Report of the MCAA Legislative Committee

SCAFFOLDING MATERIALS, HANDLING AND STORAGE
In Massachusetts and Florida recently, OSHA issued citations for violations of 29 CFR 1926 250(b) (5), the prohibition against leaving more materials on scaffolding than necessary for- immediate operations. When the contractor disputed the violation in Boston, a request for interpretation was submitted to OSHA whereupon their Office of Construction issued a directive, now published on its website, confirming that it is in fact a violation to leave more than even incidental amounts of materials on scaffolding at the end of the work shift.

Now as we all know, it's been common industry practice to leave some materials on scaffolding at the end of the shift each day; we've been doing it since before the dawn of time - or at least prior to the promulgation of the scaffolding regulations in 1971. We in industry would argue that some materials provide greater stability to the scaffolding. In addition, tenders normally only put enough materials up for the bricklayers to complete part of the job, working in corkscrew fashion, in order to avoid moving them continually from one work area to the next. More importantly, removal of most materials would require dismantling of scaffolding guardrails, thus creating fall hazards.

So why all of a sudden is this now an issue? MCAA officials were asked just that the other day in a meeting with OSHA's Director of Construction, Bruce Swanson. We all agreed that it must have been a case of an overly ambitious "competent person" or in oxymoronic terms, an OSHA inspector who interpreted the standard far too literally. But we also made it very clear to Mr. Swanson that removing materials from scaffolding would cause far greater health and safety hazards than it would ever prevent. Understanding that economic concerns are secondary to OSHA, MCAA officials, including our President Bill McConnell, did point out that the cost implications of their interpretation are enormous.

To coin a phrase from "Jerry. Maguire", we asked OSHA to let us help them help us resolve this problem. Mr. Swanson asked us to put together a letter to OSHA outlining our concerns with the interpretation and ask that they define "incidental amounts of materials". OSHA will then likely issue a new interpretation or directive which is brick and block specific to materials handling, use and storage; their policy will not apply to other industries.

We are hopeful that OSHA will address this problem expeditiously so additional citations can be avoided. In an effort to speed things along through the channels at OSHA, MCAA's Director of Government Affairs, Marian Marshall, also met with Congressional staff who directed the health and safety agency to find a reasonable solution to the scaffolding issue .at the earliest possible date. We are encouraged with the dialogue, both with OSHA and Congressional contacts, thus far and will keep you posted as to further developments.

NATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ALLIANCE
MCAA is also in the process of forming an alliance with OSHA on several workplace health and safety topics which impact our members and their employees every day. There are many benefits to participating in an Alliance with OSHA. First and foremost, our organization can build trust and form a cooperative relationship with the Agency. The Alliance will also enable us to network with others in industry committed to workplace safety and health. We will also be able to leverage resources to maximize worker health and safety by putting together training and education materials for our member companies and their workers.

MCAA will work closely with OSHA to develop training and education programs on wall bracing, scaffolding, fall protection and forklift safety issues. We will also collaborate with the Agency to develop and disseminate information through print and electronic media on those topics and the materials will be made available in English and Spanish.

This Alliance is strictly voluntary, but will allow us to identify and address workplace safety problems in a cooperative fashion to ensure that we are meeting the utmost needs of our workers while complying with OSHA's numerous health and safety regulations.

We expect that once this Alliance is signed by Assistant Secretary of Labor John Henshaw and MCAA President McConnell we will be able to work closely with OSHA to put together various safety programs addressing the specific needs of the masonry industry. It is MCAA's hope that the Alliance will be in place by early-October.

ASSOCIATION HEALTH PLAN LEGISLATION
Three months after the House of Representatives approved the Association Health Plan bill (H.R. 660 - the Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2003) with a strong bipartisan vote, the outlook for the legislation (S. 545) in the Senate remains unclear. During the month of July, just prior to the August recess, AHP coalition members, including MCAA, participated in several meetings with Senators and their staff to discuss potential support for the AHP legislation. It was apparent from those meetings that many Senators continue to maintain a neutral position on the bill. A number of Senators indicated they are leaning in favor of the bill-and still others indicated they may suggest changes to the legislation which would enable them to support it. While we didn't gain any new cosponsors, we did make some progress with a handful of Senators.

