[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 29 (Wednesday, March 7, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H658-H667]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S.J. RES. 6, DISAPPROVING DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR RULE RELATING TO ERGONOMICS
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 79 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 79
Resolved, That upon receipt of a message from the Senate
transmitting the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 6) providing for
congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the
Department of Labor under chapter 8 of title 5, United States
Code, relating to ergonomics, it shall be in order without
intervention of any point of order to consider the joint
resolution in the House. The joint resolution shall be
considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce; and (2) one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). The gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Linder) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall); pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 79 is a closed rule providing for
consideration of S.J. Res. 6. This bill provides for congressional
disapproval of the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating
to ergonomics.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 79 provides for 1 hour of debate, equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Education and the Workforce. The rule also waives all
points of order against consideration of S.J. Res. 6 in the House.
Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without
instructions, as is the right of the minority.
Mr. Speaker, the ergonomics rule finalized by OSHA on November 14,
2000 is fatally flawed. This unworkable rule would require employers to
implement a full blown, company-wide ergonomics program based on the
report of just one injury by one employee.
{time} 1100
The ergonomic symptom need not even be caused by work activity, as
long as work activities aggravate it. Under this rule, employers could
end up responsible for workers' injuries sustained on the softball
field.
This regulation also undermines State workers' compensation laws by
creating a Federal workers' compensation system for musculoskeletal
disorders. The parallel workers' compensation system mandated by OSHA
for ergonomics injuries tramples on the State's ability to define what
constitutes a work-related injury.
It is important to understand that disapproving this regulation would
not permit the Department of Labor from revisiting ergonomics.
Secretary Chao has stated that she intends to pursue a comprehensive
approach to ergonomics, including new rulemaking that addresses the
fatal flaws in the current standard.
The Congressional Review Act was made for regulations like the
Department of Labor's ergonomics rule. This overly burdensome and
impractical ergonomics standard was imposed by the Clinton
administration as part of the same pattern of regulatory overreach that
held employers responsible for unsafe conditions in telecommuters' home
offices. By disapproving the ergonomics standard, Congress can support
the voluntary efforts of employers who have made real reductions in
ergonomics injuries and allow OSHA to focus on developing reasonable
and workable ergonomics protections for the workplace.
Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
will no doubt insist that the rule does not allow for sufficient time
for debate. In fact, the question before us is straightforward. Does
OSHA's ergonomics rule overly constrain employers without
[[Page H659]]
providing real benefits to employees? If Members confine their remarks
to the matter at hand, which is the acceptance of the rule, there will
be sufficient time to this question.
This rule was approved by the Committee on Rules yesterday, and I
urge my colleagues to support it, so that we may proceed with general
debate and consideration of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder)
for yielding me the time. I rise to oppose this closed rule. The rule
will allow for the consideration of S.J. Res. 6. This is a resolution
that would overturn the new Federal regulation to reduce workplace
injuries.
Under this rule, no amendments may be offered. Debate time is limited
to only 1 hour.
Last November, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
issued an ergonomics standard that would require employers to take
steps to reduce work-related muscle, back and related bone disorders.
These disorders are often the result of heavy lifting, repetitive
motion and awkward working positions.
The standard was issued after 10 years of discussion and study. It is
intended to reduce the enormous number of job-related ergonomics
injuries. An estimated 1.8 million Americans suffer from these kinds of
disorders, and about one-third of these works require time off as a
result of their injuries. The standard is aimed at improving the health
of workers, as well as improving productivity.
It is a good regulation. It is based on sound scientific studies. It
will prevent hundreds of thousands of work-related injuries. If we
approve this resolution, we will kill the regulation.
The regulation does not go into effect until next October, and by
killing it now we are not even giving the regulation a chance to work.
Mr. Speaker, I am particularly concerned that we are acting through
the special authority created by the Congressional Review Act to
overturn Executive Branch regulations. I believe that never before has
Congress used this authority.
The resolution we are considering was brought up suddenly. In fact,
Members of the Committee on Rules had only about an hour's notice last
night before it came to the committee.
The rule we are now considering permits only 1 hour of debate for the
disapproval resolution. That is woefully inadequate, considering the
importance of this issue to the American worker.
Because Congress has never used the Congressional Review Act, we are
now establishing the procedural precedent that could be followed in the
future. It is not a good precedent.
American workers deserve better treatment than this shabby attempt to
deny them important protection from job-related injuries, and the
American people deserve more deliberation from their representatives
when making sweeping changes in the law. I urge my colleagues to defeat
the rule and the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Kentucky (Mrs. Northup).
Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favor of this rule and
in favor of the invocation of the Congressional Review Act.
First of all, let us remember what the Congressional Review Act is
for. It is for remedying extraordinary rules that would cause extreme
damage in our country. It was signed by the former President. It was
agreed to by both Chambers of Congress, and it was seen to be a good
way to address a problem that might come up and be needed in the
future. And if ever it is needed, today it is needed.
We have a new rule that has been promulgated that would cause extreme
damage to our workplace. Let us admit it, we are a land of prosperity
right now primarily because of our workers. Let us give our workers
their just due.
