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      

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?

   The whole premise of this regulation is Government knows best; employers certainly don't care about their employees--which I do not believe. I have been an employer. You show me an employer who doesn't care about his employees, and I will show you somebody who is going out of business in a very short period of time and probably deservedly so. It is this presumption-- the Government knows best; we need Government as the caretaker for business operations--that I think is absurd. And we trust some bureaucrat in OSHA, who probably knows nothing about a particular operation, to come in and say: Here is how you should run your business. We know better than the people that have been managing that plant, working in that plant for years. There is no telling how much it will cost. No telling how many jobs will be lost, the costs that could be imposed, the costs that could result from unfair, unworkable regulations .

   I compliment my colleague from Missouri, and I urge my colleagues to support the Bond amendment.

   I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.

   Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am going to be brief because other colleagues are going to speak, and then I will come back later as we go forward in this debate.

   I say to my colleagues on the other side, what Senator DURBIN from Illinois said is right on the mark. As ranking minority member on the Labor Committee, now called HELP, which has jurisdiction over OSHA and occupational health and safety issues which are very important to working people, I have a lot to say about this amendment. What I will say, as this debate goes forward, will be substantive, and it will be important in determining how all of us vote. This is an incredibly important issue.

   I will start out for a few brief minutes right now and then turn it over to other colleagues. I will come back later as this debate develops.

   This Bond amendment will basically stop OSHA from doing its job, which is the mission of the mandate of keeping American workers from getting injured at work. It basically stops OSHA from doing its job, and OSHA's job is to prevent workers from being injured at work.

   This amendment will shut down the normal rulemaking process and stop OSHA from doing anything at all about ergonomic job hazards that are seriously injuring over 600,000 workers every year. That is a statistic my colleagues do not like to talk about. I have heard the arguments about bureaucrats and big government and all of the rest, but we ought not be too generous with the suffering of others. We are talking about 600,000 workers who are seriously injured every year. That is what this debate is all about.

   Ergonomic injuries are serious injuries from repetitive motions, overexertion, and physical stress. They include carpal tunnel syndrome, back injuries, and tendonitis. The amendment before us will stop OSHA from issuing a standard to prevent these injuries until the National Academy of Sciences completes a new study which will take somewhere between 18 to 24 months. This amendment will stop OSHA from issuing not only a regulation, but even voluntary guidelines or standards. This amendment is an extreme amendment, extremely harsh in its impact on working people.

   Last week, Secretary of Labor Herman wrote that she would recommend a veto of S. 1650 if this amendment is adopted. By the way, I also say to my colleagues, the reason Senator DURBIN was right in what he said earlier--that this debate will take some time--is because it is important to put a focus on the people and their lives and who is going to be affected by this.

   With all due respect, quite often--and this particular case is a perfect example--when we talk about OSHA or NIOSH, when we talk about occupational health and safety, we are talking about a group of Americans who are rarely in the Senate or the House. These are not in the main, our sons or daughters. These are not in the main, our brothers or sisters or our parents. In fact, I think if they were, this amendment would not even be before the Senate. I do not want to lose sight of about whom we are talking.

   There are four points I want to make as this debate develops. I will not develop any of these points right now, but I will mention them.

   First, I want to spend some time later on talking about the people, real people who are affected by this debate. As we speak, there are workers who are injured needlessly because of the continuing efforts by this Congress, as represented by the Bond amendment, to keep OSHA from doing its job. These are real people with real health problems who are hurt at the workplace with disabling injuries. I want to spend a lot of time talking about who these people are. I want to present stories. I want to talk about these people in the most personal terms possible so we know what is at stake.

   Second, I want to make the case that something can be done to stop people from being injured in this way, from stopping these physically disabling injuries, from stopping the pain. There is no need to wait another 2 years for another study. We do not need another study to show that ergonomic hazards cause injuries and these injuries can be prevented. We already know it. There are already reams of scientific evidence to prove it, and one more review of the scientific literature is not going to change anything. Later on in this debate, I will talk about the studies that have already taken place and what their conclusions are, all of which say we need to go forward right now.

   Third, I want to dispel the mistaken impression among some Senators that a deal was worked out last year whereby OSHA would delay this rulemaking until the National Academy of Sciences completes its second study. Actually, that appears to be just the opposite of what happened.

   According to the parties involved in those negotiations, there was an understanding that this new NAS study would not prevent OSHA from going forward. There was a clear understanding that this new NAS study would not prevent OSHA from going forward.

   Finally, I want to make it clear that the issue is not the substance of OSHA's proposal. There is already a process in

   place for addressing any criticisms or any modifications that Senators and others may have. It is the same rulemaking process that is used for any other regulation: Interested parties are encouraged to comment and suggest changes. Criticisms or quibbles with OSHA's current proposal should not be used as an excuse to stop OSHA from doing anything whatsoever, and that is exactly what is happening. This

[Page: S12164]  GPO's PDF

   It was first proposed in 1990 by then-Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Dole. I will go back through that history as well, but I will conclude right now by saying that this amendment just shuts down the normal rulemaking process. It stops OSHA from doing its job. It does not speak to the 600,000 workers right now who are being injured and who are struggling because, in fact, we do not have ergonomic job standards. These injuries are serious injuries. They are disabling injuries. Surely, we can take action right now.

   This is all about working people. It is all about making sure there is some safety at the workplace. It is all about our responsibility to move forward with a standard that will provide some protection. It is all about making sure OSHA is not gutted. It is all about making sure this amendment, which I view as a direct threat to many hard-working people, does not go forward.

   Yes, we are here to debate this. My colleague, Senator DURBIN, is ready to speak. Senator HARKIN is going to speak. Senator KENNEDY will be here. And later on in the debate, I will come back and lay out story after story of families that will be affected by this amendment. I will talk about what this means in personal terms. I will talk about all the studies that have already taken place and what the science clearly suggests to us. We will have a major debate on this. I have no doubt the vast majority of people in this country expect the Senate to be on the side of providing some decent protection for hard-working Americans. I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.

   Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Bond amendment, and I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

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

   Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, it is my understanding there are a number of colleagues on both sides of the aisle who want to speak on the amendment. I ask unanimous consent that we limit the debate to 1 hour on this amendment.

   Mr. DURBIN. I object.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

   Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I will speak for a moment about why I think this amendment is so important.

   When I travel through Arkansas and with the opportunities I have had to be in other parts of the country where we have had hearings on workforce protections, one of the complaints I hear so frequently from my constituents is that regulatory agencies in general exceed the authority that has been delegated by the Congress. One of the frustrations I hear expressed from so many small businesspeople and others is: If you in the Senate and the House are the ones elected by us to represent us, why do these regulatory agencies seem to go off on their own, contrary to what you have expressed in legislation?

   It is a question that is always difficult to answer. Frankly, too often we have allowed, whether it be OSHA or the IRS, regulatory agencies to exceed their statutory authority, and we have done an insufficient job in reining in what they are doing.

   In this particular case, I think we see exactly that. OSHA is an agency to which we have delegated power. It seems to be determined to extend its regulatory power in a negative way through the imminent implementation of this ergonomic standard, regardless of that standard's effectiveness in protecting workers or its cost to American industry.

   So, yes, there is an issue of safety; yes, there is an issue of cost; and, yes, there is an issue of what is the scientific basis for what OSHA is propounding to do.

   So often what we find regulatory agencies doing ends up having unintended consequences which the Congress must go back and try to rectify at some later date or which results in a reversal of the rulemaking process in these various agencies.

   We have already heard, in evidence presented on the floor of the Senate today, that there is concern that a premature ergonomic standard could have counterproductive consequences.

   I say to my colleagues, if you are concerned about the health and welfare of the American workplace, if you are concerned about the safety of the American worker, then let's be sure that when OSHA implements a rule, they do so with a sound scientific basis for what they are doing.

   Now, I don't know. If we can't count on the nonpartisan, highly respected Congressional Research Service, then who do we look to? That is why we pay them. That is why we have established them. They are well-respected. This is what they said. Senator NICKLES earlier quoted part of the CRS report. Let me quote an additional part of what they said. They said:

   ..... because of the wide variety of tasks, equipment, stresses and injuries involved, any comprehensive standard would probably have to be complex and costly.

   They continue:

   ..... ergonomics is a difficult issue because, while there is substantial evidence of a problem, it is very complex and only partially understood.

   I think it is not prudent to move forward with a rule when the CRS has concluded the issue is complex and we do not understand it. It is only partially understood. How can you implement a rule that is in the best interest of the American worker, much less the American economy, if we do not understand what the problem is and we can only acknowledge it is partially understood and it is complex?

   As an example, the CRS cites that while a whole ``host of new products and services have become popular--such as back braces and newly designed keyboards--there is little in the way of scientific evidence about whether they do any good.''

   What the opponents of this amendment are suggesting is that though we do not understand the issue, though it is acknowledged to be complex, though the CRS says we have a host of new products and services out there but there is no scientific evidence as to whether they do any good or not, we should nonetheless give the green light for OSHA to move ahead in a rulemaking process without substantial scientific basis for that rule.

   Proponents of the ergonomics standard claim this issue has been adequately studied, if not overstudied--and that is what my friend and colleague from Minnesota was just saying--but it is simply not the case.

   The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH, after conducting an extensive review of the literature, stated that there are ``huge, fundamental gaps in our understanding'' which ``make it clear how little we really know about ergonomics .''

   So those who would say, well, we have studied it--we have studied it and studied it--we have studied it enough, so let's go ahead with the rule, they are ignoring the basic conclusion, the overwhelming conclusion of the evidence and the literature on this issue, which concludes we simply do not understand ergonomics .

   There are ``huge, fundamental gaps in our understanding.''

   To my colleagues, I say it is for that reason that the Congress wisely, I believe, last year, in the omnibus appropriations bill, appropriated $890,000 so that we could fill those huge, fundamental gaps in our understanding concerning the issue of ergonomics --$890,000 for a more thorough review of literature by the National Academy of Sciences, a thorough study by the NAS, which, if there is a more respected group than the CRS, certainly in the area of science, it would be the NAS.

   We want a rule, but we want a rule to be based upon good science, not something that is moved forward without adequate study and without adequate scientific basis, that could have negative impacts upon workers, and certainly will have negative impacts upon the workplace and the economics of the workplace.

   Nonetheless, in spite of the fact that we authorized, we spent, we appropriated $890,000, OSHA has refused to wait for the results of that study. They already released a discussion draft of the ergonomic standard in February of this year.

   I simply find it inexplicable why OSHA cannot wait for this definitive study to be completed. To me, it does not seem prudent to rush to judgment. To me, it does not seem prudent to rush

   to implement a rule without knowing exactly what the consequence

[Page: S12165]  GPO's PDF

   Finally, I do not know that I can justify to my constituents in Arkansas, and to the average Arkansas worker who makes a median income of $27,000, how the Federal Government effectively wasted $890,000 of their hard-earned tax dollars by not even waiting for the completion of this study.

   Therefore, I urge my colleagues to adopt the Bond amendment and make OSHA await the outcome of the NAS study so they can devise an ergonomics standard that will be effective in protecting American workers without unnecessarily burdening American businesses.

   I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

   Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.

   Mr. HARKIN. I rise in opposition to the amendment of my friend from Missouri and the Chairman of the Small Business Committee. I heard not all but most of the opening comments by the offerer of the amendment, Senator BOND. What I heard mostly was the concerns expressed by Senator BOND regarding its impact on small businesses.

   While I happen to serve on the Small Business Committee, Senator BOND is the chairman of that committee. It goes without saying that Senator BOND has had a long and intense interest in the impact of rules and regulations on small businesses. I think I can say without fear of contradiction that Senator BOND has done a very good job in protecting and defending the rights of small businesses. Quite frankly, I believe I have, too, and others on the committee. I can understand Senator BOND's concern, legitimate concern about what would happen with the small businesses.

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