It should be stressed, however, that many Senators told us they have not heard enough from their constituents to warrant their support, so if you haven't communicated that to them, please do so. If we are unable to convince the Senate to act on this legislation this fall, our window of opportunity may close for good. Given the steady increase in health insurance premiums over the last four years, I doubt seriously that any of us want to miss a chance to lower overall health benefit costs for small businesses, their employees and their families. MCAA will continue to work diligently to enact AHP legislation this year.

TAX CREDIT FOR APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING
After months of hard work, MCAA has convinced members of the Senate and House to introduce legislation authorizing a tax credit for mason contractors and other construction companies with a certified apprenticeship training program. Senator Wayne Allard of Colorado will be introducing the bill later this month (September). Senator Allard's version is significantly different from the last version of the bill. In a nutshell, it will provide a tax credit of up to $10,000 per year for the first two years of an apprenticeship training program certified by either the Bureau of Apprenticeship Training at the U.S. Department of Labor or a State Apprenticeship Council. Only construction trades recognized by the Bureau of Labor Statistics would qualify for the tax credit. Each company could hire three new apprentices per year under this scheme.

In the House of Representatives, Congressman Mark Foley of Florida will be introducing a similar bill. The one distinct difference in his legislation is he allows all trades with certified training programs - from amateur radio operators to automotive mechanics to tool and dye makers - to be eligible for the tax credit. In MCAA's view, this will make the bill far too expensive and potentially diminish its chances of passage.

MCAA will be working hard to find additional cosponsors for the Senate legislation and make every effort to,-schedule a hearing on the bill at the earliest possible date. If any of you would like further information on this legislation in order to ask your Senators to support it, please let the MCAA Government Affairs Director, Marian Marshall, know as soon as possible.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
Just prior to MCAA's Annual Convention in March, we learned that the Department of Defense (DoD) had implemented a policy requiring barracks projects be built using more conventional methods of construction, including wood or other materials that conformed to the UBC, thus moving away from more traditional masonry design. Although the policy was required by legislation enacted in 1996, it was justified through cost savings estimated with a "back of the napkin" life cycle cost analysis done in a vacuum by the Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps has since substantiated the usefulness and practicality of downgrading their construction methods with the help of the General Accounting Office (GAO), the investigative arm of Congress.

In a report issued on June 10, the GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense promote a coordinated, focused effort to determine the feasibility and cost effectiveness of barracks privatization. GAO also recommended that DoD undertake engineering studies to resolve questions about the use of residential construction practices and compliance with antiterrorism force protection requirements. DoD was also told it must issue guidance on maximizing use of existing barracks space while eliminating excess barracks infrastructure in an effort to save additional military construction dollars.

Congress has since given its endorsement to the GAO recommendations, mandating, in the Fiscal Year 2004 Military Construction Appropriations bill, that they be implemented without delay and directing the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to Congress by March of next year detailing actions taken in response to GAO's recommendations and itemizing any budgetary savings achieved as a result of their implementation.

There are several aspects of this directive that MCAA finds troubling and not simply because many of our members routinely do defense contract work at military installations. First and foremost, we believe this policy to be extremely misguided in today's military environment. We have forces all over the world - Bosnia, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Liberia, to name a few -- and our military personnel are stretched to the limit, with no immediate end in sight. Worse still, the level of potential terrorist threats remains high and is unlikely to change any time soon. Given that, do we really want our soldiers to reside in less durable living quarters which may not withstand terrorist attacks? I think not. As the world's superpower, our military is held to a higher standard; their barracks facilities and other support structures should be on par with the level of excellence we've come to expect of our armed forces. As taxpayers, we also question whether or not the "standardized" life cycle cost analysis done by the Army Corps of Engineers is adequate, particularly if the military is serious about privatization. If the initial cost estimates to build a new barracks using residential or conventional construction methods are in fact lower, have future maintenance costs been sufficiently examined? What private company would want to sign a long term contract with the military to manage its facilities if the maintenance costs are expected to be significantly higher in 5 or 10 years?

