“Safe Workplaces, Stronger Partnerships: The Future of OSHA Compliance Assistance”

Chairman Ryan Mackenzie (R-PA)SPEAKER_03

Good morning. This Subcommittee on Workforce Protections will come to order. I note that a quorum is present. Without objection, the chair is authorized to call a recess at any time. Today's hearing will explore compliance assistance programs offered by OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and its state partners. We'll consider ways to strengthen these federal programs and learn more about the public-private safety partnerships that OSHA's mission includes, with goals of protecting those who work hard every day to provide for their families and deserve to do so in safe working conditions. Since its establishment in 1971, OSHA has developed enforcement efforts and robust compliance assistance programs. These programs help protect the millions of Americans who work hard every day to provide for their families by giving employers the tools and guidance they need to prevent injuries and illness before they occur. Instead of relying solely on inspections and investigations after a violation happens, compliance assistance programs encourage a proactive approach to safety, which is essential to any effective health and safety management system. Many of these programs have been in place for almost as long as OSHA itself. For example, this year marks the 50th anniversary of OSHA's On-Site Consultation Program, which provides no-cost, confidential occupational safety and health services that are tailored for small and medium-sized businesses. In 1982, OSHA approved the first site for its Voluntary Protection Programs, which recognized workplaces with safety and health practices that go above and beyond legal requirements. In addition to OSHA's many federal programs, there is a vast network of programs and initiatives conducted by states with their own OSHA-approved state plans. As we look ahead, it's clear that workplaces are changing rapidly. New industries, emerging technologies, and evolving hazards require OSHA's compliance assistance programs to be more innovative, accessible, and adaptable than ever before. Updating compliance assistance programs calls for a collaborative approach. Strong partnerships among state agencies, nonprofit organizations, industry leaders, and other stakeholders will be vital. We'll combine We must combine enforcement efforts with educational opportunities for employers and workers who want to meet their compliance obligations if we're going to protect workers. Importantly, certain federal programs, such as the VPP, are discretionary programs, meaning their effectiveness can change dramatically year over year, and employers engaged in these programs are under constant threat of losing this critical resource. We will hear more about a solution that addresses this concern and codifies the program, allowing it to perform more consistently. Today, we will also hear from individuals in their workplaces where these compliance assistance programs are used. The witnesses will offer their perspective on how these programs have made their workplaces safer, and they will make recommendations about how these programs can be improved to ensure worker health and safety. I look forward to today's hearing and today's witnesses discussing strategies to make OSHA's compliance assistance programs more effective and responsive to the needs of the workforce. With that, I yield to the ranking member for her opening statement.

Ranking Member Ilhan Omar (D-MN)SPEAKER_00

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses for being here today. Over the last six months, the Trump administration has embarked on an aggressive assault on worker protections. And just in the past two weeks, Trump's Department of Labor has released five dozen deregulatory rulemakings, two-thirds of which focus on health and safety issues. These proposals target core worker protections, including changes to child labor rules, removing a requirement as basic and essential as having adequate lighting on construction sites, and even weakening workers' protection against asbestos. This spree of deregulation follows months of mass firing at the very agencies tasked with researching and investigating workplace conditions and a proposed budget that would reduce inspections and slash DOL's capacity to develop new safety standards. The message is clear: workers' rights and protections are under attack. Compliance assistance programs such as the Voluntary Protection Programs have their place, but they are no substitute for clear standards that are actively and effectively enforced. No job should ever be a death sentence. Workers deserve to come home to their families at the end of the day alive, healthy, and whole. Yet, according to the AFL-CIO, workplace hazards killed approximately 140,000 workers in 2023, including 5,283 workers from traumatic injuries and an estimated 135,000 from occupational diseases. To protect workers from harm, Congress has passed landmark safety laws and established important agencies like OSHA, MSHA, NIOSH, and the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. When they are all allowed to do their jobs and are fully funded, these agencies save lives and prevent harm to workers. But now, the Trump administration is attempting to strip away safety regulations, dismantle critical agencies like NIOSH and CSB. In doing so, they are threatening the lives of workers who rely on those safeguards and the resources these agencies provide. In my own district, we're already feeling the consequences of these cuts. The University of Minnesota's Midwest Center for Occupational Health and Safety is one of just 18 NIOSH-funded education and research centers in the nation. It trains the next generation of workplace safety experts who will help protect our workers in high-risk industries. Without NIOSH, the invaluable research and workforce development provided by that center and others like it across the country will be lost. That means fewer trained medical and safety professionals, less research capacity on critical issues such as heat stress, decreased investment in innovative technologies that can prevent illness and injury. The Trump administration's deregulatory agenda will result in more injuries, more deaths, more grieving families, and less accountability for employers who put their workers in harm's way. Committee Democrats are committed to honoring these workers who have been harmed or killed on the job, not just with words, but with action to change the system. Later today, Ranking Member Scott will reintroduce a bill that will finally bring workers the common-sense protection they deserve against heat-related injuries and illness. I am proud to cosponsor the Asunción Valdivia Heat Illness, Injury and Fatality Prevention Act, which requires OSHA to finally issue an enforceable rule with the strongest feasible protection against heat illness, including paid rest break, access to water, shaded or cooled recovery areas, and training that is delivered in a language and format the workers understand. These are sensible safeguards that will save lives. Ranking Member Scott, Representative Courtney, and I also reintroduced the Protecting America's Workers Act, which would make long-overdue improvements to the enforcement of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. This bill would expand coverage to millions of workers currently excluded from the law's protections and strengthen whistleblower protections. These reforms are critical to preventing the most serious violations that endanger worker safety. Democrats are offering real solutions to the problems workers face on the job instead of ripping away protections. I hope that our discussion today can center around ensuring that workers come home safely at the end of the day. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I request unanimous consent to enter into the record a statement from the United Steelworkers about the compliance assistance program we will be discussing today.

Chairman Ryan Mackenzie (R-PA)SPEAKER_03

Without objection.

Ranking Member Ilhan Omar (D-MN)SPEAKER_00

Thank you, and I yield back.

Chairman Ryan Mackenzie (R-PA)SPEAKER_03

Pursuant to Committee Rule 8(c), all members who wish to insert written statements into the record may do so by submitting them to the committee clerk electronically in Microsoft Word format by 5:00 p.m. 14 days after this hearing. And without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 14 days to allow such statements and other extraneous material noted during the hearing to be submitted for the official hearing record. Now to the introduction of our witnesses for today. Our first witness is Mr. Chris Williams, the executive director for the Voluntary Protection Programs Participants' Association in Falls Church, Virginia. Our second witness is Mr. Myron Harper, the national health and safety director for Cintas Corporation in Indianapolis, Indiana. Our third witness is Ms. Rebecca Reindel, the safety and health director at the AFL-CIO in Washington, D.C. And our final witness is Mr. Kevin Sell, senior director for corporate development at Kwest Group in Alexandria, Kentucky. Mr. Sell is testifying on behalf of the Associated Builders and Contractors. We want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today, and we look forward to hearing each of your testimony. Pursuant to committee rules, I will ask that each of you limit your oral testimony to a three-minute summary of the written testimony that you've provided. As committee members have many questions to ask for you, the clock will count down from three minutes. Pursuant to Committee Rule 8(d), the committee practice, however, is that we will not cut off your testimony until you reach the five-minute mark. I would also like to remind the witnesses to be aware of their responsibility to provide accurate information to the subcommittee. And with that, I will recognize our first witness today. Mr. Williams, you're recognized for your testimony.

