[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 72 (Tuesday, May 18, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5495-S5496]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. BOND (for himself, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Burns, Mr. 
        Voinovich, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Lott, 
        Mr. Nickles, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Mack, Mr. Coverdell, Ms. 
        Collins, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Abraham, Mr. 
        Gregg, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Helms, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Crapo, Mr. 
        Bennett, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Chafee, and 
        Mr. Brownback):
  S. 1070. A bill to require the Secretary of Labor to wait for 
completion of a National Academy of Sciences study before promulgating 
a standard, regulation or guideline or ergonomics; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


           sensible ergonomics needs scientific evidence act

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today as chairman of the Senate 
Committee on Small Business to introduce the Sensible Ergonomics Needs 
Scientific Evidence Act of SENSE Act. This bill calls on the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to do the sensible 
thing--wait for sound science before imposing new ergonomics 
regulations on small businesses. If enacted, the SENSE Act would 
require OSHA to wait for the results of a study by the National Academy 
of Sciences (NAS) before issuing proposed or final regulations, 
standards or guidelines on ergonomics. As a native of Missouri, the 
``Show Me State,'' waiting for the NAS study makes good sense to me.
  In introducing the SENSE Act, I am pleased to be joined by numerous 
colleagues from all across the country--including Senators Enzi, 
Jeffords, Burns, Voinovich, Snowe, Ashcroft, McConnell, Lott, Nickles, 
Hutchinson, Mack, Coverdell, Collins, Shelby, Kyl, Fitzgerald, Abraham, 
Gregg, Hutchison, Helms, Bunning, Crapo, Bennett, DeWine, Hagel, 
Sessions, and Chafee. These Senators, like me, agree with their small 
business constituents that it makes good sense for OSHA to wait for the 
results of the NAS study before proposing additional regulatory 
requirements for small businesses.
  Just last year, Congress and the President agreed to spend $890,000 
for NAS to undertake a thorough, objective, and de novo review of the 
scientific literature to examine the cause-and-effect relationship 
between repetitive tasks in the workplace and musculoskeletal 
disorders. The study is intended to achieve a scientific understanding 
of the conditions and causes of musculoskeletal disorders. The NAS has 
selected a panel of experts to conduct the study. The panel will 
examine the scientific data on the multiple factors and influences that 
contribute to musculoskeletal disorders and answer seven questions 
provided by Representatives Bonilla and Livingston. The NAS will 
complete its study by January 2001. As intended by Congress and the 
President, the NAS study will assist OSHA and the Congress in 
determining whether sound science supports a comprehensive ergonomics 
regulation as envisioned by OSHA.
  In theory, an ergonomics regulation would attempt to reduce 
musculoskeletal disorders, such as Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, muscle aches 
and back pain, which, in some instances, have been attributed to on-
the-job activities. However, the medical community is divided sharply 
on whether scientific

[[Page S5496]]

