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      

My amendment would not preclude OSHA from continuing its study of this issue, and I urgently call on the agency

[Page: S12161]  GPO's PDF

   That report is very critical of OSHA's estimates outlined in the agency's Preliminary Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the proposed ergonomics standard. In fact, the report concludes that ``OSHA's estimates of the benefits of the proposed standard may be significantly overstated.'' In other words, this standard may not help employees--women and men--as much as OSHA would have us believe.

   Equally troubling is the report's conclusion that the cost of the ergonomics standard to all businesses could be as much as 15 times more than what OSHA estimates. Moreover, the report emphasizes that the cost of the ergonomics standard could be as much as 10 times higher for small businesses than for large companies.

   So for what a large company would have to do for employees, if it had to pay $1,000 per employee, a small business might have to pay $10,000 per employee. Those are some pretty significant margins of error. If this rule goes forward, small business, once again, is left holding the bag.

   The report also points out that ``a small business is not simply a large business with fewer employees. Many factors affect how a standard may impact a small business much differently than a large business.'' It goes on to discuss the fact that small businesses often have higher employee turnover rates meaning that any training requirement will have a more significant impact on the small firm than the large one.

   For women business owners, the cost issue is particularly worrisome. As AGC's women construction business owners put it: ``Women-owned companies are the fastest growing sector of our economy. Unfortunately, burdensome regulations are a barrier to women starting their own businesses. Often, these regulations discourage women from starting a new business or expanding an existing one.''

   Mr. President, one thing is very clear--this is an extremely complicated issue. And we must have more reliable cost and benefit estimates--not to mention sound science and thorough medical evidence--before we push the Nation's small businesses into another maze of redtape.

   If there are regulations which are burdensome but which are necessary on the basis of sound science to protect against ergonomic injuries, then let OSHA set them out. Let everybody abide by those standards. But when we don't even know what best medical and scientific evidence provides, why are we going forward down a blind alley with nothing but a huge cost at the other end?

   Employees have a right to expect regulations will achieve realistic benefits to them--not exaggerated lofty goals that miss the mark and help no one.

   Let me be clear about something. When you talk to workers who are in businesses or in jobs where they do lifting and work, they are very much concerned about their medical care.

   They are very much concerned about their pension. They are also concerned about their job.

   We are talking about something that could be a job killer. If we are telling this employee--because we have issued a standard without scientific basis--the cost may be so great that your employer can't afford to continue to hire you, what favor have we done that employee? If she is put out of work because the unknown requirements of a very expensive regulation are too much for the employer to bear, that woman could lose her job and lose the means of livelihood in the name of lessening ergonomic injuries, without any proof that they do so.

   Let me stress again, we all agree in protecting employees from workplace injuries, it is extremely important. That is something we must do, we must assure. Employers want employees to be safe. If your mother, father, sister, or brother is working in a job with lifting or repetitive motions, the employers want them to be safe. However, small firms cannot accomplish the goal of worker protection through ill-conceived and poorly supported proposals such as OSHA's ergonomic standard which has such potential burden for small business. If the burdens are too high, the business may not survive.

   As I indicated earlier, this has been a concern that women-owned businesses have shared. If a business folds, there are no employees to protect. Where is the sense in that? OSHA is doing everything in its power to get its proposal published soon. The House passed legislation on this issue, the Workplace Preservation Act, H.R. 987, by a vote of 217-209. I think it is time for the Senate to add its voice to the call for OSHA to act responsibly, to act dispassionately, but to act in good science.

   To summarize: We don't have the science; we don't have the medical evidence; we don't have accurate cost figures; we don't know the benefits to employees; and we don't know what works in preventing injuries. Moreover, OSHA doesn't know those either. All we have is a potentially burdensome standard that small businesses, whether owned by a woman or a man, can ill afford.

   I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to make certain that OSHA's ergonomic standard is based on sound science and ensure that we are protecting men and women in the workplace. I hope we can get a reasonable time agreement so views on both sides can be expressed and we can proceed to a vote on this very important amendment.

   Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek to propound a unanimous-consent request for a time limit. I have already had some informal indications that Members on the other side of the aisle intend to speak at some length. I will propound a request for consent when the manager returns to the floor.

   Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?

   Mr. SPECTER. For a question.

   Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to propound a question. Does the Senator from Pennsylvania not understand, the complexity of this issue virtually prohibits a time agreement? We will continue the debate until it is fully explored.

   I think the Senator from Pennsylvania and Senator from Missouri are forewarned: Bringing an issue of this complexity to the floor invites a lengthy debate regarding worker safety, and we will object to a time limit.