Mr. Chris WilliamsSPEAKER_04

Chairman Mackenzie, Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member Omar, and members of the subcommittee and committee, I thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of OSHA's compliance assistance programs. My name is Chris Williams, and I serve as the executive director of the Voluntary Protection Programs Participants' Association. For 40 years, VPPPA has represented sites and companies involved in VPP. Our more than 1,400 members represent every industry and collectively represent nearly 300,000 workers, union and non-union. More than half of VPPPA's members are current VPP sites who, along with the nearly 1,900 sites across the country, share in our mission to raise the standard for workplace health and safety excellence. VPP is a program founded on collaboration. In 1979, the California Building Trades Council, National Constructors Association, and Cal/OSHA came together to develop the Cooperative Self-Inspection Program. It was aimed at preventing injuries and illnesses during construction of the San Onofre nuclear power plant. Led by labor, with full management buy-in and oversight by Cal/OSHA, this resulted in levels of cooperation previously unseen and laid the foundation for the program that we see today. OSHA's VPP has maintained this bedrock commitment to employee involvement, management commitment, and regulatory oversight, working together to foster a culture of continuous improvement. The proof's in the numbers. According to OSHA data, VPP sites maintain an average injury and illness rate 53% below BLS industry averages. To put that in perspective, the average American workplace sees nearly 3 injured workers per 100 full-time employees. For VPP sites, that number is closer to 1. And that's still one too many because VPP fosters a culture where safety is the core value upon which every decision is made. It's why VPP works and saves. VPP's impact goes beyond participants. It's felt across the more than 10 million workplaces in the United States through countless process innovations and best practices. It's felt by OSHA through the Special Government Employee Program, with VPP companies committing their own personnel and resources to work alongside OSHA developing new ideas that are routinely adopted and improved. Simply put, VPP is a shining example of what labor, management, and government can do when working together towards a shared vision of what can be. Yet, VPP remains a discretionary program, meaning that it can be eliminated at any time for any reason by any party. And make no mistake, it's been under threat before. That's why we're pleased to see the introduction of H.R. 2844, the Michael Enzi Voluntary Protection Program Act. This bill's aim is simple: to make VPP a permanent program within OSHA, to require that a percentage of OSHA's budget be set aside to fund VPP, and to create a pathway for every American workplace to reach VPP-level performance. VPP enjoys broad support: Democrats and Republicans, management and labor. In fact, VPP was built by labor. Nearly 500 locals are signatories to VPP agreements, among them more than 380 AFL-CIO-affiliated unions. VPP is the gold standard of safety and health management systems and the only one available free to every workplace willing to commit to and abide by its stringent ongoing requirements. Participants know that protecting workers isn't proprietary. It isn't a union or non-union issue. It's about sending our loved ones home in the same or better condition than which they arrived every day. I thank you for your time, and I look forward to your questions.

Chairman Ryan Mackenzie (R-PA)SPEAKER_03

Thank you, Mr. Williams. Next, we have Mr. Harper, and I recognize you for your testimony.

Mr. Myron HarperSPEAKER_06

Good morning, Chairman Mackenzie, Ranking Member Omar, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for holding this hearing and for the opportunity to testify on the importance of the Voluntary Protection Programs. My name is Myron Harper. I am a director of health and safety for Cintas Corporation. Cintas is dedicated to helping more than 1 million businesses of all types and sizes across the United States get ready to open their doors with confidence by providing a wide range of products. Cintas employs approximately 47,000 employee-partners in our workforce today, and our overarching goal is to ensure everyone returns home safely at the end of the day. We accomplish this through our Cintas Health and Safety Management System, which is modeled by or after our OSHA Voluntary Protection Programs. Since the certification of our first site in 2010, 139 additional Cintas facilities nationwide have achieved VPP Star certification. Achieving VPP Star certification is a rigorous process. Our locations must show that all employee-partners work together to prevent workplace injuries and incidents. I also serve as a special government employee through OSHA's Voluntary Protection Programs. As a special government employee, I have the opportunity to engage with peers through multiple educational opportunities, mentoring, and by participating in on-site evaluations. Even though OSHA works together with sites to find solutions and to give feedback, we are held to an even higher standard and are still subject to audits and evaluations post-certification, and this remains critical to the success of this program today. I would like to thank Congresswoman Diana Harshbarger and Congressman Mike Thompson, the bipartisan cosponsors of H.R. 2844, the Michael Enzi Voluntary Protection Programs Act. Passage of this legislation would ensure the long-term success of this great program in keeping all employees engaged, healthy, and safe. Thank you again to the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to your questions.

Chairman Ryan Mackenzie (R-PA)SPEAKER_03

Thank you. And next, I'll recognize Ms. Reindel for your testimony.

Ms. Rebecca L. ReindelSPEAKER_07

Good morning, Chairman Mackenzie, Ranking Member Omar, and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the AFL-CIO about protecting worker health and safety. I want to start by saying that the magnitude of work-related fatalities, injuries, and illnesses is enormous for American workers, and it's totally unacceptable in this country. Each year in the U.S., more than 5,000 workers die on the job from traumatic injury, and an estimated 135,000 die each year from work-related disease. The families of these workers suffer the consequences, and these are devastating, and they're preventable. So what we are talking about today are not just numbers and goals and achievements; they are people's lives. Yet, the job safety enforcement agency for most workplaces, OSHA, has been starved by budget cuts and hampered by staffing reductions and low penalty structures that keep it from carrying out its core responsibilities entrusted to it by Congress, even before the Trump administration's recent efforts that will reduce these resources even more. Between 1991 and 2024, OSHA's budget decreased 8%. In the last 35 years, we have seen a 19% reduction in all of OSHA's staff, including at headquarters, and that, and with a whopping 35% decrease in enforcement staff alone. Meanwhile, employment has grown 43%, and workplaces have grown 82%. Overall, this is a 38% reduction in the amount the agency has to protect each worker it is responsible for, now only $3.92 for each worker. We do a calculation each year in our report on the number of years it would take OSHA to inspect each workplace in its jurisdiction once based on its resources. Since 1991, that number has gone from once every 84 years to once every 185 years. And under the president's budget proposal for fiscal '26, that number would be the worst on record—once every 266 years—because they've proposed to reduce the number of OSHA inspections by nearly 30%. Meanwhile, 8 million public sector workers have no OSHA coverage, a number that has increased 10% in the last 35 years. All of this means that the budget appropriated by Congress is not enough for the agency to carry out even its core responsibilities of setting standards and enforcing them. A quick reminder, the two duties in the OSH Act are for employers that must, one, maintain a workplace free from recognized hazards, and two, comply with the standards promulgated by the agency. Recent firings of the health and safety agency staff like NIOSH and new policies by the Trump administration will only make things worse for America's workers. And right before the 4th of July, the administration just proposed to rescind and weaken dozens of worker health and safety rules, including removing training and medical evaluation requirements for PPE to function properly, removing employer requirements on reporting illnesses, and removing OSHA's general duty to keep workers safe. Meanwhile, OSHA hasn't been able to issue many standards in recent years, and when they do, it can take up to 20 years to get one out the door. Compliance assistance has always been part of the OSHA model, but compliance assistance is just that—assistance to aid employers with understanding and complying with the law. And OSHA has many compliance assistance programs. Examples are resources for businesses to better understand the standards they need to follow, guidance on specific hazards and ways to correct them, and recommendations on systemic issues to keep those hazards corrected. But lower penalties, just like inspection exemptions, incentives to underreport injuries, and a lack of meaningful worker and union participation, all undermine the credibility of any voluntary program. And resources are not distributed evenly. For years, OSHA has consistently spent more than 10 times the amount of money on employer compliance assistance than it has on worker safety and health training. And now the president has proposed to zero out worker health and safety training altogether in OSHA's budget. OSHA's few resources are not a reason to spend more money on voluntary approaches. Compliance assistance is an important part of the OSHA model, but only as an aid to support the mandate the agency was given by Congress, not a replacement for it. Thank you for inviting me to testify, and I would be happy to answer any questions.

