemption for small employers, both agriculture and non-agricultural, with 25 or fewer employees. This amendment recognizes the human element in a small business operation as opposed to the mass production, machine oriented impersonal approach so common in big business and industry. For example, protections for window openings in building construction, which may be appropriate in the construction of multi-storied buildings, are required for all construction— even a one-story residence where the distance to the ground is no more than a few feet.

2. A delay for one year in the effectiveness of the Act with regard to the employers who have more than 25, but fewer than 100 employees. This would permit a positive program of communication and provide the time for compliance without loans at burdensome interest rates and possible unemployment.

3. An evaluation by the Secretary of Labor to evaluate all of the regulations for their health and safety and applicability to specific business and industrial establishments.

4. A requirement for the Secretary of Labor to publish as to each present and future rule, the estimated cost of compliance and to determine that it is in fact feasible and possible to comply.

5. A requirement for the Secretary of Labor to provide technical advice and consultation for employers of 100 or fewer employees to assist them in complying with the Act.

6. A prohibition on penalties and other sanctions for violations unless the Secretary of Labor has seen to it that the employer actually received a copy of the requirement and was given 30 days in which either to comply or to request an administrative review.

7. Compensation for employers who are forced to initially comply with one rule then having to comply with a different one.

8. A ruling that provides that if administrative procedures for adoption of rules were not followed, the failure to comply with the rule can not be used as evidence of negligence or wrong doing on the part of the employer.

9. An amendment to relieve employers of the absolute liability provisions of the OSHA.

10. Provision that no employer shall be responsible for fines and other penalties under the Act if he can prove that the requirements he is alleged to have violated would not have effectively constituted an improvement of the health and safety of his employees.

11. Allowance of medical exams in as much as they enable the employer and the Secretary to better ascertain the effects of a particular job upon employee health.

12. Permission to form employee safety committees to identify areas of concern at a particular business and to endeavor to find the best solutions for their health and safety.

13. Authorization for the Secretary of Labor in the case of an alleged violation, the option of entering into an agreement with the employer for prompt compliance in lieu of using the present provisions and imposing a penalty for having failed to comply.

As I mentioned earlier, my mail has been extremely heavy with complaints about the unfair and arbitrary application of this law and about the way that small businessmen have been harassed. These are complaints from sincere, hardworking businessmen who have no quarrel with legitimate improvements in safety and working conditions, but who also know that the application of this law is simply not reasonable.

In fact, the small businessman has a greater personal stake in the health and welfare of his employees than any other type of business and industry. His employees not only are necessary for his livelihood but they are his friends and his neighbors off the job.

The bill, H.R. 13941, seeks to give us a positive approach built on mutual trust and understanding which employers, employees, administrators, courts and the public will respect. This is the logical way to attack the problem of occupational safety and health and one which should provide some immediate and long range solutions to this persistent problem.

Mr. Chairman, in a speech in Springfield, Illinois, Abe Lincoln once said: "I know the American people will endure evils long and patiently before they ever think of exchanging their government for another. Yet, if the laws be continually despised and disregarded, the alienation of their affections from the government is a natural consequence."

I think this Subcommittee has a unique opportunity to help restore creditability in government by making strong recommendations to the Department of Labor to provide additional administrative relief and to urge the House Education and Labor Committee to take prompt and favorable action on H.R. 13941. We have heard a great deal this year about the resurgence of political populism on the part of citizens who feel government is no longer responsive or is at best insensitive to their needs. I submit the interpretation of the Occupational

Safety and Health Act of 1970 by the Department of Labor is a prime example of the kind of government action that has led to this kind of concern and frustration.

I believe quite strongly, that we in government must begin to give equal consideration to what government does to people in the process of proposing, and administering programs for people. The common sense need for government to work with people remains as unchanged today as it was in Lincoln's time. In this regard, I urge this Subcommittee to take a strong position in favor of H.R. 13941 or similar legislation.

Mr. HUNGATE. Thank you very much. Are there any questions? Mr. Bergland?

Mr. BERGLAND. I have no questions. I would like to commend our colleague from Kansas. He and I serve on the Committee on Agriculture, and may I say he is an articulate spokesman for the Midwest. Mr. SMITH. You mentioned this employer-employee relationship of farmers. Is that a regulation?

Mr. SEBELIUS. I understand it is. We have discussed it and we haven't had a definition on it. They haven't come out with a statement on it. I don't want to paint anybody in a corner. I just want it clarified. They don't have a regulation you have to have roll bars on tractors. They don't have that.

