Copyright 2000 The National Journal, Inc.
The National Journal
View Related Topics
June 17, 2000
SECTION: CONGRESS; Pg. 1913; Vol. 32, No. 25
LENGTH: 612 words
HEADLINE: A
Repetitive Problem in the House
BYLINE: David Baumann
BODY:
The issue of ergonomics has
confronted the House so many times
that it is causing members
repetitive stress. It might also be
affecting their
memories.
For years, Republicans and their business
allies have
questioned whether there is sufficient scientific evidence to
support the enactment of federal requirements for how employers
must
deal with employees suffering from repetitive-stress
injuries. After the Republicans took over Congress in 1995, Rep.
Henry
Bonilla, R-Texas, offered an annual appropriations
amendment that barred the
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration from working
on these ergonomics standards.
Bonilla's amendment
usually sparked contentious debate in
Congress and with the Clinton
Administration. But in 1995 and
1996, OSHA's ergonomics
rules were blocked. Then, as another
showdown over the issue loomed in 1997,
Bonilla and fellow House
Republican appropriators brokered a compromise:
They would
prohibit OSHA from proceeding with its rule for
only one more
year, during which they encouraged the agency to further study
the issue.
In a report accompanying the fiscal
1998 appropriations
bill for the Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education
departments, the House Appropriations Committee said this of the
deal: "The committee will refrain from any further restrictions
with
regard to the development, promulgation, or issuance of an
ergonomic
standard following fiscal year 1998."
House
Republicans have stuck to that commitment-until
now. The Labor-HHS
appropriations bill passed by the House on
June 14 prohibits
OSHA from issuing any final ergonomics
standards. Rep. Anne
Northup, R-Ky., offered the provision in the
Appropriations Committee last
month, and many members who also
sat on the panel in 1997 voted for it. Many
appropriators also
supported Northup's provision when it was challenged on
the House
floor on June 8.
The issue is an
important one for the National Federation
of Independent Business, which
recently issued a news release
with the headline "Small Business Will
Remember Any Votes to Deny
Protection from Costly Ergonomics Mandate." But
House Republican
appropriators did not mention the NFIB's election-year
threat
when asked about their recent votes.
Northup apparently does not think much of the 1997 deal
made by
then-Appropriations Chairman Bob Livingston, R-La., and
ranking member David
R. Obey, D-Wis. "It is absolutely
unconstitutional for one Congress to bind
the hands of another
Congress," declared Northup, who also criticized
OSHA for
drafting a rule "that was as sweeping as it could
be."
Appropriations Chairman C.W. "Bill" Young,
R-Fla., was
unaware of the 1997 agreement until after the committee vote in
May, a spokeswoman said. "Had he known about the agreement, he
probably
would have followed through on the earlier commitment,"
she said. "Since he
was not a party to it, he thought he did what
was right." Bonilla, for his
part, said he simply had agreed in
1997 not to bring up the ergonomics issue
again but that should
not have stopped any other lawmaker from doing so.
The Senate may not go along with the House's attempt
to
block OSHA's ergonomics standards, which the agency
would like to
issue by year's end, and the White House will surely object.
In
any event, Democrats such as Obey point to the House Republicans'
recent move as cause for concern. "If you can't count on a
member's word
in the future," said Obey, "then the lubricant that
leads to compromise
wears out."
LOAD-DATE: June 19, 2000