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
Rhode Island Committee on Occupational Safety and Health.
[Page: S12171] GPO's PDF
Rochester Council on Occupational Safety and Health.
San Diego State University, Graduate School of Public Health.
South Central Wisconsin Committee on Occupational Safety and Health.
Southeast Michigan Coalition on Occupational Safety and Health.
University of Puerto Rico School of Public Health.
Western New York Council on Occupational Safety and Health.
Wider Opportunities for Women.
Wisconsin Committee on Occupational Safety and Health.
Women Work! The National Network for Women's Employment.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this letter is dated September 27, 1999. It comes from a long list of organizations that comprise the American Public Health Association.
Reading the introductory paragraphs will make it clear where they stand, in opposition to the Bond amendment:
We are deeply concerned about S. 1070, legislation that would not only block OSHA from issuing an ergonomics standard, but even from issuing voluntary guidelines to protect working men and women from ergonomic hazards, the biggest safety and health problem facing workers today.
We strongly support OSHA's efforts to promulgate a standard to protect workers from ergonomic injuries and illnesses. These disorders are real, they are serious and they account for nearly a third of all serious job related injuries (more than 600,000 workers a year); moreover, they are preventable. One type, carpal tunnel syndrome, alone results in workers losing more time from their jobs than any other type of injury, including amputations. The worker's compensation costs of ergonomic injuries are estimated at $20 billion annually, the overall costs at $60 billion.
For women workers, OSHA's efforts are particularly important, because nearly half of all injuries and illnesses among women workers result from ergonomic hazards. Though these hazards are present in a variety of jobs, many of the occupations predominantly occupied by women are among the hardest hit by ergonomic injuries.
Why is it when it comes to this floor and the battle is worth fighting, if the well-heeled special interest groups with the strongest lobbies can come in, whether it is an oil company trying to avoid paying its fair share of royalties to drill for oil on public lands or other large companies, we take the time and end up giving the special favors, but when it comes to women in the workplace, minorities in the workplace, time and time again this Senate, this Congress, will cut a corner and say, ultimately: Perhaps we ought to give the benefit of the doubt to the employer, perhaps we ought to ignore the 600,000 who are injured?
As one who spent a small part of my life in the workplace, that standard is upside down. If the Senate in Washington, DC, is not here to protect those who are voiceless, then we have lost our bearings completely. This issue goes to the heart of that debate.
The General Accounting Office has found employers can reduce costs and injuries associated with musculoskeletal disorders and improve not only employee health but productivity and product quality.
When workers know their employer cares enough about them to make the workplace safer for them, it is a clear and strong message to them that increases employee morale. The time has come for the other side of the aisle to make good on its promise to the American people. The leader in the candidacy for the Presidency on the Republican side, Gov. George W. Bush of Texas, claims he is a compassionate conservative. During the course of this campaign, we will try to figure out what that means.
Today, we can ask ourselves if we are seeing an exhibition of compassionate conservatism from the Republican side of the aisle. I think not. With this amendment, I think we see an effort to turn our backs on people who need compassion, understanding, and protection.
Last year, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Robert Livingston of Louisiana, and his ranking Democratic member, DAVID OBEY of Wisconsin, made it clear in a letter to the Secretary of Labor:
..... by funding the National Academy of Sciences study [on this issue], it is no way our intent to block or delay issuance by OSHA of a proposed rule on ergonomics .
The reason I raise that is so those who are following the debate understand that this attempt at delay is nothing new. I have the letter. The letter makes it clear that both the Democratic and Republican leaders on the House Appropriations Committee last year made it clear they wanted to go forward with the rule or a standard of protection on these types of injuries.
I ask unanimous consent the letter be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,
Washington, DC, October 19, 1998.
Hon. Alexis Herman,
Secretary of Labor,
Washington, DC.
DEAR MADAM SECRETARY: Congress has chosen not to include language in the Fiscal Year 1999 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act that would prohibit OSHA from using funds to issue or promulgate a proposed or final rule on ergonomics . As you are well aware, the Fiscal Year 1998 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act did contain such a prohibitiion, though OSHA was free to continue the work required to develop such a rule.
Congress has also chosen to provide $890,000 for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to fund a review by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) of the scientific literature regarding work-related musculoskeletal disorders. We understand that OSHA intends to issue a proposed rule on ergonomics late in the summer of 1999. We are writing to make clear that by funding the NAS study, it is in no way our intent to block or delay issuance by OSHA of a proposed rule on ergonomics .
Sincerely,
Mr. DURBIN. Here we have the Bond amendment which says the deal is off. For the sake of some companies which do not protect their workers in the workplace and do not care to spend the money to do it, we are basically going to say we will establish no standards for workplaces across America. Senator GREGG, my colleague, proposed the new National Academy of Sciences study last September in committee. Then he stated, ``..... the study does not in any way limit OSHA'' in moving forward with the ergonomic standard.
By the way, this study asks exactly the same seven questions the previous study asked. Even Chairman STEVENS of Alaska stated, ``There is no moratorium under this agreement.''
So we are told the Department is supposed to go forward in establishing these standards. Along comes the Bond amendment. I remind my colleagues, the Bond amendment stops the Department of Labor in its tracks. It prohibits that department, OSHA, from promulgating or continuing the rulemaking process, issuing any standard, regulation, or guidelines regarding ergonomics for a year.
So the deal has been changed. The losers in this bargain are the workers across America who expect us to care and expect us to respond. I think it is time to bring an end to this charade. We have a real problem. We need real solutions. Workers across this country need real protection. The Bond amendment removes the possibility of establishing this standard of protection.
A few weeks ago I was visited by Madeleine Sherod. Madeleine is a victim of these injuries, a mother of five children who are now all grown. She has worked for an Illinois paint company for 20 years.
When she started, she literally lifted and moved work stations from one area of the plant to another. This job consisted of lifting several different sizes and weights of boxes. After several months of this type of work she transferred to the shipping department where she performed the duties of a warehouse worker. Her job consisted of driving a material handling truck and lifting cartons of paint that were packaged in various sizes and weights (5 gallon pails weighing approximately 20 lbs-90 lbs). She performed this job for at least 13 years. She later transferred to a job where she now operates several different pieces of machinery. She must keep the equipment operating efficiently--if the machinery breaks down then manual labor must be performed.
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.
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