evidence has established a true cause-and-effect relationship between 
such problems and workplace duties. We need to understand the 
relationship between work and these injuries before moving forward.
  Regrettably, rather than waiting for NAS' findings, OSHA now plans to 
publish a proposed rule by September of 1999. In fact, OSHA officials 
have suggested that a final rule could be issued by the end of 2000--
just a few months before NAS will complete its study. This simply 
doesn't make sense. The NAS study should identify scientific and 
medical studies that are based on sound science and provide solid 
scientific evidence regarding the causation of ergonomics injuries. Our 
intent is simply to ensure that the requirements of any ergonomics 
program proposed by OSHA are based on sound science and are effective 
to improve workplace safety and health. It only makes sense for OSHA to 
wait for the scientific and medical information needed to know whether 
it is headed down the right path.
  Waiting for the NAS study won't stop the progress being made as 
ergonomic principles are applied to the workplace. And, progress is 
being made. According to recent data from the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, the number of injuries and illnesses involving repeated 
trauma, strains, sprains, tears, and carpal tunnel syndrome are all on 
the decline. Employers are actively implementing measures to address 
ergonomic risk factors. The SENSE Act is in no way intended to 
discourage employers from continuing to implement voluntary measures 
where appropriate and effective. Similarly, the SENSE Act does not 
prevent OSHA from continuing to work on ergonomics. In fact, I would 
encourage OSHA to use the time prior to the completion of the NAS study 
to research ergonomics further, identify successful prevention 
strategies, and provide technical assistance. For those who would argue 
that waiting for the NAS study will result in more employees being 
injury, OSHA can exercise its enforcement authority under the General 
Duty Clause, Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 
to ensure a safe workplace and address any significant ergonomic 
hazards. My bill doesn't change that authority provided under current 
law.
  Simply put, the SENSE Act requires OSHA to wait for NAS to complete 
its study and submit the findings in a report to Congress. Congress 
would then have 30 days to review the final report before OSHA issues 
proposed or final regulations, standards or guidelines. From where I 
stand, it only makes sense for Congress and OSHA to have the benefit of 
the NAS study before OSHA proposes to require employers to implement a 
comprehensive program addressing musculoskeletal disorders.
  Tomorrow in the other body, the compansion bill to the SENSE Act is 
scheduled for mark up. H.R. 987, known as the ``Workplace Preservation 
Act,'' was introduced by Representantive Roy Blunt from Missouri on 
March 4. Representative Blunt is doing an excellent job shepherding his 
bill through the other body. In fact, his efforts have produced a 
bipartisan list of 138 cosponsors. I expect the Senate to show similar 
support for our Nation's small businesses.
  I urge my collagues in the Senate to take a good look at the SENSE 
Act and join us in supporting legislation to ensure that the federal 
government does not propose an ergonomics regulation for small 
businesses until Congress can assess the findings of the NAS study.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Sensible Ergonomics Needs Scientific 
Evidence (SENSE) Act be printed at this point in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record as follows:

                                S. 1070

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Sensible Ergonomics Needs 
     Scientific Evidence Act'' or the ``SENSE Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Department of Labor, through the Occupational 
     Safety and Health Administration (referred to in this Act as 
     ``OSHA''), has announced that it plans to propose regulations 
     during 1999 to regulate ``ergonomics'' in the workplace. A 
     draft of OSHA's ergonomics regulation became available in 
     February 19, 1999.
       (2) In October, 1998, Congress and the President agreed 
     that the National Academy of Sciences shall conduct a 
     comprehensive study of the medical and scientific evidence 
     regarding musculoskeletal disorders. The study is intended to 
     evaluate the basic questions about diagnosis and causes of 
     such disorders. Given the uncertainty and dispute about these 
     basic questions, and Congress' intention that they be 
     addressed in a comprehensive study by the National Academy of 
     Sciences, it is premature for OSHA to propose a regulation on 
     ergonomics as being necessary or appropriate to improve 
     workers' health and safety until such study is completed.
       (3) An August, 1998, workshop on ``work related 
     musculoskeletal injuries'' held by the National Academy of 
     Sciences reviewed existing research on musculoskeletal 
     disorders. It showed that there is insufficient evidence to 
     assess the level of risk to workers from repetitive motions.
       (4) A July, 1997, report by the National Institute for 
     Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) reviewing 
     epidemiological studies that have been conducted of ``work 
     related musculoskeletal disorders of the neck, upper 
     extremity, and low back'' showed that there is insufficient 
     evidence to assess the level of risk to workers from 
     repetitive motions. Such evidence would be necessary to write 
     an efficient and effective regulation.

     SEC. 3. DELAY OF STANDARD, REGULATION OR GUIDELINE.

       The Secretary of Labor, acting through the Occupational 
     Safety and Health Administration, may not propose or issue in 
     final form any standard, regulation, or guideline on 
     ergonomics until--
       (1) the National Academy of Sciences--
       (A) completes a peer-reviewed scientific study, as mandated 
     by Public Law 105-277, of the available evidence examining a 
     cause and effect relationship between repetitive tasks in the 
     workplace and musculoskeletal disorders or repetitive stress 
     injuries; and
       (B) submits to Congress a report setting forth the findings 
     resulting from such study; and
       (2) the expiration of the 30-day period beginning on the 
     date on which the final report under paragraph (1)(B) is 
     submitted to Congress.
                                 ______