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 factories in my district, teams of workers are out there looking at

[Page: H4102]  GPO's PDF

   I have seen that in plant after plant after plant, and I have had workers stand there and ask me how we can tell them they are doing it wrong when they are doing so well. I was in one of the plants in my district that was used by OSHA to do its research to develop these regulations. And what appalled them was that together they did identify some things that were problems, for which none of them could think up any solutions. But under these regulations one incident, not a pattern of problems, not a pattern of injuries, not a pattern of even symptoms, but one injury would trigger the whole 1200 pages of Federal regulations coming down on their head, even though OSHA themselves could find no solution to the problem that jointly the workers, management, and OSHA had identified.

   So this regulation that OSHA has come out with is so wildly inappropriately related to the problem of getting working people and helping working people and giving them the resources to identify the problems and find solutions, when employers are clearly highly motivated to invest in safety. It is so wrong headed it cannot be fixed and it must be stopped.

   Lastly, the idea of providing a separate, different, higher compensation for people because they are injured as a result of one cause versus another is simply going to create a system of such gross inequity that we should not here tonight let that go forward. I want a good ergonomics regulation. This Secretary has not produced it. And these regulations must be stopped.

   At the rate the Department works, it will take them a year to figure out and look at what would be the next step. But these regulations would be catastrophic for the constructive employers who are winning awards for safety, and that ought to tell my colleagues something.

   Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

   (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

   Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I think that the question has gone begging this evening. Frankly, what we should be discussing is an overall policy point of view that this Nation wants to take with respect to its American workers.

   I have great difficulty with this legislation and will oppose it, but in particular this amendment clearly begs or asks the question, what do we do about 1.8 million U.S. workers that experience a work-related musculoskeletal disorder, such as injuries from over-exertion or repetitive motion? How do we ignore that?

   The real question is not how we see it fitting in our respective districts but how we see it fitting across the Nation as it responds or relates to the idea that we must find some basis of dealing with this national issue, and that is that workers across the Nation are, in fact, experiencing these kinds of injuries. Do we also realize that over 600,000 incidences occur that are serious enough to require time off from work and cost businesses between $15 billion and $20 billion?

   I would beg to differ as to whether or not our Secretary of Labor and the Department of Labor have not done what they are supposed to do. Ergonomics regulations may affect some businesses to the extent that they do not want them to affect them, but our responsibility here on the floor of the House is to deal with individual workers who cannot address these issues themselves. It is a responsibility to make national policy that answers the question with respect to a safe workplace.

   The Department of Labor estimates that the ergonomics rule would prevent about 300,000 injuries a year. I would simply say that that is an important preventive measure. That is an important policy decision that responds to the needs of at least 300,000 workers. Why would we not want to do that? Why would an amendment even be accepted to eliminate that aspect of the Department of Labor's responsibility?

   I am dealing in another committee with a complaint that an agency has not written rules to address a particular legislative initiative.

[Time: 19:45]

   Now, we have an agency that has and we have the claim that their regulations are unfair to workers and unfair, of course, to businesses. I am simply speechless. Because if they are unfair, why are we continuing to have these injuries? We obviously need to solve the problem in some way, shape, or form or fashion.

   I would argue that the ergonomics would prevent about 300,000 injuries per year and save $9 billion.

   Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to note that about one-third of general-industry work sites will be covered by the rule, protecting 27 million workers. Fewer than 30 percent of general industry employers currently have effective ergonomics programs.

   This is a policy question that I hope this House does not find itself on the wrong side of the street. I would like us to err on the side of protecting 27 million workers and preventing the injuries of 300,000 of those who are injured.

   Ergonomics are real. The injuries are real. The need is real. I would ask that we would support this amendment, at least to make the statement and to protect the workers as they work on a daily basis.

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

   Mr. Chairman, section 103 of the bill says ``none of the funds made available in this Act may be used by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to promulgate, issue, implement, administer or enforce any proposed temporary or final standard on ergonomic protection.''

   Earlier in this debate, I rose and went to that well to speak to what was wrong with that section, and I joined my good friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. OBEY), in stating that I am opposed to this bill; but I am going to support this amendment. And the reason I am going to support this amendment is because in my district in Cleveland, when I go out and meet the people, as I do all the time and as many of us do in our own districts, I always study people. And when I go out to shake hands and hands reach out, I want to tell my colleagues how many times I would see over and over a scar on somebody's wrist, mostly women I might add.

   And my colleagues know what it is more often than not. Someone has had surgery to correct a carpal tunnel condition. So we see a hand reach out; and if there is a scar on that wrist, more often than not, that person has had a repetitive motion injury, carpal tunnel.

   Now, if we shake that hand of that person who had that injury and had surgery to correct the condition, we might consider the moral statement of joining hands with someone who has had that injury and then at the same time be willing to sweep aside any attempt to stop others from being able to be protected in the workplace.

   Now, I know about one such person because it happened to be my Aunt Betty. She helped to raise most of the children in our extended family. And Aunt Betty did it by working her 40 hours a week in a large corporation in downtown Cleveland as an executive secretary and spent 30 years on the job typing away and then finally took retirement because her hand would not work anymore. That is why she quit. She would still be doing it, just that her hand would not work anymore.

   So she had surgery. And now she is in her seventies and enjoying life retired. She would have kept working as long as she could, but her hands would not work anymore.

   Well, I can tell my colleagues there are a lot of Aunt Bettys out there. And when I go and reach out in the crowd, I can see the little marks on their wrists. We need ergonomic standards. We need to have the Occupational Safety and Health Administration be able to promulgate and issue and implement and administer and enforce temporary or final standards on ergonomic protection. That is why I am going to be supporting this amendment.

   Arguments to the contrary attempt to reduce all workers to the status of

[Page: H4103]  GPO's PDF

   This is an issue about human beings and our dedication to them.

   Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. TRAFICANT).

   Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Dole announced a major initiative to reduce repetitive motion trauma. She said she intended to begin the rule-making process immediately. She said Assistant Secretary of Labor Scanell shall begin an inspection program in early 1991.

   My colleagues, this is 2000. I think 9 years is enough.

   Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 10 minutes of additional debate be allowed on this amendment with 5 minutes allocated to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. OBEY) and 5 minutes allocated to myself.

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

   Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would like some time in the closing of this debate.

   Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman, how about 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. TRAFICANT), 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. OBEY), 2 1/2 minutes to me, and 2 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. NORTHUP)?

   Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I shall accept that.

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

   There was no objection.

   Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. JONES).

   Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to address this committee.

   Mr. Chairman, I was sitting in my office listening to the discussion with regard to ergonomics. I rise in opposition to the legislation but in support of the amendment.

   The reason I came over here is because I have a mother who turned 79 years old this year, and we were sitting at the table the other day and her right hand is like this; and her right hand is like this because she worked in a factory folding boxes for 20 years.

   She ultimately retired from the factory from another injury, having fallen from a stool and busting her tailbone on the cement of that floor. But, ultimately, she is right now in the process of about, at 79, to have this hook of her hand repaired. And it comes from carpal tunnel syndrome.

   I suggest to my colleagues the inability of the Department of Labor and the Secretary of Labor to promulgate rules hits me very close to home to my 79-year-old mother, Mary Tubbs.

   I would suggest that there are mothers across this country who are in the same condition as my mom, and I would say that we have the opportunity to address this terrible injury where people who have worked all of their lives end up being deformed as a result of ergonomics.

   Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. NORTHUP).

   Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I just want to reiterate that we all agree that we need to look at ergonomics. The fact is that the mother of the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. JONES) and my mother and my mother-in-law and many senior women, whether they have been in the workforce or not, are struggling with carpal tunnel. The fact is it is caused not just by the workplace, but in my case it was caused by years of cooking and sewing.

   The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. JOHNSON) just mentioned that the time that she struggled with it the most in her life and needed surgery on both hands was a result of the years of sewing and cooking. The fact is that whatever we are doing causes stress on certain joints if we use it over and over.

   But the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. JOHNSON) also made the point that, even in the workplace that OSHA used to consider this rule, they identified problem after problem where all the employees and the employer and OSHA, working all together with consultants, could not devise a strategy for addressing this particular problem that an employee had.

   We do need a collaborative effort. We do need the authority of OSHA that has helped reduce workplace injuries. We need them to come to the table and help us to develop some best-thought-out strategies.