   Mr. SPECTER. This Senator does not understand how this matter--for that matter, any matter--is so complicated as not to be subject to a time agreement. We are all here under time limitations. I only have 5 years 3 months left on my term, for example. We all have some time limitations.

   I think it is possible to have a time agreement. However, if the other side intends to talk at length--I do not want to inject the word ``filibuster'' into the discussion, but if the other side wishes to talk at length and is unwilling to enter into a time agreement, I do understand that; I do not understand that any matter is so complicated as to preclude a time agreement.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has the floor.

   Mr. SPECTER. I will speak since I have the floor and I am manager of the bill.

   Mr. President, this issue has been the subject of very contentious debate for years. Last year in the conference committee in the House and Senate, we debated at great length; the year before, we debated at great length. There is no doubt about emotions running high.

   The subject of ergonomics is an effort to have some way to stop repetitious motions which cause physical injury to workers. Many of the big companies have adopted procedures which will protect their employees because it is cost effective to do so in the long run. Small businesses face a little different situation, which I understand. The distinguished chairman of the Small Business Committee has offered this amendment. I understand the point he is making.

   I point out that there have been many studies on the issue. In 1998, a peer review of the National Academy of Sciences involving 85 of the world's leading ergonomic experts found ``research clearly demonstrates'' that specific interventions can reduce or prevent musculoskeletal disorders. The 6-month study answered the same seven questions the National Academy of Sciences is now reviewing.

   A 1997 review by NIOSH of 600 studies produced the same result and found that ergonomic solutions were being successfully applied in many work settings. During last year's negotiations,

[Page: S12162]  GPO's PDF

   have had a letter from the Secretary of Labor with a veto threat. That is not unusual.

   However, I believe there is a balance which can be obtained to protect workers and not to unduly burden businesses, including small businesses. That is why, as chairman of the subcommittee involved in the conference for several years, I have tried to work this out so we can find a way not to overburden small business and at the same time to protect workers from these musculoskeletal problems.

   Right now, the Office of Management and Budget has the regulation and we do not know what form it will finally take. But someday we have to come to grips with the issue and stop studying it. Studies are very important to find out what the facts are, and then we must act on the facts. When studies are used to interminably delay, it doesn't become a study; it is a filibuster by study on one side, as it is filibuster by an assertion that it is too complicated, too intricate, to be able to come to grips with it and decide.

   We are sent here to try to decide the issues. It is my hope we can debate the facts, try to understand what the underlying issues are, and then try to find a consensus on public policy. At some date, we will have to go ahead and act one way or another on the protection of the workers.

   I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.

   Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments made by the manager of the bill, and I also understand the Senate lingo that means if we offer this amendment, you will filibuster. That disappoints me greatly.

   I ask unanimous consent to be a cosponsor of the Bond amendment.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   Mr. NICKLES. I thank and compliment the Senator from Missouri for offering this amendment. It is needed. This amendment is needed because the administration is getting ready to promulgate some regulations in the near future that will cost hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars for American industry.

   When I say American industry, I am talking about small business, as well as, big business. I am talking about an unbelievably complex set of regulations and there is no telling how much it will cost to implement these regulations .

   These regulations consist of how many motions you should make. That if you do more than a certain amount, then maybe that is not safe; or if you lift something, it cannot be lifted more than this number of times, or it will be too heavy or too stressful. OSHA and the Department of Labor try to make these very regulations and at the same time they say they honestly do not know what they are doing, so in many cases they will wait until laborers complain and then they will try to come up with regulations to alleviate their pain. These methods are not successful.

   We have in fact already addressed this issue. The Senate houses the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan group, to research complex issues. There is a CRS study that was updated August 31, 1999. I will read from a copy of this report that addresses further ergonomic regulation:

   Due to the wide variety of circumstances, however, any comprehensive standard would probably have to be complex and costly, while scientific understanding of the problem is not complete.

   It would be costly, it would be complex, and, frankly, it would not be understandable. It would not be workable.

   The state of scientific knowledge about ergonomics --and especially the role of non-work and psychological factors in producing observed syndromes--has become a key issue in the debate over how OSHA should proceed.

   Even if the problem were fully understood, the wide variety of circumstances will bedevil efforts to frame simple cost-effective rules. What are called ``ergonomic'' injuries are actually a range of distinct problems, much as ``cancer'' is not one but a family of diseases.

