HR-6213-119
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 18 - 15.
Sponsored by Mark Messmer (R-IN)
What it does
This bill would permanently prohibit the Secretary of Labor from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) proposed rule titled "Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings," published in the Federal Register on August 30, 2024. It would also block any "substantially similar" standard from being issued in the future, effectively preventing OSHA from creating a federal heat safety standard through this regulatory pathway.
Who benefits
Employers in industries with high heat exposure — including agriculture, construction, manufacturing, landscaping, warehousing, and food processing — who would avoid compliance costs such as rest break requirements, shade or cooling station installations, and recordkeeping obligations. Small businesses with thin margins that may lack resources to implement new safety infrastructure. States that have not adopted their own heat standards and prefer to maintain current regulatory flexibility. Industries operating in cooler climates where heat risk is lower and a uniform federal standard may be seen as unnecessary.
Who is hurt
Outdoor and indoor workers in high-heat environments — estimated at tens of millions — who would lose access to a uniform federal heat safety floor, including agricultural laborers, construction workers, warehouse employees, and kitchen workers. Workers in states without their own heat safety rules (the majority of states) who would have no regulatory protection. Unions and worker advocacy organizations that have sought federal heat standards for decades. Workers who are lower-income or lack bargaining power to negotiate heat protections independently.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that OSHA's proposed rule imposes broad, one-size-fits-all mandates — including mandatory rest breaks, water access, and acclimatization protocols — that would significantly increase costs for employers across vastly different climates and industries. They contend that existing OSHA general duty clause authority already requires employers to address known hazards including heat, and that states are better positioned to tailor heat protections to their specific geographic and economic conditions. They also argue that under the major questions doctrine established in West Virginia v. EPA (2022), a sweeping new federal workplace standard of this magnitude requires clearer congressional authorization than OSHA has demonstrated.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that heat is the leading cause of weather-related worker deaths in the United States, with the Bureau of Labor Statistics recording hundreds of occupational heat fatalities annually and thousands more heat-related illnesses — figures widely considered undercounts. They contend that the general duty clause has proven insufficient to protect workers without a specific enforceable standard, and that most states lack their own heat rules, leaving millions of workers with no guaranteed protections. They further argue that blocking not only this rule but any "substantially similar" future standard removes OSHA's ability to respond to a documented and growing occupational hazard.
Constitutional context
OSHA's authority to issue workplace safety standards derives from the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3) and the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Under the major questions doctrine established in West Virginia v. EPA (2022), a sweeping agency rule of vast economic significance requires clear congressional authorization — a standard that courts, post-Loper Bright (2024), would now assess with independent judicial judgment rather than deference to OSHA's interpretation of its own authority. This bill sidesteps that judicial question by having Congress itself withdraw the authorization legislatively.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain direct authority over OSHA's rulemaking by statute, stripping the executive branch agency of its ability to act in this specific domain; the primary check on this bill is the presidential veto and, if enacted, potential judicial review of whether the "substantially similar" prohibition is overbroad.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously used the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to block specific agency rules, but a statutory prohibition on an entire category of future "substantially similar" rules — rather than a single finalized rule — is a less common legislative mechanism with limited direct precedent.