They go to work every day. They are hard working. They are
productive. They work smart, and they are dependable. It is those
qualities that have remade our economy from the years where we wondered
whether we could be internationally competitive, and it is those
workers that have worked so hard, worked so smart, been so dependable
that are at the core of the prosperity that Americans all over this
country enjoy.
The worst thing we can do as a government is to create regulations
that would be so high in costs that they would push our best jobs
outside of this country. It is a reoccurring challenge that we face
every day to keep good jobs here in this country. We ought to dedicate
ourselves to it.
As I have seen workers and companies do in my district that have
reversed decisions, in fact, to keep work on shore in this country, in
my community instead of transferring it offshore, we have to work
harder at that, and we have to be very careful that as we all work
towards what we believe in that we do not create a rule that has the
law of unintended consequences, of pushing our best jobs out of this
country. That would be a terrible thank you to the workers of this
country that have meant so much to our prosperity and will mean so much
to our children's prosperity.
Let us all say it and say it again, we are all for the same thing, we
are for safe workplaces. We are for healthy workers, and we are here to
make sure that investments in our economy are important so that we can
balance both safe workplaces and healthy workers and keeping our jobs
on shore.
Mr. Speaker, I am from the position that I believe we can have both,
prosperity, healthy workers and keep jobs in this country. Some people
do not believe that is possible, but the workers in this country are
the very best. They deserve an environment where they can keep the good
jobs that they have earned and prospered in.
Mr. Speaker, this regulation was passed in the final days of the last
administration. It was passed in a hurry. It did not review the law of
unintended consequences, and it did not consider what the costs would
be to the economy.
Mr. Speaker, I have six children. They are ages 19 to 29, and they
believe that this country and the jobs that they are going to have in
the future will mirror the good jobs that my generation has had and
depended on so that they can raise families and buy their first home
and enjoy the benefits that our good jobs and our best workers have
made possible for us.
Please, let us not let our government tinker around in a regulation
that would cost so much money, that would drive the cost of every good
up, that would reduce our ability to be internationally competitive,
that would make older workers and I want to say middle-aged workers,
because that is where I consider myself, impossible to employ for the
fear that workplaces would be wary of the costs they would incur to
accommodate those workers.
We have to protect the workplace for our workers, they are the best
for our country.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this
rule and to the resolution for overturning the new OSHA standards for
worker safety. Repealing this standard would not only eliminate this
important worker protection, but it would effectively prohibit OSHA
from ever issuing a similar standard to protect workers from
musculoskeletal disorders. How appalling.
OSHA's standards for worker safety is critically important to working
men and women. The lives of workers who suffer from disorders like
carpal tunnel syndrome, tendinitis or back injuries are changed
forever. Many workers lose their jobs, are permanently unemployed or
forced to take severe pay cuts in order to continue working. This
injustice must end.
As a public health nurse, I know how debilitating these injuries and
illnesses can be. For example, nursing home employees experienced more
on-the-job back injuries as a percentage of their overall injuries than
any other occupation. Most of them are women.
Mr. Speaker, I support the OSHA standard because it is based on sound
science and good employer practices. It is the most effective means to
prevent workplace injuries. And under this standard, I believe that
businesses will
[[Page H660]]
save money in the long run through reduced workers claims for
compensation and other health insurance claims.
Mr. Speaker, I am so disappointed that Congress is attempting to
repeal this important safeguard and to deny significant medical and
scientific findings. These objective studies all agree that workers
need safety protection for repetitive motion injuries. Injuries like
these are only going to increase in our economy as so many sit at
computers or stand at assembly lines.
It is time to stop the pain, to start the healing and to protect
workers from workplace injuries. Let us vote down this rule and this
resolution.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Linder) for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and in opposition to
this proposal to undo a set of regulations that I believe will be
beneficial not only to American workers but to small businesses.
Some 25 years ago, before I came to this body, I did a lot of
workers' compensation work in the practice of law on behalf of
employees, and we were light-years behind at that time, because I
remember in North Carolina litigating the first case that established
carpal tunnel syndrome as an occupational disease under the North
Carolina Workers' Compensation law.
What was required on one side, on my side, the employee's side, was a
group of experts that connected these injuries to conditions in the
workplace, and on the employer side, a group of experts that denied
that there was any connection between the workplace setting and these
kinds of diseases. So what we would have is hours and hours and
thousands of dollars of expert opinion time on both sides of this
issue.
We got through that, and we set up a standard in North Carolina, and
we have gotten through that. And after 5 years of study now, we have
set up a standard at the national level, and what I am going to submit
to my colleagues is that while this undoing of regulations might be
beneficial to big businesses who have experts on their payroll
accessible to them at all points, small businesses are going to have to
go back to a situation where they have to go out and hire experts to
come in and defend these cases, and employees are going to be put to
the burden, financial and otherwise, of hiring experts.
