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      

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.

   The Labor cabinet paid 28 people $10,000 apiece to come and testify and enter into the record information to bolster their side. They had to pay people to support their position. So I think that what we see here is people who want to come to the table. They want to work with OSHA. They want best practice guidance.

   They want an idea of how they can look to best remedy their employee's problems, but what they do not want is a bang-you-over-the-head elephant-in-a-china-shop approach of a big government bureaucracy that will do nothing but cost them money and not give them any good guidance on how to achieve what they very much want to achieve.

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

   Mr. Chairman, I just wonder if my colleague from Kentucky (Mrs. NORTHUP) knows what the average salary is of the lawyers who sit at the table who represent the big business industries, that have in the past been opposed to trying to do something to protect the safety of working men and women in this country.

   The story of ergonomics is one of unending scientific study in the support of ergonomics and unyielding and baseless delaying tactics on the part of ergonomics opponents. We have had an 8-year ordeal of exhaustive scientific study that supports the science of ergonomics as, in fact, a way to protect workers and to save America's businesses money.

   For each year of delay, another 1.8 million U.S. workers experience a work-related musculoskeletal disorder. The Department of Labor estimates that the ergonomics rule would prevent about 300,000 injuries per year, save $9 billion in workers' compensation and related costs, about one-third of general industry work sites should be covered by the rule, protecting 27 million workers.

   Fewer than 30 percent of general industry employers currently have effective ergonomics programs, and it is probably because of the high-priced lawyers that they have hired to keep this rule from being promulgated. About a third of the industries, or over 600,000 incidents, are serious enough to require time off from work and cost businesses 50 to $20 billion in workers' compensation.

   According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 34 percent of all lost workday injuries are related to ergonomic injuries.

   When my colleague introduced this rider into the bill, it was said that this was a limitation and not a rider. I said at that time and I say, again, you can dress up a pig, you can put lipstick on it, you can call it Monique, but it is still a pig. This is a rider.

   This is a continued delaying tactic in this legislation. The National Academy of Sciences concluded in 1998 that ergonomic industries are directly related to work, that higher on-the-job physical stress leads to more ergonomic injuries, that most people face their greatest exposure to physical stress at work. Interventions that reduce physical stress on the job reduce the risk of injury.

   Since the process was begun during the Bush administration, over 1,000 witnesses have testified, more than 7,000 written comments have been submitted. OSHA has included 1,400 studies in the ergonomics rulemaking record. Science supports ergonomics. It protects worker health in this country. It will save American businesses billions of dollars.

   Why then do they want to continue to delay? Why do we want to do that? Let us support the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. TRAFICANT). Let us move ahead with an ergonomics rule, so, in fact, what we can do is to do what we are sent here to do and not to do harm, but, in fact, to protect working men and women in this country.

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

   Mr. Chairman, we are here again talking about this topic that has been pointed out by many of my colleagues, has been discussed many times in this Congress. In fact, last year, we had a debate on the floor of the House, not 1996, not 1997, not 1998, but in 1999, to wait until the study by the National Academy of Sciences that had just been started was completed until OSHA moved forward with this regulation.

   The House passed that legislation and said that is what we would like to do. OSHA started that study, a year ago, about the time that this provision would be exhausted, that we get to the end of the fiscal year, that this provision would make it impossible for OSHA to implement these ergonomics regulations, that study will be completed, there will have then 90 days to look at it. And, in fact, if you ask most Americans, if it made sense to spend a million dollars on a study and then look at it before you move forward with regulations, they would say it did.

   The last National Academy of Sciences effort on this may have been exhaustive, but if I have read it right, it was over a long weekend. And the last recommendation in that exhaustive National Academy of Sciences study was this needs more study. When we had hearings last year on the bill where we talked about waiting for the National Academy of Sciences study, the past two presidents of the American College of Hand Surgery, many others who work in this area came in and said we are not ready yet to fully understand the causes or the treatments for these injuries.

   At the same time, it has been pointed out by others of my colleagues that the American workforce as fully employed as it has been in a long time is a valued workforce, that we have seen without this regulation ergonomics- related injuries declining every single year during this time that it has been said that the Congress is stretching out rushing to these standards.

   It is like OSHA's contention that every year that OSHA has been in existence that fatalities at the workplace have declined; that is true. It is also true that they were declining faster in the 20 years before OSHA went into existence. You can prove anything you want to with figures, but the one figure that is undeniable here is that workplace injuries are declining without these standards. These standards will benefit from scientific study, this amendment added to the bill by the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. NORTHUP) would give us the time we need for these studies to be completed,

[Page: H4099]  GPO's PDF

   If Federal bureaucrats are going to mess with the jobs of working Americans, they should do that with great extreme caution. They should do that based on sound science. This prohibition to implementing the ergonomic standards gives us a chance to look at that sound science.

   I urge my colleagues to defeat this striking amendment, to move forward with this prohibition and to do the right thing for American workers.

[Time: 19:15]

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

   Mr. Chairman, what puzzles me a little bit about this objection to the provision that is in the appropriations bill before us today is that it ignores the work that States are doing on ergonomics.

   My State of Washington has worked for sometime with employers and others to develop ergonomic standards that are different than those that are part of the Federal standards or proposed to be the Federal standards.

   So what this does is put employers and employees in a dilemma in States like Washington State concerned that they want to comply with the State standard but also concerned that they will have to comply with the Federal standard that may be different.

   So I think we ought to be cautious in this whole effort to rush to judgment with respect to a Federal standard that will employ Federal employees to do Federal inspections that will put different burdens on people in States that are also facing the very real prospect of having State officials that the case of my State the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries also involved in inspections and oversight with respect to worker injuries.

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