Mr. HUNGATE. Your testimony is very enlightening to the committee and very helpful. We would hope it would be to the Congress and the Department of Labor. Thank you very much.

Mr. SEBELIUS. Thank you, gentlemen, for your time.

Mr. HUNGATE. We have a request from our colleague Graham Purcell of Texas. He asks that his statement be included in the record at this point.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. GRAHAM PURCELL, A MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and your Subcommittee for setting aside this time to hear testimony on the administration and operation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 as it relates to the small businessman. Considering what the administration of this Act has meant in terms of the Federal harassment of the small businessman, it's past time that we unzip this legislation and reorder its operation. Perhaps the concept of an occuaptional safety program is a reasonable one, but the administration of this one stands as a hallmark of runaway bureaucratic ineptitude.

It's once again been the small businessman who's had to take a few licks by the Federal bureaucracy before the problem got to our attention. Now that we have the opportunity to do something about this runaway program, I strongly urge that message Number One to the Department of Labor be to stick their heads out of their Washington, D.C., shells and set out to do what we asked them to do in the first place-insure the reasonable protection of the working man against unnecessary dangers, and forget about systematically trampling down the fields of small business.

Last week the House of Representatives made it clear that it wants the Department of Labor to lay off the small businessman. We successfully amended the Labor-HEW Appropriations bill to exempt businesses with fewer than 25 employees from the enforcement of the Act. I voted for that amendment. We defeated another amendment which would have completely cut off funds for the entire program. As I said at the outset of my remarks-the concept of this Act is reasonable. To completely erase it is to throw the baby out with the bathwater-a very childish alternative.

First, I think we must stick to our guns concerning the exemption of small businessmen. The statistics which brought about this Act in the first place were not compiled in the thousands of small stores, shops, insurance offices, and news

stands of the country-they came from heavy construction sites, and businesses with an unusually high potential of danger anyway. There is strong justification for exempting the small businessman right now. The real problems exist with big industry. It is all too apparent that if we give the bureaucracy the little man as an alternative target, it will move on him like a pack of wolves.

Second, I think it must be made emphatically clear that the Congress will not tolerate the ridiculous "big-brotherism" of a Federal scheme which will not provide any individual advice to an employer as to just what the law requires, yet which will permit a Federal inspector to move in at any time and slap fine after fine upon a totally unsuspecting businessman. This is Federal meddling far beyond what should be tolerated.

Another very serious problem lies in the area of employer-employee relationships as envisioned by the Administration at this time. Regardless of the extent to which the employer has gone to comply with these regulations, if the employee is somehow at fault-his boss must take the rap. In other words, if all employees are issued safety belts and they are required by their employer to wear themif one man doesn't, the employer is liable for a stiff fine.

This kind of nonsense can be stopped, Mr. Chairman. I think it will stop if the forum provided by this Subcommittee generates enough serious concern and objection to the present administration of the Act. The idea, once again, is not inherently bad. Hidden officials within an Executive Department have worked their mysterious ways on it however, and turned it into a monster. We can put a stop to it, and toward that end I respectfully urge this subcommittee to move with all haste.

Mr. HUNGATE. That concludes the list of witnesses for this morning, the committee will reconvene at 2 this afternoon, beginning with Senator Curtis scheduled as the first witness.

(Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m. the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

Mr. HUNGATE. The committee will be in order.

We will resume hearings on the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the Chair will announce again, as we continue this day of hearing, that, because of the very large number of people who want to be heard on this, we are seeking to limit testimony insofar as possible to about 15 minutes for the witness's testimony and 15 minutes for questioning so we will be able to hear more people. There are no such limitations in the Senate, Senator Curtis; so, we will try to be more courteous. But I do announce that for the benefit of all of those here. We are not trying to cut anybody down. We want to hear as many people as possible.

The committee is very pleased to have with us the distinguished member of the Senate, Carl Curtis from Nebraska, and we will be glad to hear your statement.

TESTIMONY OF HON. CARL T. CURTIS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA

Senator CURTIS. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

I am deeply grateful to this committee of the House of Representatives for giving me an opportunity to appear and discuss the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 and its administration.

First. I want to congratulate the House on its action in the first version of this act which you passed and on the action you took last week to let both the Congress and the Labor Department know how you feel about the way the present act is being administered. You