[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 154 (Thursday, November 4, 1999)]
[House]
[Page H11554]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              PROPOSED OSHA REPETITIVE MOTION REGULATIONS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, a short time ago I received a 
communication from an individual in my district, a gentleman who owns a 
number of small businesses. He is head of something called The Bailey 
Company in Golden, Colorado. It is an Arby's franchise.
  He writes: ``Our company opened its first Arby's restaurant in 1968 
at the corner of York and Colfax in Denver. Today we own and operate 63 
Arby's restaurants in Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Wyoming, including all 
of the Arby's in the Metro-Denver area.''
  He goes on to explain what happened in his business a short time ago, 
and this I want to bring to the attention of the House and our 
colleagues in order to explain the problems we are going to face and we 
do face in small businesses throughout the United States. And these 
problems will become exacerbated by the actions of OSHA as they have 
been many times in the past. I want to refer specifically to an event 
that occurred in Mr. Eagleton's business.
  ``As an employer of approximately 1,500 people, we are concerned 
about the proposed OSHA repetitive motion regulations. An employee, 
Mary, worked at an Arby's restaurant in Jefferson County, Colorado, in 
1998. On her first day of work, after 3 hours of light duty wrapping 
sandwiches in foil, she complained that her wrists hurt. An employee of 
the Bailey Company filled out a first report of injury and sent her to 
our designated treatment facility. Mary was diagnosed with repetitive 
motion injuries. The ensuing series of treatments evolved in a $100,000 
Worker's Compensation claim.
  ``The medical community is split on the legitimacy and causality of 
these injuries. For instance, athletes do repetitive exercises to 
strengthen their muscles; yet repetitive motion does not harm them. How 
does repetitive motion in other circumstances differ in the view of the 
courts?
  ``Our position is that the proposed OSHA repetitive motion 
regulations should not be funded until definitive scientific studies 
are concluded.''
  ``J. Mark Eagleton, Senior Manager/Director of Training and Personnel 
for The Bailey Company.''
  Mr. Speaker, even though what we have just heard here is replicated, 
unfortunately, far too many times throughout the country, OSHA is 
nonetheless pushing ahead with its ergonomic study. Even though the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that repetitive stress injuries are 
on a decline and have dropped 17 percent over the last 3 years, should 
we not at least have as much information as possible when developing 
Government policy? Should we not require Government agencies to use 
sound scientific information when reaching decisions that will affect 
our lives?
  Obviously, this is not the case. Once again, it is the Government-
knows-best attitude, an attitude that many Federal bureaucrats have 
unfortunately. It is an outrage and it should be stopped.
  In August, the House passed H.R. 987, the Workplace Preservation Act, 
which prohibits OSHA from implementing the ergonomics regulation until 
the academy completes its ongoing study slated to be released mid-2001. 
This is a common-sense step and one which Members of the House and the 
other body should support.

                          ____________________