THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents      

In fact, it is interesting to me, Mr. Chairman, that in the fiscal year 1998 Labor-HHS appropriations bill, OSHA

[Page: H4096]  GPO's PDF

   So here we had in the 1998 bill language that basically said we would not move to restrict these kinds of guidelines in the future. There is a feeling there have been enough studies on the subject, Mr. Chairman, including a 1998 study by the Academy of Sciences, a critical review by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and over 2,000 scientific articles on ergonomics. It is a major problem and is causing severe problems for our constituents across the country.

   In fact, Mr. Chairman, in August of 1999, the full House passed H.R. 987, which would deny funding for the ergonomics rule until the National Academy of Sciences completed its study on the proposal. This bill basically precludes the need to take the action that is included in this appropriation measure.

   In fact, the most interesting part of this whole debate, Mr. Chairman, is where this idea first originated for an ergonomics standard. It did not originate under Bill Clinton. An ergonomics standard within OSHA was first proposed by Labor Secretary Libby Dole under the Bush administration. Granted, it may not be the standard we are looking at today, but the idea of moving toward an ergonomic standard is one based in the tradition of both parties.

   For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I stand in favor of this amendment. I ask my colleagues to look at it and support it in an effort to find support on this legislation, to show the workers of America that we are going to do more than give lip service to the concerns related to carpal tunnel syndrome and other similar workplace problems associated with the problem of ergonomics.

   Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

   Mr. Chairman, I do not question the sincerity of any Member of this House, but it is well known that all day the majority party leadership has been looking for a sponsor for this amendment. I doubt that it is because they have experienced a recent Damascus conversion which now suddenly makes them passionate defenders of worker health and safety issues.

   I think it might be legitimate to ask the question whether or not there are a number of Republican moderates in the House who are worried about having to cast a vote for this bill in the end because it cuts education from the President's request by $3 billion, it cuts the President's request on health care by well over $1 billion, and it cuts support for worker protection and worker training programs by almost $2 billion.

   So I think it is fair to ask whether some of those moderates would not feel more comfortable if they had a little political cover by being able to vote for an amendment like this. Perhaps it might make it easier for some folks to vote against the interests of workers by voting for this bill on final passage with the deep cuts that it provides in programs that help workers.

   I also find it interesting that this vote occurs just 2 weeks after the China trade vote. I would ask myself the question whether or not we do not also have some Members who might be interested in trying to climb back into the good graces of labor by having an opportunity to vote on this amendment after they voted for the China trade bill a few weeks ago. I do not know, but I think a reasonable observer might come into the House and ask that question.

   Having said that, let me say, of course this amendment should pass. OSHA has been trying to develop a rule to protect workers from repetitive motion injury for over 10 years. For 5 of those years they have been blocked by the Congress of the United States. In my view, that has been a sometimes scurrilous action taken by this body.

   I would note that at my insistence the committee 2 years ago contained the following language in its report: ``The committee will refrain from any further restriction with regard to the development, promulgation, or issuance of an ergonomics standard following fiscal year 1998.''

   Despite the committee's declaration in writing, this committee chose to insert the language of the Northup amendment, which abrogated the agreement that the committee had announced to the country and the House.

   So of course this amendment should pass. But I do not believe American workers are going to be fooled. I do not believe that a vote for this amendment, followed by a vote for this bill, will be seen by American workers as doing them any favors. I think it will be seen for exactly what it is.

   Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

   Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a defining moment and offers the opportunity for all of us in this body to actually show the American people whose side we are on.

   There are many of us who came to this body to fight for what we believe is the driving engine of America's economy, the small business out there, providing 80 to 85 percent of all jobs in America; people who work hard, people who are fighting for raises, for better benefits, for higher-paying jobs in their community, expanding the opportunity for jobs for people across the country.

   I believe that is what we should be doing here every day we come to work, because America has risen to great heights historically because of private sector growth.

   On the other side, we have OSHA bureaucrats and power-hungry union leaders who are trying desperately to implement an ergonomics rule that would put a noose around the neck of many employers in this country.

   This is an issue quite frankly that many Members have been struggling with for many years. I would ask rhetorically for Members of both sides of the aisle, when is the last time they had a town meeting and they had people stand up and say, my goodness, Congressman, we really need that OSHA ergonomics rule to be implemented as quickly as possible?

   I happen to represent an area that is very independent-minded, not necessarily a Republican or Democrat district, and I have not had one piece of mail, not one phone call, not one question at a town meeting where someone said, please, we need this regulation at our workplace.

