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      

This rule has been delayed for far too long. In 1996, the Senate and the House

[Page: S12174]  GPO's PDF

   Mr. President, we should wait no longer for this standard to be proposed, and workers should not have to wait until a new study is completed to be directed from preventable injuries. The time to protect the American workplace is now.

   People on the other side of this issue may argue that this is an expensive rule, or that the science is inadequate. This is simply not true. The changes envisioned by the rule will increase productivity and save costs. The studies have been numerous. Preventing OSHA from even working on an ergonomic standard, much less issuing one, at the eleventh hour is not the right approach for American workers.

   This standard is a win-win for workers and management: the better that workers are protected, the more time they spend on the job. The more time they spend on the job, the more productive the workplace. And it is obvious, but it bears restating, the more productive the workplace, the more productive this country. Workers want to be at work, and their bosses want them at work.

   We ought to be capable--as a Senate--to put that common sense approach and this simple ergonomics standard into place and we all be able to vote against the Bond amendment and help out workers and our businesses move forward together.

   Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri. This amendment would needlessly delay OSHA from implementing regulations to prevent one of the leading causes of work place injuries, musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs).

   Each year, more than 600,000 American workers suffer work related MSDs and it is costing businesses $15 to $20 billion in workers' compensation costs alone. It is estimated that one out of every three dollars spent on worker's compensation is related to repetitive motion injuries.

   Many of the jobs that are disproportionately subject to ergonomic injuries are held by women. In fact, while women experience 33 percent of all serious workplace injuries, they suffer 61 percent of repetitive motion injuries. This includes:

   91 percent of all injuries related to repetitive typing;

   61 percent of repetitive placing injuries;

   62 percent of work related cases of tendinitis; and

   70 percent of carpal tunnel syndrome cases.

   The supporters of this amendment argue that OSHA should delay ergonomic protection until the National Academy of Sciences completes a second review of existing studies. This comes despite the fact that there is already substantial scientific evidence linking MSDs to the workplace.

   The first study completed by the National Academy of Sciences found that ``research clearly demonstrates that specific interventions can reduce the reported rates of musculoskeletal disorders for workers who perform high-risk tasks.'' That peer reviewed study was conducted just last year.

   The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health reviewed more than 2,000 studies of work-related musculoskeletal disorders. They concluded that ``compelling scientific evidence shows a consistent relationship between musculoskeletal disorders and certain work related factors.''

   In a letter to the Department of Labor, William Grieves, president of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, notes that ``there is an adequate scientific foundation for OSHA to proceed with a proposal and, therefore, no reason for OSHA to delay the rulemaking process while the National Academy of Science panel conducts its review.''

   I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the RECORD.

   There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

   American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine,

   February 15, 1999.
CHARLES N. JEFFRESS,
Assistant Secretary of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC.

   Dear Mr. Jeffress: The American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) urges you to move forward with a proposed Ergonomics Program Standard.

   The College represents over 7,000 physicians and is the world's largest occupational medical society concerned with the health of the workforce. Although the College and its members may not agree with all aspects of the draft proposal, we support the Occupational Safety and Health Administrations's (OSHA) efforts to promulgate a standard. An ergonomics program standard that ensures worker protection and provides certainty to employers is preferable to the uncertainties of the general duty clause. As physicians, the College's members will vigorously participate during rulemaking to ensure that a final standard is protective of workers, represents the best medical practices and is supported by the science of musculoskeletal diseases.

   It is incumbent on OSHA to carefully consider the science and to give all due consideration to the results that will come from the National Academy of Science panel's review of the scientific literature regarding musculoskeletal disorders. However, there is an adequate scientific foundation for OSHA to proceed with a proposal and, therefore, no reason for OSHA to delay the rulemaking process while the National Academy of Science panel conducts its review.

   The College looks forward to its active participation in this rulemaking. In the interim, please do not hesitate to contact me or Dr. Eugene Handley, Executive Director.

   Sincerely,

   William Greaves,
President.

   Mrs. FEINSTEIN. All of these studies have found links between repetitive motion injuries and workplace factors and suggest that OSHA must be permitted to go forward with sensible regulations to insure a safe workplace.

   Ergonomic programs have proven to be effective in reducing repetitive motion injuries in the workplace. Many businesses which have voluntarily instituted an ergonomic program have found the long term benefits to far outweigh the short term costs.

   Red Wing Shoes in Minnesota found that their workers' compensation costs dropped 75 percent in the 4 years after they began an ergonomic program.

   Fieldcrest-Cannon in Columbus, Georgia, saw the number of workers' suffering from repetitive motion injuries drop from 121 in 1993 to 21 in 1996.

   By redesigning its workstations, OshKosh B'Gosh reduced workers' compensation costs by one-third.

   Mr. President, I certainly agree that decisions on government regulations should be based on sound science. In this case, there is already a substantial body of scientific evidence which concludes that there is a relationship between MSDs and the workplace and that ergonomic programs can significantly reduce these injuries.

   During this decade, more than 6.1 million workers have suffered from serious workplace injuries as a result of ergonomic hazards. As we move into the next century, American workers must be given adequate protection from these preventable injuries. Congress must allow OSHA to move forward with sensible ergonomic regulations . I urge my colleagues to vote to defeat this amendment.

   Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Bond Amendment. It's bad for American workers and bad for our economy.

   OSHA must move forward with an ergonomics standard. Each year, more than 600,000 individuals in our private sector work force miss time due to ergonomic injuries, or musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). These injuries cost our economy over $80 billion annually, including approximately $60 billion on lost productivity costs. Nearly $1 out of every $3 in worker's compensation payments result from MSDs.

   More importantly, these injuries cause terrible pain and suffering--as well as increased health care costs. OSHA's ergonomics standard is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study concluded that workplace interventions can reduce the incidence of MSDs. When this study

[Page: S12175]  GPO's PDF

   Mr. President, ergonomics is also a women's issue. Women account for nearly 75% of lost work time due to carpal tunnel syndrome and 62% of lost time due to tendinitis. Many of the women affected by MSDs are in the health care industry, including nurses, nurse aides and health care aides. Women in the retail industry are also disproportionately affected by ergonomic injuries.

   I strongly urge my colleagues to help improve workplace safety by joining me in opposing this amendment. As a great nation, it is our duty to protect our most valuable resource--our working men and women.

   Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, for the information of my colleagues, we have been debating for the last hour or so--although we did have a discussion on the Wellstone amendment--the issue of the Bond amendment dealing with ergonomics. We have been debating it for a significant period of time. I personally am ready to vote on the amendment. I know there has been some discussion on both sides, but I ask unanimous consent that we have 30 additional minutes equally divided on the Bond amendment.

   Mr. REID. I object.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

   Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, again, I think most things have been said on this amendment that need to be said. I don't know if Members want more debate. I will make an additional request, and that is that we have 2 hours of debate on the Bond amendment equally divided.

   Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I say to my friend from Oklahoma, this deserves some attention. We have 600,000 people a year who are injured as a result of these accidents. We had over 2,000 studies. The time is here to go forward with some rules and regulations t o protect American workers. I object.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

   Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I will make one additional try. I ask unanimous consent that we have 4 hours equally divided on this bill.

   Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I have been on the floor--this is the fifth or sixth day--trying to work with the majority to move this bill along. We have worked with the Members on the minority. We have moved a significant number of amendments, probably 65 or 70. We are to a point now where this bill could be completed but for this one contentious issue. From the very beginning, we have said this is an issue that deserves a lot of attention. We say, again, we are willing to work with the majority on this bill, but if this matter is here, we are going to have to discuss it. The American people, 600,000 a year, are injured with these accidents. It deserves more than 2 hours or 4 hours. I object.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

   The Senator from Pennsylvania.

   Mr. SPECTER. Senator KENNEDY.

   Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a minimum wage amendment be in order and that we have 1 hour of debate on that.

   Mr. NICKLES. I object.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

   The Senator from Pennsylvania.

   Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in light of the fact that we are not going to get a time agreement on ergonomics, on the Bond amendment, in a moment I will move to table, as manager. First, I would like to move ahead on sequencing after the vote.

   I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. BYRD, be recognized at the conclusion of the vote and then, following Senator BYRD's statement, we move to the amendment to be offered by the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. SMITH, so we will be on notice that that will be the next order

   of business.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Is there objection to the request?

   Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, is it the intention to withdraw the amendment, then, if it is not tabled?

   Mr. NICKLES. Let's have the vote.

   Mr. KENNEDY. Is it the intention to withdraw the amendment if it is not tabled?

   Mr. SPECTER. If I may respond to the Senator from Massachusetts, it is not my amendment, but it is my hope, as manager of the bill, that that would happen. But that is up to the offeror of the amendment.

   Mr. KENNEDY. Well, unless such is clear, I object.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

   Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move to table the Bond amendment No. 1825 and ask for the yeas and nays.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

   There appears to be a sufficient second.

   The yeas and nays were ordered.

   Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, was the unanimous consent request agreed to?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request was objected to.

   Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the vote, I be recognized for not to exceed 30 minutes to speak on another matter.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

   Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator will have 30 minutes following the vote.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion to table.

   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 PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?

   The result was announced--yeas 2, nays 97, as follows:

   Jeffords

   Specter

   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

   Enzi

   Feingold

   Feinstein

   Fitzgerald

   Frist

   Gorton

   Graham

   Gramm

   Grams

   Grassley

   Gregg

   Hagel

   Harkin

   Hatch

   Helms

   Hollings

   Hutchinson

   Hutchison

   Inhofe

   Inouye

   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

   Stevens

   Thomas

   Thompson

   Thurmond

   Torricelli

   Voinovich

   Warner

   Wellstone

   Wyden

   Dodd

   The motion to table was rejected.

   Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, in view of the time that has been spent discussing this very important issue, and also the fact there have been several attempts to find ways to limit the debate, and now in view of the vote on the motion to table which was unanimous against tabling it, putting the Senate back to exactly the position we were in before, I think the thing to do at this time is to withdraw this amendment and move forward.

   I think that is a mistake. I want to say to one and all, this issue will be joined further, and we will find a way for the content of this amendment to be in some legislation and passed through the Congress this year.

   Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it has become clear to me that my amendment, which would force OSHA to do their job correctly instead of hastily, is a bigger concern to those on the other side than the wide range of benefits that the underlying Labor/HHS appropriations bill provides. This disappoints me tremendously.

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