OPENING STATEMENT OF
THE HONORABLE JOHN A. BOEHNER
OF OHIO
FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP OF H.R. 987, WORKPLACE PRESERVATION ACT

JUNE 23, 1999

 

H.R. 987 is very simple. It directs OSHA not to promulgate 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’m sure 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. We are not prohibiting OSHA from ever regulating ergonomics. We are simply saying that OSHA should wait with deciding whether regulation is appropriate until the comprehensive study that Congress asked for and paid for just last October is completed. Science should precede regulation, not the other way around.

First of all, an ergonomics regulation would be a substantial mandated cost on American companies and the American economy. Even OSHA estimated that its regulation would cost $3.5 billion per year, and the Small Business Review Panel that reviewed OSHA’s proposed standard has said that OSHA’s estimate substantially understates the true cost of the standard. We ought to be certain, before costs of that magnitude are mandated on American businesses and the American economy, that an ergonomics regulation would in fact be cost effective in reducing injuries.

Second, there is no question that there continues to be a great deal of scientific and medical uncertainty and debate about ergonomics. The Subcommittee on Workforce Protections has conducted several hearings over the past two years and received testimony from the leading physicians and medical researchers in this country on back, hand, and shoulder disorders. And one thing is clear from that testimony: the diagnosis, the causes of pain and disorder, and treatments are far from simple or uniform. In fact, a few weeks ago at the Subcommittee hearing one of the leading back specialists in the United States, who has been involved with the largest study ever of back injuries, told us that their study shows that the biggest causes of back pain are not physical factors, like how often a person lifts heavy objects or bends over at work, but "non-physical factors, like distress in life and not enjoying your job task." I’m not sure how OSHA plans to regulate factors like "distress in life" and job satisfaction. But the point is that the best scientists in the country are telling us that there remain many questions about the causes of these pains and injuries. If OSHA regulates before the causes are understood, OSHA may very well regulate the wrong thing, and impose a lot of costs without benefiting workers.

Third, and most important of all, 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 National Academy of Science study is needed in order to evaluate whether regulation is appropriate apparently does not matter to OSHA. Rather than wait two years for this study to be completed, OSHA insists on proceeding with its regulation. If OSHA meets its own timetable for this regulation, the final ergonomics standard will be in place before the National Academy of Science study is completed, and the study will be wasted. All of us in Congress ought to be outraged by such arrogance 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 study by the National Academy of Sciences doesn’t matter because there was a letter signed by the Appropriations Chairman and Ranking Member telling OSHA that it was not barred from going forward with regulation. The fact of the matter is, 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. Well, again, Congress and the President agreed to fund a comprehensive study by the National Academy of Sciences just last October, not 10 years ago. We -- Congress -- decided the issue needed more study, and were willing to spend nearly a million tax payer dollars to finally get a comprehensive, impartial look at the scientific and medical evidence, before OSHA should regulate.

But looking back 10 years is instructive in one regard. Ten years ago the Department of Labor claimed 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. That huge difference is not because of an increase in injuries. In fact workplace injuries have been declining in recent years. The difference between the 3% in 1990 and the 34% that OSHA refers to today is simply due to the Department of Labor’s changing definitions. There has not even been a consistent, uniform definition of what injuries would be addressed by an ergonomics regulation. That in itself is a good indication of the scientific and medical uncertainty surrounding 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.