   Throughout the summary of this report, the point is that, due to a lot of circumstances, any comprehensive rules would have to be complex and costly while scientific understanding of the problem is not complete.

   What about a scientific study? Why don't we ask the scientists? If Congress' research arm says this is going to be costly, we do not have the scientific basis to do it, why don't we have scientific basis? Why don't we ask the experts to take a look at it and see if there is something they can come up with that would be workable?

   Well, we did do that. Last year, Congress passed and almost every Member of this body, or the majority of the Members of both Houses of Congress, passed a bill that funded $900,000 for the National Academy of Sciences to complete a study and review the scientific literature as mandated by Congress and the President on ergonomics . They have not completed that study. They should complete the study in about a year, January 2001; in 13 or 14 months.

   We are spending almost a million dollars on the study to ask the scientists to do an in-depth review. Yet many people say they want OSHA to go forth and come up with these complex rules in spite of the unfinished study. They are saying that they trust OSHA to come up with rules and regulations without this study, without the basis for making such rules? You talk about repetitive motions--OSHA often tells companies that they may possibly be doing something wrong and a company could ask OSHA whether or not they are in violation of certain standards and OSHA would reply: ``We don't know.''

   These standards are almost impossible to define. What is repetitive motion? Standing at a machine on the job for 8 hours a day--that is ergonomic--is that too much? I grew up in a machine shop. I grew up in Nickles Machine Corporation. We lifted and moved a lot of heavy equipment. There is no way in the world

   some Federal bureaucrat knows what is the proper amount of weight that individuals should be moving around. There is no way to create a uniform standard that applies to each individual.

   Are they going to come in and supervise and say: You should not be standing there for that period of time? Maybe you should not be working at your computer for this amount of time. Maybe you should not be engaged in moving heavy objects.

   We are going to have the heavy hand of the Federal Government, Federal bureaucrats running all across the country trying to make those kinds of determinations, saying: If you do not comply with our infinite wisdom, we are going to fine you. We are going to close you down. Amazing. It is amazing that we would do such a thing.

   The proposed regulations by OSHA are not workable. They are unbelievably complex. Anybody who has looked at them from a standpoint of real-life experience in the workforce agrees that this is not workable. So what have we done if we succeed with this amendment? We have passed restrictions keeping this administration from going forward on this enormously complex, expensive, regulatory scheme.

   Last year, we said let's have this study, let's let this study go forward; let's look at real scientific facts before we implement a standard that could cost billions of dollars, and no telling how many jobs would be lost as a result. Let's let that happen. I regret that this was not already included in the committee bill.

   I think most people will acknowledge we have a majority vote on this. We have the votes to do this. We have Democrats and Republicans who will support this amendment. We have a majority; we have a majority vote in the House as well. Now we have this implied senatorial discussion: If you have this amendment, due to its complexity, we will discuss it for a long time; i.e. we will filibuster this amendment. We will not let this bill pass. We don't care if we bring down the largest appropriations bill, that deals with Education, Labor, Health and a multitude of Governmental agencies--we don't care if we bring down the whole thing.

   Why? Because organized labor wants this rule to go forward. I guess if the leadership of AFL/CIO wants this rule to go forward, we should absolutely let it go forward. That is what a few people are saying, although masked with niceties, in senatorial discussion: If

[Page: S12163]  GPO's PDF

   As I said, we passed related legislation in 1998. We authorized the study I previously mentioned, to look deeper into the problems employees and industry face. Let's let the study work. Let's find out what the scientists have to say. Let's listen to the experts.

   We had a couple of congressional hearings regarding this very issue. The following was concluded from a hearing in 1997:

   Any attempt to construct an ergonomic standard as a remedy for regional musculoskeletal injuries in the workplace is not just premature, it is likely to be counterproductive in its application and enforcement.

   It is likely to be counterproductive. Does this give unions a chance to file complaints for harassment purposes? Has anybody thought of that? Of course they have. Does this increase people's leverage? ``If you work with us, maybe, a little bit, we will not be quite as vigorous in our complaints.'' Is this what we really want?

   Another statement was made by Dr. Stephen Atcheson and others with the American Medical Association:

   The debate concerning whether certain occupations actually cause repetitive motion disorders is now well over a century old and far from settled.

   This is complex business. You are talking about movements and actions in the workforce, and there are an unlimited number of movements and actions. Now we are going to have that regulated by the Federal Government? We are going to turn loose the Department of Labor, OSHA, to come up with regulations that have the force and the power to fine and assess and have bureaucrats telling people how to operate their businesses? As if people running those businesses could care less about their employees?

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