Chairman Ryan Mackenzie (R-PA)SPEAKER_03

Thank you. Lastly, I'll recognize Mr. Sell for your testimony.

Mr. Kevin SellSPEAKER_11

Thank you, Chairman Mackenzie, Ranking Member Omar, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the invitation to testify this morning and for the opportunity to discuss voluntary protection programs and the future of Occupational Safety and Health Administration's compliance assistance. Again, my name is Kevin Sell. I currently serve as the senior manager, corporate development at Kwest Group. We are a 100% employee-owned company founded in 2003. Kwest Group has grown from its roots in Port Clinton, Ohio, to become a trusted partner across the United States. Today, Kwest Group is licensed in nearly 40 states with seven regional offices and two craft education facilities. Today, I'm testifying on behalf of Associated Builders and Contractors, a national trade association with 67 chapters representing more than 23,000 member companies and millions of craft professionals. I began my career as a firefighter, later shift commander, and that helped me launch a career in construction. Before Kwest Group, I contributed to the significant growth of Century Construction and United Group Services through safety, quality programs and workforce development solutions from 1990 to 2004. I've also held leadership roles on both the Kentucky Workers' Compensation Funding Commission, and I chaired the Kentucky Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. Aside from my education, I hold several certifications in the health and safety field. The area offices of OSHA provide employees and employers with valuable expertise and support through the compliance assistance specialists and their challenge program that is a path to VPP. By having a partnership with the area office, you gain non-enforcement support so you can work with OSHA to get better and reduce risk to your entire team. This is especially important for construction, as many of us have mobile workforce that moves around a lot, and this presents its own set of challenges that are far different and more complex than most general industry sites. In 1999, we met with then Region 5 Administrator Mike Connors, who challenged us to take the ABC STEP, which is Safety Training Evaluation Process, and Challenge Program to a construction version of the Voluntary Protection Program, or VPP. We started that demonstration program in 2001. VPP in every industry allows employers, employees, and labor to apply for an audit that leads to the VPP designation. Many of us call the VPP OSHA's seal of approval. The VPP makes the work environment better, safer, and even supports business growth and job security. It's also important to note that positions like the compliance assistance specialist in VPP allow OSHA to focus on the bad employers and use their VPP partners as subject-matter experts and resources. OSHA standards are minimum standards, and it is far better for employees to be protected by a VPP employer. It is also important to mention a bit more about ABC's STEP program. This process gives you a position of where your health and safety program is at and how to get better based on levels like gold, platinum, diamond. When I mentor construction companies applying for VPP, I always ask them for their STEP level or have them start this process. STEP was a key factor in creating VPP in construction, and I still find it of high value to that application process. STEP has also evolved to add something of great importance to all of us in every industry, and that is mental health and suicide prevention. Together with all other aspects, we now focus on total human health. I look forward to discussing this important issue with the subcommittee today and hopefully provide insight into the successful programs. Thank you very much.

Chairman Ryan Mackenzie (R-PA)SPEAKER_03

Thank you. Under Committee Rule 9, we will now ask questions of the witnesses under the 5-minute rule, and I'll be recognizing myself for the first series of questions. Mr. Williams, your written testimony noted that the mission of the Voluntary Protection Program is to send workers home from work in safe or better condition than when they arrived. How do OSHA's compliance assistance programs, like VPP, complement the enforcement side of OSHA's work in achieving this goal?

Mr. Chris WilliamsSPEAKER_04

Thank you for your question. Quite simply, VPP is an efficiency tool for OSHA in that it supplements personnel from VPP sites in the form of special government employees who go out and conduct audits, can review applications in some regions, and the like. So it does free up those resources, potentially, for enforcement efforts. It also allows VPP itself, the performance of those companies and sites in the program, it allows OSHA to focus on, as the witness stated, those truly bad actors who, for reasons incomprehensible to the moral mind, refuse to comply with OSHA requirements. We know that VPP sites, from a performance standpoint, are well above and beyond compliance, and they're well above and beyond the performance of their peers. So VPP sites also commit to that pay-it-forward model where their resources, their best practices are openly shared amongst industry, amongst their peers, not as proprietary, but in order to help send those workers home safe every day.

Chairman Ryan Mackenzie (R-PA)SPEAKER_03

Well, I appreciate that response, and it actually sets up my next question perfectly. Mr. Harper, you highlight in your written testimony the opportunities given to you as a special government employee, or an SGE. As an SGE, you're able to offer your knowledge and experience to smaller businesses just starting out and businesses in need of strengthening their current safety practices. How has your work as an SGE benefited smaller businesses?

Mr. Myron HarperSPEAKER_06

So with small businesses, we've been able to partner with them through SGE initiatives, through Voluntary Protection Program, by going out, visiting those sites directly, partnering with them, sharing those best practices with them, as well as inviting them to our sites to partner with them. It's a great benefit to those smaller sites, as well as to our site, to partner with other businesses that may have the same issues that we have faced before, and we're able to help identify those solutions directly. So, building businesses, community involvement together to send every employee home safe and sound.

Chairman Ryan Mackenzie (R-PA)SPEAKER_03

So we appreciate the work you do helping small businesses there. I think that's fantastic. How does that benefit your organization, Cintas?

Mr. Myron HarperSPEAKER_06

So with Cintas, especially with the customers that we have, we've been able to partner with those small businesses to help them with their initiatives and help us, as far as a company, to build that relationship with that site. So if they continue to build and grow, that helps us long run on our side as well, but it helps us with our knowledge, sharing best practices from those sites and things that we're able to benefit from with the S&E evaluations and tools that we get from those sites.