   This is strictly driven by bureaucracy, bureaucrats at OSHA, and driven by power-hungry union leaders who are desperate to get a greater grip on the private sector of this country.

   On the side we are fighting for, we do have the small business community. We have small manufacturers, we have farmers, we have ranchers, we have hospitals, we have all of the folks out there who are working hard every day to make a living. It is mind-boggling to me that anyone could find even any gray on this issue at all.

   There is no science, there is no medical research that has conclusively shown that this regulation is necessary. In spite of what a lot of people up here who love big government like to say, believe it or not, the private sector is doing a lot to improve the work environment when it comes to dealing with repetitive stress injuries in the workplace.

   Grocery store chains, insurance companies, computer manufacturers, all of those that are creating this tremendous economic growth have dealt with this issue in the workplace privately, and it is working. Let us all review the statistics that OSHA has even been presenting over the last few years: Workplace injuries are down consistently over the last decade. There is a lot being done out there to improve the work environment for workers.

   Again, this is something that is going to have a high price tag, as well. Those who are trying to rush this rule into place have not acknowledged, for example, that for each particular industry, for whatever it may be, the cost of implementing it could run into the billions of dollars. In some industries the cost will be upwards of $20 billion.

   The Post Office is even against this. So if Members cannot find that they can identify with small business in America, if they cannot identify with the farmers and ranchers and the doctors and the hospitals, maybe they can identify with the Post Office, because they are against it, as well. Or maybe they can identify it with the former OSHA director, who is also against this regulation.

[Page: H4097]  GPO's PDF

   I asked a question recently in a hearing about this issue to the director of OSHA, the head of OSHA, of how, because of the vagueness of the way the rule is written, how would an employer even know they are in compliance, because there is tremendous vagueness in the rule? That is the problem with one-size-fits-all rules. They are written for dance studios, bakeries, restaurants, and farms and ranches. We cannot possibly apply a single rule like that, where everyone can fit in a particular category and say, yes, we are in compliance.

   The director of OSHA said, do not worry, we will let the employers know when they are in compliance, which means that this will give the Federal bureaucracy at OSHA a tremendous latitude in determining when employers are in compliance.

   This has the ability, Mr. Chairman, all across the board in America, again, whether it is an auto parts store, a customs broker office, a doctors office, a restaurant, a small manufacturing company, the cost of mailing a letter, all of this is going to increase, could increase greatly in cost for consumers out there if this rule is implemented the way it has been written.

   I would just strongly encourage all of my colleagues to look at whose side they are on on this issue. There is no gray. They are either on the side of the salt of the Earth economic engine that drives this country, the small business sector, or they are on the side of the power hungry union leaders who are trying to implement this.

   Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that on this amendment, debate be limited to 30 additional minutes, to be divided 7 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. TRAFICANT), 7 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. NORTHUP), 7 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. OBEY), and 7 1/2 to myself.

   The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois?

   Mr. TRAFICANT. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I would ask, what was that? I did not hear that.

   Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

   Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

   Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman, I asked unanimous consent that we limit further debate on this amendment to 30 minutes, to be divided four ways, 7 1/2 to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. TRAFICANT), 7 1/2 to the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. NORTHUP), 7 1/2 to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. OBEY), and 7 1/2 to myself.

   The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois?

   Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I object.

   The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.

   Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

   Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, which would safeguard America's working women and America's working family. That is whose side we are on in this debate.

   Mr. Chairman, this is a $60 billion national problem that affects 650,000 workers each year. Ergonomic health disorders afflict female occupations, including nursing aides, orderlies, attendants, registered nurses, cashiers, and maids.

   Women suffer disproportionately. While ergonomic hazards produce 34 percent of all workplace injuries and illnesses, they cause nearly one-half of these among women. Although women comprise 46 percent of the work force and 33 percent of the injured workers, women represent 63 percent of repetitive motion syndrome, including 69 percent of lost work time cases resulting from carpal tunnel syndrome.

   Congress' fight to protect workers' health and safety has been a long one. In 1996, I had an amendment on the floor which we won in a Republican Congress, which we won almost unanimous support from the Democratic side, a few votes on the Republican side.

   What this language in the legislation before us does, this is an obstruction to the implementation of that 1996 amendment. What the amendment of the gentlemen from Pennsylvania, Mr. Weldon and Mr. Traficant, would do is to strike that language.

