Ergonomics has been one of the most controversial issues facing employees, industry, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration for several years. "Ergonomics" refers to the study of equipment design with regard to a reduction in work-related, repetitive motion, or strain related injuries; however, there remains a serious debate about the cause, diagnosis, and prevention of these injuries.

In order to address some of the questions surrounding the ergonomics issue, Congress last year funded a study by the independent and non-partisan National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The intent of Congress was to determine if there is a relationship between frequently performed tasks in the workplace and repetitive stress injuries or disorders, and whether there is adequate evidence to warrant industry-wide regulations. Unfortunately, OSHA announced that it would be releasing its draft proposal for new ergonomic regulations without waiting for the NAS to complete its findings. It appears that OSHA is attempting to bypass the will of Congress and the President (who incidently approved the funding for the NAS study) by drafting ergonomic standards before we know what, if anything, is really needed.

I believe that the completion of a sound and independent study regarding ergonomics is a common-sense approach to this issue. To implement and enforce universal ergonomics standards without facts and supporting data is simply irresponsible, but apparently OSHA does not agree. The proposed OSHA standards would force employers to take premature steps to address ergonomics hazards. This could possibly include the redesign of facilities, altering of work stations, or the purchase of new tools and equipment. The proposed cost of implementing such standards could run as high as $20 billion.

The issue here is not whether the government or industry should or should not be taking appropriate steps to protect our workers -- of course they should. Neither is this debate intended to place a price-tag on worker safety. The debate should be based on facts and solid scientific evidence, not on allegations and guesses. Most of us would agree that certain conditions such as carpel-tunnel syndrome in some instances may be attributable to repetitive motion in the workplace. But, without widespread, universally accepted evidence, further interference by OSHA would most certainly create a significant burden on the resources of thousands of businesses across the United States. Although well intentioned, federal mandates such as this often have the potential to produce negative consequences for business and industry. Unfortunately, OSHA has a history of being overzealous and invasive regarding the implementation of their rules and regulations.

In order to ensure that OSHA does not proceed at this time with its proposed ergonomics regulations and overstep its authority, I have cosponsored legislation to ensure that the National Academy of Sciences study is completed. The Workplace Preservation Act, introduced by my colleague Representative Roy Blunt (R-MO), would prohibit the Secretary of Labor from implementing, through OSHA, any standard or guideline on ergonomics until the National Academy of Sciences completes its study and submits a report to Congress. I am extremely pleased that Representative Blunt's bill, H.R. 987, was brought to the House floor on August 3 and passed by a vote of 217-209. This is a simple bill that only requires OSHA to abide by current law. This issue is too important and excessive regulations are too burdensome for all of the facts not to be at our disposal. The health and prosperity of American workers and the viability of American industries are at stake.