We at MCAA must do two things to confront this problem head on. First, we need to have an in-depth life cycle cost analysis of our own completed, comparing it to the "standardized" LCCA done by the Army Corps of Engineers. We should then present our LCCA to the Corps, the Department of Defense and our friends on Capitol Hill and suggest that as they move forward with new construction methods and, ultimately, privatization that they consider a peer review process of the LCCA. It is my understanding that the Texas Masonry Council is working closely *with a local architect to put together an extensive LCCA and his work should be done by early September. I expect this will not only be beneficial to our efforts to resolve construction questions within the military, but should prove to be an excellent marketing tool for our industry.

Second, MCAA must continue to work closely with others in industry and the Army Corps of Engineers to initiate a program request for testing of various masonry wall systems. Masonry wall systems should be tested to determine their ability to withstand certain blast loads and resistance to progressive collapse, both of which are factors in DoD's antiterrorism force protection standards and directly impact construction policy. A testing request was submitted to the Corps in July and I am hopeful that the military can begin the program later this year at their testing facility in Vicksburg, Mississippi.

We'll keep you apprised of further developments and can assure you that we'll make every effort to see that DoD's construction policy doesn't adversely impact our traditional market share of contract work.

SILICA
By now, I believe everyone is aware that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is in the process of revising its outdated exposure standard for silica. -It is expected that OSHA will issue a new proposal in early September. Because MCAA is keenly aware of the effects a lower exposure standard may have on the masonry industry, we have made every effort to keep up to speed on OSHA's rulemaking activities. More importantly, we recently asked OSHA and the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy to include three representatives from our association in a small business roundtable discussion of the implications of the new rule on our members' livelihoods. This roundtable discussion will take place via teleconference approximately one month after OSHA proposes its new rule. Once that announcement is made, MCAA will have an opportunity to review the extensive background materials used by OSHA to formulate the new exposure standard. That review will better enable us to assess the implications of the rulemaking for our contractors. Please be assured that we will work closely with the SBA to limit to the extent possible the imposition of costly mandates which might occur as a result of the silica rulemaking.

POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (MACPAC) ACTIVITIES
In mid-June, Marian attended the kick-off event for the Bush-Cheney campaign in Washington, D.C. It was an exciting event which raised several million dollars for their reelection and MCAA was pleased to be part of it. Since then, we have made it clear to the Bush-Cheney campaign that we are more than willing to contribute in other ways to the reelection efforts. If any of you would like to assist us in that regard, please let us know.

On Wednesday, August 20, in St. Louis, Missouri, the Mason Contractors Association of America co-hosted a fundraising event for Senator Bond with the St. Louis Mason Contractors Association and the local chapter of the American Subcontractors Association. The event was very well attended and it may well be that we host another fundraiser for the., Senator next year prior to the general election.

Senator Bond is currently running for his 4th term in the U.S. Senate. The Senator has been a true champion of many of our issues, including ergonomics - he led the charge to overturn the onerous regulations of the Clinton Administration - and estate tax reform. More recently, Senator Bond has sponsored Association Health Plan legislation which would allow MCAA to offer health benefits to its member companies, their families and their employees at a lower cost. With health insurance premiums increasing at an alarming rate, many of our members are being forced to either drop their coverage or pass more of the cost along to their employees. Senator Bond will be working very hard to curb that trend and it is important that we lend him as much support as possible so that he can return to the Senate and retain the seniority and leadership that is so crucial to Missouri and the nation.

MCAA, with the help of the Texas Masonry Council, is also in the process of putting together a fundraiser for Congressman Jeb Hensarling, a first term Representative from the Lone Star State. This event will be held November 13 in Dallas (time and place to be announced later) and we hope that as many of our Texas members as possible will attend. Mr. Hensarling has a strong business background, is solid on our issues and needs our help getting reelected in a district that is predominantly Democratic. The Congressman serves on the Budget and Financial Services Committees.

Just recently, Marian was asked to sit on the Steering Committee for a campaign event for Congressman Charlie Norwood of Georgia. Congressman Norwood is currently the Chairman of the OSHA Subcommittee of the House Education and Workforce Committee. He and his staff have been very actively engaged in our discussions with OSHA about the scaffolding materials, handling and storage citations and have told us in no uncertain terms that they will do everything they can to help us resolve this matter to our satisfaction.