PROPOSED OSHA REPETITIVE MOTION REGULATIONS -- (House of Representatives - November 04, 1999)

[Page: H11554]

---

   The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. ISAKSON). Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. TANCREDO) is recognized for 5 minutes.

   Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, a short time ago I received a communication from an individual in my district, a gentleman who owns a number of small businesses. He is head of something called The Bailey Company in Golden, Colorado. It is an Arby's franchise.

   He writes: ``Our company opened its first Arby's restaurant in 1968 at the corner of York and Colfax in Denver. Today we own and operate 63 Arby's restaurants in Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Wyoming, including all of the Arby's in the Metro-Denver area.''

   He goes on to explain what happened in his business a short time ago, and this I want to bring to the attention of the House and our colleagues in order to explain the problems we are going to face and we do face in small businesses throughout the United States. And these problems will become exacerbated by the actions of OSHA as they have been many times in the past. I want to refer specifically to an event that occurred in Mr. Eagleton's business.

   ``As an employer of approximately 1,500 people, we are concerned about the proposed OSHA repetitive motion regulations. An employee, Mary, worked at an Arby's restaurant in Jefferson County, Colorado, in 1998. On her first day of work, after 3 hours of light duty wrapping sandwiches in foil, she complained that her wrists hurt. An employee of the Bailey Company filled out a first report of injury and sent her to our designated treatment facility. Mary was diagnosed with repetitive motion injuries. The ensuing series of treatments evolved in a $100,000 Worker's Compensation claim.

   ``The medical community is split on the legitimacy and causality of these injuries. For instance, athletes do repetitive exercises to strengthen their muscles; yet repetitive motion does not harm them. How does repetitive motion in other circumstances differ in the view of the courts?

   ``Our position is that the proposed OSHA repetitive motion regulations should not be funded until definitive scientific studies are concluded.''

   ``J. Mark Eagleton, Senior Manager/Director of Training and Personnel for The Bailey Company.''

   Mr. Speaker, even though what we have just heard here is replicated, unfortunately, far too many times throughout the country, OSHA is nonetheless pushing ahead with its ergonomic study. Even though the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that repetitive stress injuries are on a decline and have dropped 17 percent over the last 3 years, should we not at least have as much information as possible when developing Government policy? Should we not require Government agencies to use sound scientific information when reaching decisions that will affect our lives?

   Obviously, this is not the case. Once again, it is the Government-knows-best attitude, an attitude that many Federal bureaucrats have unfortunately. It is an outrage and it should be stopped.

   In August, the House passed H.R. 987, the Workplace Preservation Act, which prohibits OSHA from implementing the ergonomics regulation until the academy completes its ongoing study slated to be released mid-2001. This is a common-sense step and one which Members of the House and the other body should support.

END