Occupational Safety and Health Independent Review of Osha Citations Act of 2004

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF OSHA CITATIONS ACT OF 2004 -- (House of Representatives - May 18, 2004)

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 645, I call up the bill (H.R. 2730) to amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to provide for an independent review of citations issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York for yielding me this time; and I rise in opposition to H.R. 2730 and also in opposition to H.R. 2728, in opposition to H.R. 2729, and in opposition to H.R. 2731, which we will be considering shortly.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2730 would grant deference to the commission, not OSHA, in interpreting questions of law. Now, this, as in this collection of the other three bills, only serves to weaken the protection of workers. OSHA really is a proud chapter in American history, and we are pleased that a prominent New Jerseyan, Senator Harrison Williams, had a large role in writing this. There are millions of Americans who have their limbs, their eyesight, even their lives because of OSHA; and they do not even know who they are. This protection is critically important, and we need to keep it strong.

This cluster of bills today, in every instance, weakens the protection for workers. One of the pieces of legislation would grant the employer more time to contest, contest the findings. It does not restore the balance, as the gentleman speaking in support of this bill earlier said. No, it tips the balance. It tips the balance against the worker. It puts workers and the enforcers who protect them at a disadvantage. It would allow the employer more time but would not allow any new advantages for the enforcer or the worker.

H.R. 2729 would create a larger, slower, more cumbersome commission, again reducing the protection to workers. And 2731, the Occupational Safety and Health Small Employer Access to Justice Act, would encourage employers to contest and simply delay. So all four of these reduce protections that are critically important.

H.R. 2730 would divide the power to make and enforce standards from the authority to interpret them; and it would result in two different actors, the Secretary and the commission, being responsible for implementing the act's policy objectives. That is inefficient and undesirable, and it may substantially alter the manner in which the OSH Act is enforced by calling into question the authority and the ability of the Secretary to bring OSHA cases before the courts of appeal. If the commission's interpretations are to be given deference, then on what basis may the Secretary appeal a decision with which the Secretary disagrees?

Mr. Speaker, this bill presents more questions than it answers, and it creates conflicts that will only weaken worker protections. I ask my colleagues to oppose this bill and the other three bills in this family. In this globalized economy, and with the threat of outsourcing and cheap labor overseas, it is a mystery to me why the other side would want to risk reducing American workers' rights, wages, and working conditions.

I rise in opposition to H.R. 2730, the Occupational Safety and Health Independent Review of OSHA Citations Act. This bill specifies that the conclusions of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission "with respect to all questions of law shall be given deference if reasonable." The bill requires reviewing courts to grant deference to the Commission, not OSHA, in interpreting questions of law, as long as the commission's interpretation is reasonable.

H.R. 2730 fundamentally weakens the powers of the Secretary of Labor. In 1991, the Supreme Court held unanimously in Martin v. OSHRC that the Secretary, not the Commission, should be given deference with regard to interpreting regulations because interpreting the regulation is a necessary adjunct of the Secretary's rulemaking and enforcement powers.

The Secretary of Labor is best able to regulate and enforce safety standards. As the promulgator of any given standard, the Secretary is better positioned to reconstruct the purpose of the standard. As enforcer, the Secretary comes in contact with a much greater number of regulatory problems than the Commission and is more likely to develop expertise in assessing the effect of a particular regulatory interpretation.

Dividing the power to make and enforce standards from the authority to interpret them results in two different actors, the Secretary and the Commission, being responsible for implementing the Act's policy objectives-an inefficient and undesirable result.

The commission is akin to a judicial body, not a regulatory one. Because of the OSH Act's unusual split enforcement structure, the Commission's adjudicatory authority is more aptly compared to that exercised by a court in an agency-review context, than to a unitary agency interpreting the regulations that it had promulgated. Conferring authoritative fact-finding and review powers in the Commission (and ultimately the courts), a body that is wholly independent of the administrative enforcer, ensures employers are protected from prosecutorial bias. H.R. 2730, by granting administrative powers to the Commission, confuses its role.

Finally, H.R. 2730 may substantially alter the manner in which the OSH Act is enforced by calling into question the authority and ability of the Secretary to bring OSHA cases before the courts of appeal. If the Commission's interpretations are to be given deference, then on what basis may the Secretary appeal a decision with which the Secretary disagrees?

Mr. Speaker, this bill present more questions than it answers and creates conflicts that will only weaken worker protections. I ask my colleagues to oppose this bill. In the globalized economy, with the threat of outsourcing and cheap overseas labor, it is a mystery to me why the Republicans want to risk reducing American workers' rights, wages, and working conditions.