current federal enforcement has been eliminated while the states' role in standards and policy development has been greatly strengthened by seeking their early input into the process. State participation in OSHA's management information system is being planned to enhance the usefulness of the existing data network. Additionally, the State plan monitoring system is being extensively revised to assure reliance on state-submitted, objective data in performance evaluations. Proposed language in the FY 1982 supplemental and the FY 1983 budget would allow OSHA to grant final plan approval to eligible states. States with compliance staffing levels equivalent to Federal staffing levels would be eligible for such consideration. OSHA IMAGE Question: Is there evidence that you have been able to reduce the level of controversy and the adversarial spirit that have characterized OSHA actions in the past? Answer: There are a number of indications that negative attitudes about OSHA are changing. For example, the rate of employer contest of OSHA citations and penalty assessments has dropped dramatically. In FY 1980 this rate reached 23 percent of all OSHA citation; currently, the rate is about 8 percent. In addition, employers have been receptive to our efforts to work with them to eliminate workplace hazards. We recently reached an agreement with ASARCO and the United Steelworkers under which ASARCO will comply with OSHA's inorganic arsenic standard while maintaining the viability and economic competitiveness of the East Helena, Montana lead smelter. OSHA and the American Electronics Association have agreed to cooperate in designing job safety and health training and technical materials for member companies. Further evidence of the changed attitude of the business community is evidenced in the initial results of employeremployee surveys of the performance of OSHA compliance officers. Employer responses overwhelmingly indicate that OSHA employees are doing their jobs in a professsional, non-adversarial manner. COMBINING OSHA AND MSHA Question: Have you considered combining MSHA and OSHA into one Administration in the Department of Labor? How much savings would such a consolidation achieve? Answer: The issue of having one Federal Safety and Health Agency has been debated many times over the years. Federal involvement in mining began with the creation of the Bureau of Mines in 1910 and other worker protection acts followed. With the passage of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 Congress stressed the need for protection of all workers who were not previously covered by specific legislative authority. Furthermore, in enacting this broad legislation, Congress recognized that associated with certain occupations were unique hazards that could best be monitored by separate organizations possessing expertise in these specialized areas. The airline industry and mining are only two examples of industries whose workers are protected by specific legislation. As late as 1977 Congress reaffirmed their desire to continue to separate protection of this Nation's miners. In passing the Federal Mine Safety and Health Amendments Act of 1977 the Congress confirmed their desire to have an administration separate from OSHA when they specifically established in the Department of Labor a Mine Safety and Health Administration headed by an Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. MSHA and OSHA have had since 1974 a Memorandum of Understanding that administratively addresses any jurisdictional conflict that may arise between the two Agencies. To assure the continued applicability of the Memorandum of Understanding, a task force jointly chaired by Mr. Auchter and Mr. Ford has been established to review the agreement and those industries where jurisdictional conflict may occur. I feel that this working group and the Memorandum of Understanding are appropriately addressing any issue that may arise. MSHA/OSHA SAND AND GRAVEL TRANSFER, Question: Your budget justification does not assume transfer of surface stone, sand and gravel inspection activities from MSHA to OSHA, even though the continuing resolution enacted this transfer into law. If the Congress does not go along with your proposal on sand and gravel, how much money should be deducted from your fiscal year 1983 budget. Answer: MSHA's 1983 budget included $4,308,000 for sand and gravel operations. Question: Have you found adequate solutions to administrative problems involved in transferring jurisdiction over stone, sand and gravel operations from MSHA to OSHA? Answer: MSHA and OSHA have operated under a memorandum of understanding for several years that provides for administratively addressing jurisdictional conflicts that may arise between the two agencies. In addition, a task force jointly chaired by Mr. Auchter and Mr. Ford has been established to review the agreement and those industries where jurisdictional conflicts may occur. I feel that this working group and the agreement can appropriatly address any issues that may develop. IMPACT OF ROBOTICS Question: How do you assess the likely impact of the American economy and workforce in the 1980's of the "Robot Revolution" that has been gaining widespread media attention? Answer: As an old economist, Kurt Wicksell, once said, "technological advance is the short-run enemy of labor, but in A higher standard of the long run it is labor's best friend." living can only be achieved by economic growth, and the primary engine of economic growth is higher productivity; that is, This was the case in having the machines do the work of men. the industrial revolution, in the agricultural revolution of the 1950s and 1960s, and is likely to be the case in the 1980s. There will undoubtedly be job displacement, but we should distinguish this displacement from permanent unemployment. Workers in some industries and occupations will be displaced from their current jobs. At present, robots can only perform highly repetitive and tedious tasks. It is these kinds of jobs that will be eliminated. But if these workers are retrained by private industry, they will find better paying and more challenging jobs elsewhere. Virtually, everyone agrees that more jobs will be lost in those countries and companies that do not automate production processes than in those that do. The garment industry provides a good indication of how technological progress might actually help us regain some jobs that have been lost to other countries. The microprocessor will significantly reduce labor requirements in the industry. Although fullyautomated garment production is still a long way off, this technological change is laying the foundation for a much less labor-intensive process that will erode the comparative advantage of cheap labor in developing countries. SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS Senator BYRD. The subcommittee will now stand in recess until tomorrow when we will meet in this room at 10 a.m. to discuss funding for employment and training administration programs. Thank you very much. Secretary DONOVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Whereupon at 4 p.m., Tuesday, April 20, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 11 a.m., Wednesday, April 21.] 16-039 0-83-22 DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1982 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 8:35 a.m. in room 1114, of the Everett McKinley Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Quentin N. Burdick presiding. Present: Senator Burdick. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD STATEMENT OF WILLIAM ADAMS, CHAIRMAN ACCOMPANIED BY: EARL OLIVER, MANAGEMENT MEMBER SUBCOMMITTEE PROCEDURE Senator BURDICK. Today we begin our regular fiscal year 1983 appropriations hearings for Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee. This morning we will hear testimony from three related agencies under the subcommittee's jurisdiction: The Railroad Retirement Board, the ACTION agency, and the Soldiers' and Airmen's Home. We will begin with testimony from Mr. William Adams, Chairman of the Railroad Retirement Board. Mr. Adams, please introduce the people with you and proceed with your prepared statement as you wish. Mr. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. INTRODUCTION OF ASSOCIATES I am William Adams, Chairman of the Railroad Retirement Board. On my left is Mr. Charles Chamberlain, labor member; to his left is |