   This is very constructive. I hope our colleagues will support the Department of Labor's ergonomic standards and oppose all delaying amendments, including the language in this bill, and support Weldon-Traficant.

   Mr. Chairman, the scientific evidence supports OSHA's standard. The National Academy of Sciences, the National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety, the American Public Health Association, and many other scientific and public health organizations have already concluded that workplace risk factors contribute to health problems, and ergonomics programs reduce this risk. That is whose side we are on, the National Academy of Sciences.

[Time: 19:00]

   The National Academy of Sciences 1998 study on ergonomics reported that risk factors at work cause musculoskeletal disorders and these are preventable. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health 1997 peer review analysis of more than 600 prior reported reliable evidence that job-related heavy physical work contributes to workplace injuries and illnesses.

   Employer ergonomic programs are effective. Many very responsible businesses, large, medium, and small, in this country have decreased their recordable cases in worker compensation costs because they have invested in ergonomic programs and they have recouped the costs of implementing their program. This evidence is available from companies as diverse as Minnesota-based 3M with nearly 40,000 employees, to North Carolina's Charleston Forge with only 150 workers.

   OSHA's ergonomic standard is sensible, limited in scope, and based on success. Prior Congresses have voted in support of it. In 1996, as I mentioned, 1997, and 1998 Congress specifically agreed not to delay OSHA from finalizing an ergonomic standard. This language in the bill before us today would violate these standards.

   And as I said earlier, women are disproportionately affected by ergonomic injuries, and I talked about their percentage in the workforce, and the disproportionate impact on women and days lost.

   I do want to say, because the question was asked whose side are we on. We are on the side of America's working families. We are on the side of the National Academy of Sciences. We are on the sides of responsible business large, small, and moderate-size businesses in our counties who have taken the initiative.

   I stand here with the American Association of Occupational Health Nurses, the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, the prior GOP Labor Secretaries, in support of OSHA's effort to finalize its ergonomic standard.

   Nearly 20 years ago, in April, 1979, OSHA hired its first ergonomist. Nearly a decade ago, in 1990, Labor Secretary Elizabeth Dole said, by reducing repetitive motion injuries, we will increase both the safety and the productivity of America's workforce.

   Secretary Dole said, I have no higher priority than accomplishing just that. And so 10 years ago, Elizabeth Dole was right. Let us not wait another day to protect America's working women, America's working families.

   Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

   Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. TRAFICANT), which will allow OSHA to rush forward with its flawed ergonomics rulemaking. I strongly support the provision in the underlying bill sponsored by my colleague, the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. NORTHUP), prohibiting OSHA from finalizing its risky ergonomics rule which is not based on good science.

   For more than 2 years, the Committee on Education and the Workforce has expressed concerns to OSHA about the lack of a scientific basis for an ergonomic standard through hearings and through letters to the Department of Labor.

   Last year, the House approved the bill, which would require OSHA to wait for the results of the congressionally funded National Academy of Sciences study and ergonomics, a million dollar study I might mention. The Northup language ensures that OSHA will abide

[Page: H4098]  GPO's PDF

   Despite the significant scientific and economic questions about ergonomics in the workplace, OSHA continues to plow ahead, and the result of this can only be an arbitrary, unfair, and expensive mandate without the scientific knowledge to get it right.

   The health and safety of American workers is certainly a top priority of all Members of Congress. Nevertheless, it is important that Congress not stand idly by while a regulation is rushed through that is not based on sound science.

   I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. NORTHUP) for recognizing the importance of Congress' oversight role. The gentlewoman has genuine concern for the health and safety of workers. Despite loud and misguided opposition, she has had the fortitude to focus attention on the genuine and legitimate concerns with the ergonomics proposal.

   Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and to support a 1-year freeze. If we really want to help workers, then we need the results of an independent scientific study, let us get it right.

   Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. NORTHUP).

   Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to the previous speaker and say we are all concerned about workers' safety. We all want workers to be able to prevent injury, but the Labor cabinet has not brought us anything that will help us do that, instead they bring us a one-sided rule. It does not include any collaborative effort, and it does not include any employee/employer partnership, which is what all of worker health is about.

   I would like to tell my colleagues that right here is a response to a request where the Labor cabinet paid 28 people $10,000 to organize and to present testimony in their behalf. The people that oppose the rule that talked about the obstacles and the difficulties in complying came on their own behalf, as citizens, as individuals, as the private sector, to say, hey, listen to us, we want what you want, please, work with us.

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents