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
Her first injury occurred about 15 years ago. She was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome and had surgery to relieve the pain. As a mother of 5 children her ability to perform the normal tasks as a parent was an everyday struggle. She was unable to comb her three daughters hair, wash dishes, sweep floors, or many other day-to-day tasks that working moms must perform.
[Page: S12172] GPO's PDF
Her second injury occurred about 7 years ago. Madeleine was diagnosed with tendinitis and this time had tenon release surgery. Even today she has to wear a wrist brace to help strengthen her wrist. Being extra cautious has become part of her everyday life when it comes to the use of her wrist.
She recently found a lump on her left wrist, and is preparing herself for yet another surgery.
The company has not been able to make any adjustments for her at this time. They say that there really is nothing they can do to change the work that is preformed in the shipping department to curtail repetitive use of the hands, knees and back.
And here's the clincher: the majority of the women who have worked for this company for more than 10 year have had similar surgeries for their injuries.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will suspend, we have an order to vote on the Wellstone amendment at 1:50.
Mr. DURBIN. I will suspend.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 1842
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Wellstone amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1842. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. DODD) is absent because of family illness.
The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 1, as follows:
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
Enzi
Dodd
The amendment (No. 1842) was agreed to.
AMENDMENT NO. 1825
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: What is the pending business before the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. VOINOVICH). Amendment No. 2270, in the second degree, offered by Senator BOND.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased to support an amendment that I feel to be extremely important to the small business owners of Montana. That amendment is the Sensible Ergonomics Needs Scientific Evidence Act, the SENSE Act. This amendment makes the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, to do the sensible thing--wait for a scientific report before OSHA can impose any new ergonomics regulations on small business.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, BLS, the overall injury and illness rate is currently at its lowest level. Date shows that musculoskeletal disorders have declined by 17 percent over the past 3 years. But OSHA continues to aggressively move forward with an ergonomics regulation and ignoring the intent of Congress.
I have been hearing from small business owners of across the State of Montana. Businesses that range from construction companies to florists that fall under OSHA's mandated ergo-Šnomics regulations are telling me something has to be done. They are being forced to comply with ridiculous rules and regulations that OSHA cannot prove to be harmful to employees.
Before OSHA can move forward with any new regulations a few things need to be proven. First, OSHA needs to objectively define the medical conditions that should be addressed, not a broad category of all soft tissue and bone pains and injuries that might have resulted. Second, they need to identify the particular exposures in magnitude and nature which cause the defined medical conditions. Last they need to prescribe the changes necessary to prevent their recurrence. Right now OSHA cannot prove any of these things.
We need to make sure that OSHA is not running free and loose. They cannot have free rein to enact new rules and regulations without having significant scientific evidence to back up their new mandate. This amendment, to put it simply, will delay moving forward with any ergonomics rule or guideline until completion of an independent study of the medical and scientific evidence linking on-the-job activities and repetitive stress injuries.
This is a very complicated issue, and we need to make sure that there is sound science and through medical evidence to protect our small business and employees from misguided rules and regulations . The SENSE Act does not prohibit OSHA from continuing to research ergonomics or from exercising its enforcement authority, it just puts the small business owner on a level playing field. I yield the floor.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I strongly oppose this amendment. It is our responsibility as the Nation's leader to reduce the hazards that America's workers face--not putting roadblocks in the way of increased workers safety. Ergonomic injuries are the single largest occupational health crisis faced by men and women in our workforce today. We should let the OSHA issue an ergonomics standard.
Ergonomic injuries hurt America's workers. Each year, more than 600,000 private sector workers in America are forced to miss time from work because of musculoskeletal disorders, MSDs. These injuries hurt our America's companies because these disorders can cause workers to miss three full weeks of work or more. Employers pay over $20 billion annually in worker's compensation benefits due to MSDs and up to $60 billion in lost productivity, disability benefits, and other associated costs.
The impact of MSDs on women workers is especially serious. While women make up 46 percent of the total workforce and only make up 33 percent of total injured workers, they receive 63 percent of all lost work time ergonomic injuries and 69 percent of lost work time carpal tunnel syndrome.
In addition, women in the health care, retail and textile industries are particularly hard hit by MSDs and carpal tunnel syndrome. In fact women suffer over 90 percent of the MSDs among nurses, nurse aides, health care aides, and sewing machine operators. Women also account for 91 percent of the carpal tunnel cases that occur among cashiers.
Despite all the overwhelming financial and physical impacts of MSDs and the disproportionate impact they have on our Nation's women, there have been several efforts over the years to prevent the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA from issuing an ergonomics standard.
Let's be clear, this amendment is intended to delay OSHA's ergonomic standard until yet another scientific study is performed on ergonomic injuries. We have examined the merits of this rule over and over again. Contrary to what those on the other side of this issue say, the science supports an ergonomics standard. We also had a bipartisan agreement that the current National Academy of Sciences, NAS, study would--in no way--impede implementation by OSHA.
NAS has already studied this issue. The new study would address the exact same issues that were dealt with in the previous study. They are also using the same science. No new science. It is mind boggling.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH, studied ergonomics and conclude that there is ``clear and compelling evidence''
[Page: S12173] GPO's PDF
Further--and possibly most persuasive--last year, the administration and leaders in Congress on this side of the aisle only agreed to a new study because those on the other side said that this new study would not delay the issuance by OSHA of a rule on ergonomics . Now they are not standing by their word.
We cannot afford to delay an important standard which will greatly improve workplace safety.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. We should allow OSHA to issue an ergonomics standard. It will be an important first step in protecting our Nation's workers from crippling injuries.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to spend some time this afternoon speaking to my colleagues to vote against the amendment before us today, the amendment that would prohibit the Department of Labor or the Occupational Safety and Health Administration from issuing any standard or regulation addressing ergonomic concerns in the workplace for one year.
Mr. President, this prohibition would come just as OSHA prepares, in the next few weeks, to publish its proposed rule on ergonomics for public comment. This would be a blow to American workers and a real step backwards for the kind of cooperative approach to business and the workplace that we need in this country.
Mr. President, let's be clear about the issue before us, the question of ergonomics and which workplace injuries will continue to occur if this amendment becomes law.
Ergonomics is the science of fitting workplace conditions and job demands to the capabilities of the working population. The study of ergonomics is large in scope, but generally, the term refers to the assessment of those work-related factors that may pose a risk of musculoskeletal disorders. It is well-settled that effective and successful ergonomics programs assure high productivity, avoidance of illness and injury risks, and increased satisfaction among the workforce.
Many businesses and trade associations have already implemented safety and health programs in the workplace and have seen productivity rise as fewer hours on the job are lost. According to Assistant Secretary of Labor Charles N. Jeffress in his testimony before the House Committee on Small Business, programs implemented by individual employers reduce total job-related injuries and illnesses by an average of 45 percent and lost work time injuries and illnesses by an average of 75 percent.
Ergonomic disorders include sprains and strains, which affect the muscles, nerves, tendons, ligaments, joints, cartilage, or spinal discs; repetitive stress injuries, that are typically not the result of any instantaneous or acute event but are usually chronic in nature, and brought on as a result of a poorly designed work environment (these injuries are common causes of muscoskeletal problems such as chronic and disabling lower-back pain); and carpal tunnel syndrome.
And let's be clear that this, Mr. President, is a real problem for American businesses and workers. Industry experts have estimated that injuries and illnesses caused by ergonomic hazards are the biggest job safety problem in the workplace today, as each year more than 600 thousand workers suffer from back injuries, tendinitis, and other ergonomic disorders. In fact, OSHA, estimates that injuries related to carpal tunnel syndrome alone result in more workers losing their jobs than any other injury. The worker compensation cost of all ergonomics injuries is estimated at over 20 billion dollars annually.
What is most troubling, Mr. President, is that these types of injuries are preventable. There is something that can be done to protect the American worker. It should be noted that in drafting its proposed rule--a rule Mr. President, that is scheduled to be issued in just a few weeks--OSHA worked extensively with a number of stakeholders, including representatives from industry, labor, safety and health organizations, State governments, trade associations, and insurance companies. OSHA has drafted an interactive, flexible rule that allows managers and labor to work in unison to create a safer workplace environment. OSHA even placed on its Website a preliminary version of the draft proposed rule, in order to facilitate comments from the public. Mr. President, this is not a ``command and control'' regulatory action.
As noted by Assistant Secretary Jeffress: ``An employer [should] work credibly with employees to find workplace hazards and fix them ..... the rule creates no new obligations for employers to control hazards that they have not already been required to control under the General Duty Clause under Section 5 of the Occupational Safety Act or existing OSHA standards.''
In other words, Mr. President, this rule is simply an interactive approach between employee and
manager to protect the assets of the company in ways that are either already being done, or should be done under existing rules. This new rule is a guide and a tool, not an inflexible mandate.
According to the Department of Labor, thirty-two states have some form of safety and health program. Four States (Alaska, California, Hawaii, and Washington) have mandated comprehensive programs that have core elements similar to those in OSHA's draft proposal. In these four states, injury and illness rates fell by nearly 18 percent over the five years after implementation, in comparison with national rates over the same period.
I'd like to share with my colleagues two examples from my home state of Massachusetts that show how business and labor can benefit from successful ergonomics programs. Crane & Company, a paper company located in Dalton, Massachusetts signed an agreement with OSHA to establish comprehensive ergonomics programs at each of their plants. According to the company's own report, within three years of starting this program, the company's musculoskeletal injury rate was almost cut in half.
Lunt Silversmiths, a flatware manufacturer in Greenfield, was troubled by high worker's compensation costs. One OSHA log revealed that back injuries were the number one problem in three departments. By implementing basic ergonomic controls, lost workdays dropped from more that 300 in 1992 to 72 in 1997, and total worker's compensation costs for the company dropped from $192,500 in 1992 to $27,000 in 1997.
That's the difference this common sense approach can make. And, Mr. President, in spite of the arguments for the Bond amendment, there bulk of the science and the research proves that an ergonomic standard is needed in the American workplace.
The National Academy of Sciences, the same group directed in this amendment to complete a study on this issue, already has compiled a report entitled Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders. And the report tells us that workers exposed to ergonomic hazards have a higher level of pain, injury and disability, that there is a biological basis for these injuries, and that there exist today interventions to prevent these injuries.
In 1997, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health completed a critical review of epidemiologic evidence for work-related musculoskeletal disorders of the neck, upper extremity, and lower back. This critical review of 600 studies culled from a bibliographic database of more than 2,000 found that there is substantial evidence for a causal relationship between physical work factors and musculoskeletal disorders.
Furthermore, Mr. President, we are not talking about a new phenomenon, or the latest fad. In 1990, Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Dole, in response to evidence showing that repetitive stress disorders (such as carpal tunnel syndrome) were the fastest growing category of occupational illnesses, committed the agency to begin working on an ergonomics standard. This rulemaking has been almost ten years in the making. Now is the time to put something in place for the American worker.
This rule has been delayed for far too long. In 1996, the Senate and the House
[Page: S12174] GPO's PDF
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