Chairman Ryan Mackenzie (R-PA)SPEAKER_03

Fantastic. My final question is for Mr. Sell. By having the Voluntary Protection Program in place, OSHA gains industry ambassadors who enthusiastically offer their expertise to industry safety efforts, as we just heard. OSHA may also exempt VPP sites from programmed inspections, which allows the agency to allocate resources towards expanding outreach or, when needed, enforcement. Having participated in the VPP, can you highlight the benefits an employer and its employees receive from the program?

Mr. Kevin SellSPEAKER_11

Certainly, and thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. As the employer or the group, the company, the benefits received is that you're starting that it's not just a partnership. I would argue that it's a relationship and that you're in regular communication with your respective area office. And getting to know those people and what they do also gives you more access to standards that are coming out, more input. The employees understand that they're working for a company and with a company where they're engaged in the voluntary protection process and where they look at OSHA as a partner and they don't look at them as the occupational police, which—not saying that's not needed, I'm just saying in the VPP setting that it's a cooperation, it's engagement, it's collaboration with the agency, which is—I think we all would welcome more collaboration with federal agencies that actually benefit employees.

Chairman Ryan Mackenzie (R-PA)SPEAKER_03

Appreciate that answer. Thank you. And, uh, with that, I'll conclude my questioning, and next I'll I'll recognize the ranking member for 5 minutes of questioning.

Ranking Member Ilhan Omar (D-MN)SPEAKER_00

Ms. Reindel, thank you so much for joining us today. Just this week, OSHA announced a major policy change related to the monetary penalties for workplace safety violations. Under current law, what is the maximum penalty OSHA can seek for a serious violation?

Ms. Rebecca L. ReindelSPEAKER_07

Excuse me. The maximum penalty is $16,550. So it's roughly $16,000.

Ranking Member Ilhan Omar (D-MN)SPEAKER_00

What if a worker is killed?

Ms. Rebecca L. ReindelSPEAKER_07

If a worker is killed, it depends on the type of violation. It could also be a maximum of $16,000 if it's a serious violation.

Ranking Member Ilhan Omar (D-MN)SPEAKER_00

And just to be clear, these are the— these are only the maximum penalties, right?

Ms. Rebecca L. ReindelSPEAKER_07

These are maximum penalties. They're often much, much lower. In our annual report, we do look at this. And for federal OSHA, the average serious penalty that OSHA issues is $4,000 for a serious violation of the OSHA Act.

Ranking Member Ilhan Omar (D-MN)SPEAKER_00

Now, can you briefly tell us what OSHA announced this week, and what are the consequences of this decision, and will workers' lives be at risk?

Ms. Rebecca L. ReindelSPEAKER_07

Sure. OSHA announced on Monday a new policy change related to its penalty structure and related to reducing penalties for businesses when they are cited by OSHA. OSHA has always, long-term, has had four categories for good-faith penalty reduction, history, lack of a history of violations penalty reduction, quick-fix penalty reduction, and size-based penalty reductions. And what this policy did here was it changed the criteria, and it's letting more employers into the penalty reduction space, and that includes large employers, not just small businesses. It also increases the penalty reductions to 70%, so you get fined by OSHA, you can have up to a 70% penalty reduction now, or 80% for willful violations. And if you haven't had an inspection in five years, you actually can have a reduction in penalties. And what it what it used to be was that you had to have an inspection in the last five years without many serious violations in order to achieve that.

Ranking Member Ilhan Omar (D-MN)SPEAKER_00

Wow. What message does it send when this administration is willing to make it cheaper to break the law?

Ms. Rebecca L. ReindelSPEAKER_07

Sure. This new policy just creates incentives for employers to take the low road and to not follow the law. We already know that OSHA doesn't show up to workplaces because of its resources, that it can't make it to so many workplaces every year. And further, now we know that if they will show up to, employers can expect penalties that are much too low to be a deterrent for violating our nation's safety and health laws.

Ranking Member Ilhan Omar (D-MN)SPEAKER_00

In May, Secretary Chavez-DeRemer told this committee that she would double down in addressing child labor. And yet her Labor Department recently sent a draft rule to OMB on child labor, which has not been made public, that might actually weaken child labor protections. With child labor violations rising across the country, we need to make our child labor laws stronger, not weaker. And I hope everyone here can agree with that, because potential rollback is very troubling. Ms. Reindel, if this new DOL rule increases hours that children can work or exposes them to more dangerous jobs, what exactly is the Trump administration doubling down on?

Ms. Rebecca L. ReindelSPEAKER_07

Sure. Yes, we haven't seen this rule in full yet, but it is by title about hazardous occupations for children to work in. So we actually have seen these things before in the first Trump administration, where they have attempted to lower the age that children can work in dangerous occupations and having them work at different hours for longer time periods. And right now, for decades, our nation has, you know, prevented, prevented children from working in certain hazardous occupations. We've had many violations of this over the years, and child labor violations are a very clear indicator of other health and safety violations that are going on in workplaces.

Ranking Member Ilhan Omar (D-MN)SPEAKER_00

Thank you. And with that, I yield back.

Chairman Ryan Mackenzie (R-PA)SPEAKER_03

Thank you. Next, we'll go to Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Walberg from Michigan.

Full Committee Chairman Tim Walberg (R-MI)SPEAKER_09

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for holding this hearing, and thanks to the panel for being here. Mr. Williams, you indicated that in your, in your written testimony that an estimated 1,900 worksites participate in the Voluntary Protection Program. What percentage of those sites are union sites?

Mr. Chris WilliamsSPEAKER_04

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. While there's no accurate data put out by OSHA in terms of worksite affiliation, labor, non-labor, union, non-union, in looking through the list of unions that have—are signatories of VPP agreements and looking at those sites, a conservative estimate would be 15%. I would put that above 20% of VPP sites that are union worksites. I say that because the data is incomplete to some extent. For example, in California, 61% of VPP sites are union affiliated.

Full Committee Chairman Tim Walberg (R-MI)SPEAKER_09

Okay. What additional requirements are there for worksites who are represented by a union and want to join VPP? And if you could also respond, what kind of feedback have you received from the unions about these sites?

Mr. Chris WilliamsSPEAKER_04

Certainly. Any site that employs union labor must have every trade that's represented on that site sign off on any VPP agreement. If even one declines, then there's no— then we don't proceed. The VPP process stops. Labor maintains a critical role and critical oversight role in terms of if at any point labor looks at that VPP agreement, looks at that site and says, "You're not upholding your end of the bargain, management," we can withdraw our signature, and the site is out of VPP. In terms of feedback from local labor affiliates, it's been overwhelmingly positive, just simply based on the number of local signatories that I cited in my opening statement. But I want to give you a statement in their own words. This is from Jack Griffith, who works at the Central Plateau Cleanup Company out in Richland, Washington. He's a member of the Hanford Atomic Metal Trades Council and Local 1951 of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. He's a full-time union safety representative, VPP coordinator. He's been involved in VPP for almost 30 years now. And in his words, and I quote, "VPP is not a flavor-of-the-month program. It requires a management commitment with employee involvement. Unionized sites must endorse their commitment or the application will not be accepted by OSHA. Attaining VPP Star recognition is not easy for companies. They must have implemented an effective safety and health management system. Fostering a culture of safety and continuous improvement can take time. I've seen where the safety culture needed to change to meet the rigorous requirements of going above and beyond the basic OSHA requirements to demonstrate exemplary safety and health management systems. On a VPP site, every employee has the right to stop work without fear of retaliation when identifying anything that was not covered.

