The silica rule is being threatened. The Freedom Caucus in particular in the U.S. House of Representatives is opposed to the silica rule. The director of OMB [the White House Office of Management and Budget], Mick Mulvaney, is one of the founding members of the Caucus. Their opposition stems from the rule’s impact on the construction industry. This becomes especially troubling given that President Trump is of that industry. But the immediate threat is in Congress through a possible policy rider on a fiscal year 2018 appropriations bill that would prohibit funding for the implementation of the silica rule. Now, whether that would actually stop momentum on the silica rule in the field is a little more complex, because of the research that was published in the promulgation of the rule. Any attempts by the administration to weaken or roll back the rule would be challenged in court, which would look to the findings and evidence OSHA presented when it issued the final rule. To successfully pull back the silica rule, the Trump administration would have to show that the reasoning and evidence supporting the rule was flawed, and that’s going to be very difficult for them to do. If the appropriations bill passes with the expected policy rider, then OSHA would be prohibited from spending funds to implement the silica rule. But remember, the silica rule was issued based upon a body of evidence. That body of evidence doesn’t go away just because Congress says, “OSHA, you can’t spend money to implement this rule.” There were several outcomes. One was to demonstrate to policy makers and to our members that this is an issue that we’re really paying attention to. We were active participants in the development of this rule, submitting comments and testimony. We also wanted to show Congress and our members that we recognize the threat that is being posed to the silica rule. AIHA, just like all groups, needs to constantly renew and establish new relationships with policy makers. There are a lot of policy makers, especially with the new Congress, and helping them understand the merits of the silica rule is a big goal for us. And it leads into other discussions. I would say that it’s both increased support in Congress for the silica rule as well as provided an opportunity for us to discuss other related issues on worker health and safety with members of Congress.

For a primer on AIHA’s priorities for the federal government from AIHA’s CEO Larry Sloan and Government Relations Director Mark Ames, watch the short video, "." Sloan addresses AIHA’s support for OSHA’s silica rule in a .

It’s safe to assume that any attempts to weaken worker protections for anything, especially regarding beryllium, are going to be challenged in court, and where that comes out is anyone’s guess. But we’re eagerly anticipating seeing any new proposed rule that comes out and staying abreast of any possible changes or challenges there might be in Congress. It’s something that we are engaging with on a case-by-case basis. We have examined several of the proposals issued in the , and we’re engaging with our partners in other coalitions to really make sure that we’re staying on top of this very important new law. And as far as meeting those deadlines, you’re right, there are ambitious deadlines. We have a lot of volunteer groups at AIHA, and we are relying on their expertise to provide the guidance the agencies are seeking. In the omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 2017, the current fiscal year, OSHA was level funded. The Chemical Safety Board was also level funded. But there’s only about five months left in the current fiscal year. And the president is going to issue his full budget request for fiscal year 2018 in May. That is where we’re going to get a lot more information on his specific proposals. It’s unclear what impact it’s going to have in Congress. The president’s budget is usually handily dismissed by policy makers, but it does frame the discussion. Republicans will generally want to cleave as close as they can to the president’s requests. Some OEHS programs do have a lot of support, such as NIOSH’s Education and Research Centers, and their Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Program. Any attempts to significantly cut them will likely be opposed. The same is true of the Susan Harwood grants. A similar situation also exists for the Chemical Safety Board. The Chemical Safety Board was level funded in the FY 2017 omnibus appropriations bill, even though the president proposed eliminating it. The Board generally enjoys support by industry. Some groups don’t always completely agree with their recommendations but by and large there is a lot of acknowledged value in having the Chemical Safety Board as an independent entity of experts investigating disasters. Right now everyone is looking for opportunities to grow the economy, reduce the regulatory burden on businesses, and focus resources on areas that do the most good. I use the word “opportunity” a lot, and that’s because there are a lot of opportunities. We’re in a period of disruption. We have an ability right now to make our case for why we support the programs that we do. We have reasons why we support each and every program and the funding levels associated with them. We have the personal impact stories, and we have the numbers to back them up. It’s those stories that we have to tell to these policy makers who probably aren’t familiar with these programs. There are a lot of federal programs of course, and a lot of policy makers. You’ve got to sympathize with their plight. They’re trying to understand the thousands of programs that exist. They’re trying to understand where each taxpayer dollar should go to have the greatest effect, and you can imagine that it’s a very difficult thing for them to do. That’s why they really do rely upon the experts like AIHA’s members to help them understand what’s working and what needs to be improved. Our goal is not necessarily to tell policy makers what to do. We have to be careful not to gauge our success based on any particular decision by a policy maker because we can’t force them to make decisions. Instead, the best that we can do is to provide them with the best information so that when they are faced with a decision, when they’re weighing the pros and cons of a choice, they feel that they fully understand an issue. And if we can educate a policy maker on the issues that we care about the most, then we’ve done our job. And that’s where the opportunity lies. We have a lot of new policy makers in place and a lot are returning as well, so it’s a great time to go in and have a meeting, send a message, pick up the phone and make a call, because honestly, it really does matter. No matter which group you’re in, how big or small, whether you get involved in politics or not, individual people can and do have an impact every single day. That’s the power of our democracy. It’s the reason why it’s revered around the world, and it’s the reason why we have a Government Relations operation here and why we believe it’s so important to our members. We know they are impacted every day by the actions of government on every level, and that they will be impacted by the decisions of members of Congress and the president in the fiscal year 2018 appropriations cycle and beyond.