   But as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have stated, after 8 years and an amazing amount of money and pages in testimony, this bureaucracy has turned out a rule that did not take any of those things into consideration. They have been tone deaf to the people that have asked fair questions about what sort of solution really brings a remedy to their employees in the workplace.

   Another one of the speakers said complexity is not an excuse for inaction. But I want to tell my colleagues what it does call for. Complexity calls for balance. And we have not seen any balance in this rule, none of it, that reflects the fair concerns of employers and employees in the workplace. Instead, it is heavy-handed and it is extremely expensive.

   And for those jobs that are not offshore as a result, let me tell them what it does. It absorbs an enormous amount of money in the workplace. What does that mean? It means lower salaries for working families.

   Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the final 2 1/2 minutes.

   Mr. Chairman, and so who is going to pay the price as the workplace begins to spend money and to spend money in ways just to experiment with possible remedies just to prove that they are doing something? The person that pays the price is the worker.

   As the employer says to the worker, I am sorry, I cannot give you the raise you deserve and need and your family wants because, instead, I have to spend the money in the workplace.

   Has this ever happened before? It has happened before when companies have had to swallow such large costs in health insurance that they have had to go to the bargaining table and reduce what they wanted to offer their employees in terms of salaries and their wages in order to meet the cost of their health insurance.

   What we are creating here in this rule is an enormous cost driver, and the people that are going to pay the price are the people that have to share what is left over after we meet this bureaucracy regulation.

   Workers in America are not asking for big, new costs, they are not asking for a big bureaucracy, and they are not asking for our intervention. They are asking us to do everything we can to help them raise their families, support their families, invest in their futures, and send their children to school. They are asking us not to drive up costs, not to drive up taxes, not to create big bureaucracies, and not to centralize more of the Federal Government but, instead, to help them and equip them to meet their needs.

   OSHA ought to be a partner in that. They should not be an obstacle in it, and they should not drive up the costs and suck out of our economy money that could be in the hands of our workers.

   This is not fair to our workers. It is not fair to those of us that are looking to OSHA to give us common sense regulation. It comes from a bureaucracy that created the home workplace regulations that were quickly withdrawn. That was not an accident, Mr. Speaker. That was not something that happened by a mistake or one person. That happened because we have an agency that is out of control, that is tone deaf, that will not listen, that does not understand the meaning of balance, and does not understand common sense regulation.

[Time: 20:00]

   I believe, Mr. Chairman, that this party is the majority party today because in 1994, the American people said enough is enough and that we are not getting balance, we are getting huge bureaucracies that have promised us everything and delivered us nothing.

   Please defeat this amendment and send back to the American families what they are really asking for.

   Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

   I have heard arguments that protecting workers is shoving jobs overseas. I would like to make issue with

[Page: H4104]  GPO's PDF

   You show me a 50-year-old court reporter who does not have carpal tunnel problems. Show me one. Maybe they never came forward with it. It started in 1990 with Elizabeth Dole, God bless her. In 1991, her assistant secretary was going to begin the process. It is 2000. Most of those workers are now so debilitated, they cannot function. I believe it is unconscionable for this Congress to try and create jobs on the back of destroying workers' rights.

   Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

   Mr. Chairman, the only repetitive motion injury that some Members of Congress are likely ever to endure will come from the routine genuflecting to special interests that so often goes on around here. We ought to have an exception to that general rule by passing this amendment tonight.

   But if you vote for it, do not think you can then go home and pretend to your workers that you are a friend of the working man and a friend of working families all over this country if you vote to pass this bill, because it will still be cutting education from the President's request by over $3 billion, it will be cutting health care by more than $1 billion, it will be cutting worker protection and job training programs by almost $2 billion. That is not going to fool anybody.

   Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

   I do not know how you are going to vote on final passage. That is your business. But I do know one thing that I say to the chairman and ranking member, that votes set precedents. You vote to keep this language in and you certify this language will become the law of the land and it will never be changed. I am here talking about a precedent, a precedent that says, and I do not give a damn what the AFL-CIO says. Quite frankly they did not even support me. If my workers do not know a damn thing about AFL-CIO, they know this. Their parents and their grandparents have problems, and Congress has put off and put off and put off.

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