Full Committee Chairman Tim Walberg (R-MI)SPEAKER_09

It's not surprising that he would state that. That's just common sense of what the program is, is a high-standard program that you have to voluntarily commit to and keep the job. Thank you. Mr. Harper, there's a misguided belief that by participating in VPP, employers skirt their compliance obligations. However, your written testimony states that VPP worksites are held to an even higher standard than nonparticipants through the program audit and evaluation process. Could you briefly explain why that is, and do you believe this high standard has had a direct impact on employee recruitment, retention, and growth there at Cintas?

Mr. Myron HarperSPEAKER_06

Thank you for your question. When it comes to the high level of importance for safety at Cintas and within our within our facilities, partnering with our with our employees have definitely helped to further the importance of safety. When it comes to audits that happens with OSHA, we have to make sure that we hold to a high standard with OSHA. On a on an annual basis, we got to submit our records of where we are for continuous improvement, and then every so often they have to come back and reevaluate our site to make sure that we're held to that standard. In addition to that, when submitting our applications, we have to be lower than the industry average, lower or at the industry average based on the BLS rates. And so our incident rates has to be below. So they're also looking at our involvement from our employees and leaders, as well as our numbers. It has definitely helped us with the accountability side as far as having OSHA there to help partner with us and continue our efforts sending partners home every day safe to their families. And so it helps with our programs initially.

Full Committee Chairman Tim Walberg (R-MI)SPEAKER_09

Thank you. Not much time left, but Mr. Sell, yes or no, has the participation in VPP and other compliance assistance program shifted culture of your workplace to prioritize safety?

Mr. Kevin SellSPEAKER_11

Yes, it has.

Full Committee Chairman Tim Walberg (R-MI)SPEAKER_09

That's all I wanted to hear. Thank you. Go back.

Chairman Ryan Mackenzie (R-PA)SPEAKER_03

Fantastic. Next, we're going to go to Mr. Takano Takano from California.

Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA)SPEAKER_01

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the witnesses for being here. Ms. Reindel, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, or NIOSH, is the only federal agency that conducts research on worker safety and hazardous health materials. As you describe in your testimony, NIOSH researchers which chemicals researches which chemicals could shorten a worker's lifespan, how future accidents can be prevented, and the application of life-saving interventions that protect workers and employers, among other things. Is it true that the staff of NIOSH was gutted this week, depriving the agency of enough staff to function?

Ms. Rebecca L. ReindelSPEAKER_07

Thank you for the question. In the spring, the Trump administration fired two-thirds of the staff of NIOSH. And even though some of them have been returned, more than a third of the agency is still out. And those are people who do critical work around

Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA)SPEAKER_01

Critical work. These are, these are trained researchers, people with advanced degrees.

Ms. Rebecca L. ReindelSPEAKER_07

That's right. They're uniquely skilled. Uh, this is not— this is a small field with very, uh, high level of expertise. And a very unique level of expertise to do occupational safety and health.

Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA)SPEAKER_01

Can you give me a number, an estimate of number of staff that will be affected?

Ms. Rebecca L. ReindelSPEAKER_07

Sure. We still have more than 400 staff who are out of NIOSH. And these are people who do critical mining safety and health research, critical research on warehouses, and many other studies and industry partnerships.

Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA)SPEAKER_01

So what might be the immediate consequences of these staff cuts? Do you have some ideas in mind?

Ms. Rebecca L. ReindelSPEAKER_07

Sure, for instance, in the mining sector at NIOSH, they do long-term studies, but they also do— they test explosive environments. They have very critical state-of-the-art facilities where you can test explosive environments, for instance, under mines, prevent roof collapses. And you also have partnerships with the fishing industry, with the construction industry. These are a lot of the industries that are still— the research is highly impactful, and it's also research that's applied and it's immediate. So it's understanding why employers or employees aren't adopting safety practices and helping them.

Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA)SPEAKER_01

Great, thank you. My district contains one of the largest logistics hubs in the world. In the Inland Empire, more than 200,000 people are employed by the warehousing industry. Warehousing work has among the highest rates of serious injury of any industry in the country. Workers suffer lifelong injuries from overexertion and repetitive stress, which can permanently destroy an employee's back, wrists, and other joints. Heavy objects and equipment that mean a collision or a fall could be deadly and has resulted in hundreds of worker fatalities per year. As online shopping booms, so does the safety risk associated with that that industry. A 2024 Senate report indicated that one Amazon Prime Day, just one Prime Day at Amazon, led to a rate a rate of 45 injuries per 100 workers. That's nearly a 50% injury rate. Ms. Reindel, researchers at NIOSH's Western States Division were conducting research into making warehouse work safer. Their staff was just eliminated. How will cuts at NIOSH affect my constituents?

Ms. Rebecca L. ReindelSPEAKER_07

Absolutely. The Western States Division is a smaller office out in the western states that have—are incredibly efficient. And they affect warehouses because they do important work on ergonomics, which you were just talking about, and preventing musculoskeletal disorders from repetitive stress injuries, and also on fatigue. I mean, warehouses have extreme issues with workers working long hours, fatigue issues, transportation issues related to the logistics industry. So we can expect without NIOSH that injuries and illnesses will go up, fatalities will go up, and this is going to harm generations to come.

Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA)SPEAKER_01

We just passed this big, ugly bill, $160 billion to do immigration enforcement, a budget that's bigger than several defense budgets put together. So there's a tradeoff here. We're going to eliminate an office, a small office that could make warehouse work safer for my constituents. So I'm seeing a trade-off here, Ms. Reindel, and I'm I'm very, very alarmed by it. I yield back.

Chairman Ryan Mackenzie (R-PA)SPEAKER_03

Thank you. Next, we'll go to Mr. Messmer from Indiana.

Rep. Mark Messmer (R-IN)SPEAKER_10

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today, especially my fellow Hoosier, Mr. Harper. Mr. Harper, compliance assistance programs are a proactive approach that results in reduced costs for both OSHA and the participating employers. Can you explain to our subcommittee how these programs reduce costs for both OSHA and the employer?

Mr. Myron HarperSPEAKER_06

Thank you for your question. So with the assistance programs, especially with the SGEs, we're able to have multiple people go to a site or partner with other sites versus having one personnel from OSHA in one area, one region, supporting thousands of sites. And so by helping other businesses partner with other businesses through VPP has absolutely helped partner with other sites, build that relationship, especially with the government and Special Government Employee Program.

Rep. Mark Messmer (R-IN)SPEAKER_10

Thank you. You ran a successful VPP program, and those worksites require buy-in from all parties involved. What role does employee involvement play in a successful VPP worksite?

Mr. Myron HarperSPEAKER_06

Thanks again for your question. So, with the employee involvement, one cannot get a VPP site, you can't go through certification without having that involvement, without having that engagement from your employees. And so this is not built on—our safety system is not built on one person, but it's all the employees at that site and multiple sites. So that's buy-in from everyone at that site to get everyone home safe and sound. So that's very important to to the success of this program and and VPP.

