Copyright 1999 Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.
Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony
May 19, 1999
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 855 words
HEADLINE:
TESTIMONY May 19, 1999 JOHN A. BOEHNER HOUSE EDUCATION AND THE
WORKFORCE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS WORKPLACE SAFETY; ERGONOMIES; OVERTIME
COMPENSATION
BODY:
Openings Statement of The
Honorable John A. Boehner H.R. 987, Workplace Preservation Act H.R. 987 is
pretty simple. It prohibits OSHA from promulgating a proposed or final standard
on ergonomics until the National Academy of Sciences has completed a study,
which is now underway, and reports the results to Congress. Mr. Chairman, I
suspect that if we went out and explained this legislation to most people in
this country, they'd wonder why there is even any debate over it. First of all,
an ergonomics regulation would be a substantial mandated cost
on American companies and the economy. Even OSHA estimated that its regulation
would cost $3.5 billion per year, and the Small Business Review Panel said that
OSHA's estimate substantially understated the true cost of the standard. We
ought to be certain, before we allow such a mandated cost to be imposed, that
OSHA's regulation is in fact necessary to address the problem and would be
effective in reducing injuries without costing American workers their jobs.
Second, there is no question that there remains significant scientific and
medical debate about how and to what extent workplace "ergonomics" causes
injuries. And Mr. Chairman, if I may, there's kind of an "Alice in Wonderland"
quality to this. A couple of weeks ago at our hearing on this bill, the health
and safety director of a national labor union told us, and I quote, 64 we all
know perfectly well there is no serious scientific controversy about the
ergonomics issue," while sitting next to him, on the same panel, were two very
experienced medical doctors and researchers, who said, based on their own
medical practice and research and research by other specialists, that there is
indeed controversy and uncertainty about what causes ergonomics injuries" and
how best to treat them and prevent them. To say that there is "no serious
scientific controversy" is simply to deny reality. Third, just last fall
Congress and the President agreed that we needed a comprehensive study of
ergonomics by the National Academy of Sciences. This was not a study that, as
sometimes happens, was stuck in the bill at the last moment, and no one knew
about it. It was an issue that was widely debated and openly discussed in the
negotiations between Congress and the White House. Obviously the purpose of the
study was to inform Congress, the Department of Labor, and employers and
employees about the state of the scientific information, so that a better
decision could be made about whether a broad regulation is an appropriate and
effective response to so-called ergonomics-related injuries. But Congress'
decision that the NAS study is needed apparently does not matter to OSHA. Rather
than wait two years for this study to be completed, OSHA has proceeded with its
regulation. If OSHA meets its timetable, the final regulation will be in place
before the NAS study is completed, so the study will essentially be wasted. We
here in Congress ought to be outraged by such high- handedness by any agency of
government. At the least, we ought to very quickly pass Congressman Blunt's
bill. Let me quickly address two arguments that have been raised in the past and
probably will be again today. First, it is argued that the fact that Congress
requested and funded the NAS study doesn't matter because there was a letter
signed by the Appropriations Chairman and Ranking Member telling OSHA that they
were not barred from going forward. As Rep. Blunt said at the hearing a few
weeks ago, while everyone knew about the study, no one knew about the letter..
It certainly would not stand up in court as any expression of "legislative
intent." Second, the argument is made that OSHA has worked on ergonomics for
almost a decade, and that fact somehow makes the NAS study irrelevant. We even
had taped statements from former-Secretary of Labor Dole expressing the
Department of Labor's intent in the early 1990's to begin the process to
regulate ergonomics. You know, I looked back at Secretary Dole's comments. In
1990 she said that "ergonomics-related" injuries accounted for about 3% of all
workplace injuries and illnesses. OSHA now claims that "ergonomics-related"
injuries account for 34% of workplace injuries. The huge difference is not
because of an increase in injuries. It is due to the fact that OSHA has greatly
broadened what it considers to be 4 4ergonomics-related." So there hasn't even
been consensus within the Department of Labor on how one would define the range
of injuries that would be addressed by an ergonomics
regulation. That in itself is a pretty good indication of the
uncertainty surrounding so much of this issue -- and why we need the NAS study
that OSHA wants to ignore. Mr. Chairman, I think we owe it to our constituents
to make sure that any broad government regulation that is going to affect their
jobs and their livelihoods, such as OSHA's ergonomics
regulation would, is based on the best scientific information
available. That is what Congress was trying to insure last fall when it funded
the NAS study, and that is what we ought to insure again by passing H.R. 987.
LOAD-DATE: May 20, 1999 