Rep. Mark Messmer (R-IN)SPEAKER_10

Thank you. OSHA has found significantly lower injury and illness rates among VPP participants. Mr. Williams, would you say that employee buy-in creates a culture of safety within your organization by being a VPP participant?

Mr. Chris WilliamsSPEAKER_04

Absolutely, sir. It is a culture that, where, as I mentioned before, safety is the core value upon which every decision is made, and where employees, frontline workers, are empowered to stop work, to own that program.

Rep. Mark Messmer (R-IN)SPEAKER_10

Thank you. And also, Mr. Williams, critics of VPP will claim that by passing H.R. 2844, we will take away from OSHA's ability to enforce safety standards, keep workers safe, even though legislation dedicates— this legislation dedicates 5% of OSHA's annual funds to continuation of the program. What would you say in response to that claim?

Mr. Chris WilliamsSPEAKER_04

I would look at this from the standpoint of VPP funding alone. We know that that number is significantly lower. It's less than 1% of OSHA's overall budget at present. That 5% number represents growth in the program that we know has been successful. And I would relate that as well from the standpoint of we look towards what VPP accomplishes in the scheme of— we talk about enforcement. Enforcement will always have a need within OSHA and will always be part of its core mission. But enforcement results in an inspection that may be on a site 1, 2, 3 days. The other 362 days of the year are what compliance assistance programs like VPP tackle. It's creating that environment, the conditions, and the culture at a worksite so that employees are empowered to work safe, they're empowered to own the program, management commits to that, and the regulatory oversight, as the other witnesses have talked about from their personal perspectives, is the fact that that annual self-evaluation, that audit— a VPP site is going to see OSHA on their site every 3 to 5 years. They openly welcome them.

Rep. Mark Messmer (R-IN)SPEAKER_10

Okay, thank you. Yield back the rest of my time.

Chairman Ryan Mackenzie (R-PA)SPEAKER_03

Thank you. Next, we'll go to Ms. Stevens from Michigan.

Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI)SPEAKER_08

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our ranking member as well, and of course, our witnesses. We all know that OSHA plays an incredibly vital role in making sure Americans across the country are safe at work. And as a daughter of a small business owner who was a landscaper and employed a lot of people, we know a thing or two about workplace safety in my family. And as someone who has visited over 200 manufacturers in my time in Congress through my Manufacturing Monday program, I see those safety standards in play. But I want to focus my questions certainly on Michigan, but I also just don't want to leave out the assault on our federal workforce and decades of underfunding at OSHA that has been mentioned that leave workers more exposed than ever. And so that combined with catastrophic Medicaid cuts in the reconciliation bill that came down makes it very difficult for workers at this time, and particularly for folks who I hear from a lot in Michigan. An AFL-CIO report found that OSHA has just $3.92 per worker that it is responsible for protecting, and that's down from $6.36 in 1991. And the number of OSHA inspectors per million workers has fallen from 9.7 to 6.1. So, Ms. Reindel, you served at OSHA. You've mentioned that. How does this consistent and worsening under—score resourcing or the under-resourcing of the agency that leaves workers exposed to increased safety risks on the job?

Ms. Rebecca L. ReindelSPEAKER_07

Sure. I think, in short, just to say that you have the fox guarding the henhouse, right? You have fewer inspections, less presence in the workplace by OSHA, by an independent, by an external third party. You also don't have an avenue for workers to reach out to an external party. We know there's a lot of fear right now in the U.S., generally speaking, and without the ability for OSHA to show up and to talk to workers, this has a severe dampening effect on how we actually can measure what's going on. I also want to say that enforcement has been effectively evaluated by many studies to look at OSHA enforcement and OSHA standards and how those have saved lives and been effective and actually greater than the standards even predict. So, we have effectiveness of OSHA enforcement that's been shown through many, many studies. I think a lot of my colleagues are talking about VPP. This program still hasn't been critically evaluated, and where it has, there have been big problems with those evaluations to show that they're actually effective. So, what we really want to do is make sure employers are following the law.

Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI)SPEAKER_08

Yeah, and how about attraction? So when we think about growing our manufacturing sector, we also need to think about the talent And I'm curious if we're— when we're ripping away regulatory frameworks and the things that protect people on the job, if it's going to make it easier or harder to attract the talent.

Ms. Rebecca L. ReindelSPEAKER_07

Sure. I know there's definitely an emphasis on domestic manufacturing, but how do you do that if workplaces aren't safe? Aren't safe I think that we've also heard today about OSHA being critically a part of the VPP program. I will say there are a lot of on-site consultation programs, and industry partnerships and resources and compliance assistance are all very important, but OSHA and VPP actually doesn't do audits until once every 3 to 5 years. So that's a long time.

Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI)SPEAKER_08

And one other quick one as well. When you talk about the valuable role that NIOSH plays in keeping workers safe and what American workers will miss out on, how does this upheaval affect that?

Ms. Rebecca L. ReindelSPEAKER_07

NIOSH is really our only source in the government for critical research on health and safety issues. It also already has a lot of industry partnerships, a lot of academic partnerships, real implementation on the ground of preventing workplace injuries and illnesses practically in real time, and also conducting surveillance so that we actually know what's going on in workplaces throughout the states.

Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI)SPEAKER_08

Well, thank you so much, and I yield back my time.

Chairman Ryan Mackenzie (R-PA)SPEAKER_03

Thank you. Next, we're going to go to Mr. Fine from Florida.

Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL)SPEAKER_02

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all of you for being here to talk about this important topic. Obviously, we want to make sure that all of our workers are safe and don't get injured or, even worse, get killed. I have a couple questions. I'm going to start with Mr. Sell. The argument in favor of compliance assistance programs is that it reduces costs by seeking to prevent injuries and accidents as opposed to dealing with them afterwards. But there may also be additional cost savings as well, and that's where I'm—how can we do things cheaper? How do OSHA's compliance assistance programs reduce the compliance burden for employers?

Mr. Kevin SellSPEAKER_11

That is a great question. Thank you for that. So the compliance assistance specialist acting in a non-enforcement capacity can actually work with every employer. It really benefits small employers that don't have those types of resources, but, but every employer is entitled to that service. So whether it's program development, risk assessment, or just trying to figure out what's the best way to protect your employees from a particular risk That's where they come into play. That's where they have the expertise. Where they save money, quite frankly, to a business is, is the output of that. So if they're helping the employer on the front end, then there's no risk or there's reduced risk on the back end. You also see that come through, at least in my opinion. You have a greater reduction to capacity of your workers' comp insurance, which is based on hours worked. Your general liability goes down. So the company becomes better financially because that compliance assistance specialist, in fact, is saving them money. They also, if, if they're working in that partnership— and this is an indirect output— employers want employees to work for them, and employees, especially America's workers, want to work for employers of choice. They want to go somewhere where they're protected and treated well, and a compliance assistance specialist helps that because they see them there and they know the employer cares.

Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL)SPEAKER_02

Okay, well, thank you for that. My next question is for Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams, your written testimony expresses support for H.R. 2844, the Michael Enzi Voluntary Protection Program Act. This bill would require OSHA to dedicate 5% of its annual budget to funding the VPP. A version of this bill has been introduced in previous Congresses long before I got here. But so, that's why I want to know, what were past concerns with this legislation, and how does H.R. 2844 address those concerns?

Mr. Chris WilliamsSPEAKER_04

Thank you for the question. I'll touch on a couple potential issues that may have been stumbling blocks in previous sessions. First and foremost is that some of the language from a funding standpoint in previous versions of the legislation would have been considered open-ended. I think there is some concern from both parties that it was a blank check and carte blanche for the Secretary of Labor, whoever that may be at any given time, to fund as much or as little for VPP and compliance assistance. I believe that 5% rider addresses that. Whether OSHA's budget is $500 million or $50 million, it would still be 5% of that amount. The second would be, I think in looking from the standpoint of, we talked of that budget number, I think there's also been a misconception that the program is pro-one party or the other, pro-labor or pro-non-labor, non-union. I think this legislation in the past has suffered from that misconception that one side or the other supports it. It's a bill for everyone. It's a bill that's had bipartisan support in previous sessions, including this one. It's a simple piece of legislation. It aims to make a program that has been so successful in reducing workplace injury and illnesses and engaging employees in workplace safety and health—it simply makes it permanent. I think that's there's been a little bit of misconception from the standpoint of one side or the other is going to get a victory here. No, this is a victory for all of American workers.

Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL)SPEAKER_02

Thank you. Thank you for your— thank you for all for being here. And that answers my questions. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Ryan Mackenzie (R-PA)SPEAKER_03

Thank you. Next, we'll go to the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Scott from Virginia.

Full Committee Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-VA)SPEAKER_05

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Reindel, the Department of Labor released dozens of new rule notices which reverse worker protections. Can you describe and comment on some of those initiatives?

Ms. Rebecca L. ReindelSPEAKER_07

Sure, thank you for the question. I'm happy to. Just right I mentioned in my testimony just before the 4th of July, dozens of these rules, actions I should say, were were issued. Many are proposals, and there are, you know, most of them are attempts to weaken existing safety and health protections and also to roll back some altogether. So, very basic, basic but very important items like adequate lighting in workplaces or using, you know, safety colors to detect, you know, caution, you know, very important things. And there are there's a proposal to remove OSHA's general duty protections to certain occupations because they are, quote, "inherently risky." And we see this as problematic and really a problem for many workers across the U.S., not just the occupations that they named in the proposal, but setting a precedent for doing that going forward and thinking that, you know, employees somehow should assume the risk in their workplaces. That is where employers should be controlling hazards. One other area is going after the respiratory protection requirements. And we know that in order for respirators and other PPE to to work properly in workplaces and protect workers, it must fit, and we must medically evaluate people in order to ensure that they're safe when they're wearing those those protections.

Full Committee Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-VA)SPEAKER_05

Are independent contractors covered by OSHA?

Ms. Rebecca L. ReindelSPEAKER_07

Independent contractors are not covered.

Full Committee Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-VA)SPEAKER_05

You responded to a question about the relatively low penalties to businesses. Usually, accountability can be achieved by lawsuits, but if employees covered by OSHA are covered by workers' comp, is it true they can't sue for negligence?

Ms. Rebecca L. ReindelSPEAKER_07

Yes, under under OSHA law, there's no private right of action. Workers do not have other

Full Committee Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-VA)SPEAKER_05

course. When the voluntary plan— in the voluntary plans, what should we look for to ensure that the plans are actually working as intended?

Ms. Rebecca L. ReindelSPEAKER_07

Right, so I will just say compliance assistance has many types of programs at OSHA. I know we're talking a lot about VPP today, and that's just one of the programs. On-site Consultation is already a program that exists for small businesses, and that's a free and a confidential service that OSHA already offers to small businesses. And VPP tends to benefit large corporations, and those are employers that are already paying attention to safety, because they have to do that in order to get into the program. They have to have low injury and illness rates to maintain, to stay in the program. And where we've seen pressure to maintain low injury and illness rates, we also see policies and pressure for workers to not raise and report injuries and illnesses. There's also a significant problem of every VPP employer having inspection exemptions. So for voluntary programs, we should not be exempting OSHA from having inspections. It's sort of a backwards way of thinking. If you are doing your best, and you're having the best employers who should be going above and beyond OSHA standards, they should pass inspections without problem. But we've seen many willful violations and fatalities at VPP sites. I'm not saying all, and I'm not saying that there aren't good VPP programs in some workplaces with some employers, but the program still systematically has problems.

Full Committee Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-VA)SPEAKER_05

Mr. Williams, how can we be confident that violations are actually reported, and can that be legally enforced?

Mr. Chris WilliamsSPEAKER_04

Absolutely, Mr. Scott. I would address the concern about the program inspection exemption with this: VPP does not exempt sites—the program does not exempt sites from inspections for imminent dangers, from whistleblower actions. So VPP sites are still required, or are still subject, to those inspections. From a validation standpoint, I would also like to mention that VPP—GAO issued a report in 2009 that offered up recommendations to improve the program from an internal standpoint at OSHA. And I do want to thank previous Assistant Secretary of Labor Dr. Michaels and Deputy Assistant Secretary Jordan Barab, because under their watch, they implemented the changes that GAO recommended to improve and strengthen the program. And so we want to thank them for their support of VPP and also for making the program better and validating that it is successful.

Full Committee Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-VA)SPEAKER_05

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Ryan Mackenzie (R-PA)SPEAKER_03

Thank you. Next, we'll go to Mr. Grothman from Wisconsin.

Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI)SPEAKER_12

Thank you. Uh, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to take advantage of your expertise. In your written testimony, you say that 150 Cintas sites are currently participating in the Voluntary Protection Program, making you the largest VPP participant by total number of worksites. Can you share any data or success stories showing how VPP has helped reduce injuries?

Mr. Myron HarperSPEAKER_06

Yes, sir. Thank you for your question. So the VPP program has tremendously helped Cintas in improving their employee engagement, their culture, and making sure everyone returns home safe at the end of the day. Building more of a great system that we have, our health and safety management system, together, not just with one person or one department, but with all employees there, reduced our incident rates, as well as helped with partnering with other businesses outside of Cintas to help with our best practices and things to implement within our four walls. It's rare that the answer is found just within our four walls, so partnering with other successful companies with great management systems has been a benefit for us.

Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI)SPEAKER_12

Oh, just a plus, plus, plus. Okay. Mr. Sell, do you have anything to add to that, or your experience?

Mr. Kevin SellSPEAKER_11

Well, certainly from the construction application, since 2001, it's been extremely helpful because, you know, in construction we have our own set of issues. So it has addressed a lot of, a lot of, a lot of issues that we've had over the years with respect to working with OSHA. It's always been our desire to do that, and VPP has enabled that. And I'd like to to add, just kind of off topic for a second, we were talking about compliance assistance specialists. And I think it's good to know, if just using Region 5, there's only four compliance assistance specialists—one in Ohio, three in Illinois—which also means none in Wisconsin, and I wish Ms. Stevens would still be here, that means there's none in Michigan either. So there's a severe lack of that, that we're not reaching out and partnering with employees, employers. Thank you.

Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI)SPEAKER_12

Okay. I guess you kind of brought this up, but I'll I'll follow up with the question anyway. How could OSHA better support industry-led safety initiatives and partnerships rather than pursuing policies that appear more focused on headlines than really improving safety?

Mr. Kevin SellSPEAKER_11

Well, that's a great question and seems to be the hot topic currently. Clearly, a new

Mr. Chris WilliamsSPEAKER_04

day. New day.

Mr. Kevin SellSPEAKER_11

Love it. So certainly the 5% funding of Voluntary Protection Programs will be a step in the right direction, as well as getting these area offices their compliance assistance specialists back so they can work with the people that want to improve health and safety in the lives of their workers and enable the businesses to grow. We're all trying to grow in a in a way that's that's healthy, safe, and smart to provide workers a quality of life and to provide this this great country with a future.

Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI)SPEAKER_12

Okay, Mr. Williams, we'll finish up with you. Could you tell us how VPP helps your business improve safety without the threat of penalties or adversarial enforcement?

Mr. Chris WilliamsSPEAKER_04

I can certainly speak from the perspective of our 1,400 members, of which more than half are current VPP sites. It's quite frankly a culture change, and I come from a construction background. I'm a construction kid, grew up in the industry. My dad was a contractor, and I've seen firsthand 30, 40 years ago, when I was much younger and not gray, what safety culture was back in—I'll call them the old days, the bad old days. And what VPP has from an effect standpoint is it creates that sea change in culture where we move from there's acceptable risk to we will not perform a task if it is not completely safe, and we will work with our employees, we will ask our frontline workers what they need to function safely, to go home at the end of the day in the same or better condition in which they arrived. That culture change is a direct result of VPP and the stringent requirements, not just from the application certification process, but every year with the annual self-evaluation, every three to five years with that audit when OSHA comes on that site with their SGEs, and they will pick apart that site. And our VPP sites, our members, welcome that. They want that because that is an outside third-party audit. They're going to gain a better perspective than what they see on their own. So, there is that compliance portion of it, and then the direct positive effect, not just from a business standpoint because safety pays and VPP works and saves, but also from an employee morale standpoint and employee well-being standpoint.

Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI)SPEAKER_12

Can you give us an example of some of the negative grandstanding that you may have gotten in the past from OSHA or that you're familiar with?

Mr. Chris WilliamsSPEAKER_04

can tell you that there's been threats to the program from the standpoint of of purely from the enforcement. As I said earlier before, enforcement is always going to be a core function for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. But when you look at enforcement and and comments here today, we've heard some of them. Enforcement inspections are similar to a speeding ticket. Police officer pulls you over, gives you the ticket, you go on your way. And so the short-term impact is very positive. You're most likely going to be able to look at You're not going to speed, but over time, you regress back to going over the speed limit and creating that hazard. Compliance assistance, education from a speeding-ticket standpoint, going to a driver's ed course or remedial course to talk about the impact that someone speeding has on a victim of an accident that's caused by speeding, for example. The similar a similar comparison with VPP and compliance assistance. Compliance assistance goes over those other 363 days when the inspector is not on site and helps make that site safer. It's that long-term education and value component that prevents that fatality, prevents that catastrophic injury.

Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI)SPEAKER_12

Okay. Thank you.

Chairman Ryan Mackenzie (R-PA)SPEAKER_03

Thank you. That concludes questioning from members, and I want to thank all the members for participating today. With that, we're going to go to closing remarks, and I'd like to recognize the ranking member for her closing statement.

Ranking Member Ilhan Omar (D-MN)SPEAKER_00

Thank you, Chairman, and thank you once again to all of our witnesses for speaking with us today. Today's discussion has made one thing abundantly clear: the future of workplace safety depends not on weakening protections, but on strengthening partnerships between OSHA, employers, and workers. Compliance assistance should be about empowering everyone to work together to identify hazards before they cause harm and not about providing loopholes that allow dangerous conditions to persist. What we have seen from the Trump administration is a systematic effort to deregulate, defund, and dismantle the very institutions that keep workers safe. And the human cost of this deregulatory agenda will be devastating: from slashing capacity to NIOSH, to gutting OSHA enforcement, to zeroing out the Chemical Safety Board. This administration's reckless decisions would lead to more deaths, more injuries, and more families broken by preventable tragedies. We need strong, enforceable standards, not voluntary programs that lack accountability or budget and staffing cuts that risk more worker lives. Good employers understand that safety is both a moral duty and an essential for business success. The bills introduced by Ranking Member Scott, myself, and some of my other colleagues, like the Protecting America's Workers Act and the Heat Illness Prevention Act, offer practical solutions to close coverage gaps, strengthen enforcement, and address deadly risks like heat stress. As we conclude, I urge all members of this committee to remember the stakes. Every regulation we weaken, every resource we cut means more workers at risk of injury or death. Every worker deserves to return home safe and healthy, regardless of the industry or job. So let us commit to building safer workplaces through robust standards, effective enforcement, and stronger partnerships, because no worker's life should ever be threatened as expendable. Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman Ryan Mackenzie (R-PA)SPEAKER_03

Thank you, and I'd like to thank all of our witnesses for joining us here today for this important conversation about ways that we can keep workers safe in their workplaces. Voluntary Protection Programs can be one important component of workplace safety, and we heard in the testimony today about how we can actually prevent accidents before they occur by creating that culture for safety that exists throughout the entire year for workers, not just a snapshot in time when an enforcement official shows up for OSHA for a day or two 2 days and they get to see and experience what's going on in that workplace. I think, again, we all want to have that preventative maintenance going on, that preventative safety, and I think Voluntary Protection Programs help aid and assist workers in having that culture of safety in their workplaces. We also had a broader discussion about the reforms that are going on at the Department of Labor. I think they're critically important because I think we saw during the last administration the absolute failings of the Biden administration and Democrats to hold them accountable for workplace safety. We saw that during the last administration in the spike of child labor violations that went on around this country, hundredfold increases, multiple hundredfold increases in child violations. So all the regulations that they want to talk about, all the people that were at the Department of Labor during the last administration, they did nothing to keep children in this country safe, absolutely nothing. So to sit here and say that we need no reforms and no changes is absolutely absurd. We want to work hand-in-hand with the Trump administration to make sure that we're keeping workers safe in all environments. And that's what we're going to do. The administration is making critical reforms that are so important, and we're going to work with them as a legislative body to make sure that workers across this country are kept safe. Again, I can't believe that we sit here and hear from the other side about how they want to keep workers safe in this country when they did nothing for years to keep those children safe in their workplaces, absolutely nothing. That's an outrage, and it should be on the record that they did nothing, they said nothing, and now they want to sit here and try to take the moral high ground for workers. Absolutely absurd. So with that, I would again like to thank our witnesses for being here today, look forward to working with all of you and everybody across the aisle in a bipartisan fashion to find ways that we can keep workers safe in this country, whether it's in a voluntary fashion or in a regulatory fashion. We all share that same goal, and I want to thank you again for being here. With that, this meeting is adjourned.