It is going to be a swearing contest again in the absence of these
regulations. While I think what my colleagues on the Republican side
are trying to do will, in fact, benefit and advantage big business,
that is what they are all about, I do not think this is going to be
beneficial at all to small businesses.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is going to have a tremendously negative
impact on employees because there will be no standards, and we will be
turning the clock back and going back to a time when even in the face
of compelling and overwhelming scientific evidence each individual case
will have to be litigated separately with an absence of standards.
{time} 1115
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume
to respond that. With respect to litigation, these rules would begin it
all over again. Any little accident on a football field could be said
to hurt more when one is working and, therefore, is workplace related;
and, therefore, there is a requirement that the entire business has to
change its position, its offices to facilitate one injury.
With respect to whether big business is being helped by this or not,
most big businesses have made a mantra out of the phrase ``safety is
job one.'' Most big businesses have very few problems with safety. They
would be fine with this.
But most of the new jobs are created by small business. Perhaps 95
percent of the jobs created in the last 8 years were created by
entrepreneurs who started with one employee and hopefully ended up with
50. They are the ones who are going to be the most burdened by these
rules.
Let me lastly say that we are not least in the interest of harming
workers. We are neither in the interest of harming workers or reducing
the ability of OSHA through the Labor Department to come up with some
real protections regarding ergonomics; we are opposed to this
overreaching intrusive rule that could shut down businesses.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. George Miller).
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, what is taking place
here today is not terribly complicated. It is pretty straightforward.
It is an unapologetic assault on some of the hardest working men and
women in this country. It is an assault on the right to be pain free in
their job. It is an assault on their right not to be injured on their
job. It is an assault on their right to provide the wherewithal for
their families.
Because the workers who suffer these workplace injuries lose wages,
they lose hours, and they lose jobs, which means they cannot provide
what they want for their families.
But the Republicans in the Congress have decided that they are going
to assault these workplace rules in spite of all the science, in spite
of all the evidence, in spite of all the medical testimony about the
terrible toll that these workplace injuries take upon America's working
men and women, and disproportionately on women. Women are 40 percent of
the work force. There is over 63 percent of the injuries.
They have decided also that, not only are they going to assault
America's workers, they are going to insult America's workers. They are
going to insult them in the manner in which they bring this to the
floor of the Congress. They are not going to use a procedure that
allows for 10 hours of debate so those who are pro this regulation and
against this regulation can debate it. But they have decided we will
only be given 1 hour of debate. That will be a half an hour on each
side for 435 Members of Congress.
So they are going to take 10 years of work, 10 years of scientific
study, 10 years of medical evidence, 10 years of worker testimony and
business testimony, and they are going to overturn it in 1 hour of
debate.
Now, I guess one could argue that maybe the Republicans do not know
who these workers are. They do not see them with the wrist braces, with
the finger braces, with the elbow brace, with the shoulder braces, with
their arms in a sling, with the back braces. They do not see them at
Home Depot. They do not see them at Wal-Mart. They do not see them at
United Airline as they are making out their tickets or as their flight
attendants on their airplane are serving them meals or the people who
handle their baggage.
They do not see them when the UPS driver comes by or the FedEx worker
comes by and drops off their packages and is wearing a brace on their
arm. They do not see them in the lumber mills. They do not see them as
the health-care attendants and the nurses in our hospitals. They do not
see them in the Safeway stores, the checkers at the stand who are
wearing braces on their arms because of repetitive motion injuries to
them.
They do not see these workers when it is painful for them to get into
the car to drive to work because their arms and their wrists and their
hands are so badly damaged from being a key punch operator. They do not
see them when they get into their cars painfully to drive home. They do
not see them when they get into their house and they cannot pick up
their children because their arms are so badly damaged from repetitive
motion or their back is badly damaged from repetitive motion or from
loads on their back.
Somehow the Republicans do not see these individuals. But America
sees them. We see them when we fly. We see them when we go to the
supermarket. We see them when we go to the hardware store. We see them
in the hospitals as they take care of members of our family. We see
them as they turn over a patient in bed. And they are wearing braces on
their arms because of these kinds of workplace injuries, the very same
injuries that Republicans are insisting now that American
[[Page H661]]
workers do not have the right of protection from.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Kentucky (Mrs. Northup).
Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, in this new atmosphere of bipartisanship,
I am going to avoid being insulted by the claim of the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller), the previous speaker, that somehow we
do not see these things.
But I do for the record want to make a note that my daughter, who
works for UPS from 4 a.m. to 8 a.m. in the morning actually had two of
these braces on her hand. She does suffer from carpal tunnel syndrome.
As a credit to the company, they do every single thing they can in
terms of job rotation, in terms of remediation in remedying this
problem.
How dare we, how dare we act as though we do not care about these
workers or that they are not our own daughters and our own sons.
Let me just say that, first of all, I would like to respond to the
fact that this will save money. If this rule would really save money,
then the Federal Government ought to apply this rule to its own
workers. One may notice that the Labor cabinet does not inflict this
rule on Federal employees, which means that, if there is money to be
saved, our taxpayers will not save this money that could be saved.
Why would we ever apply something to the private workplace and not
apply it to Federal workers and hold Federal employers responsible at
exactly the same level that we hold the private workplace?
Let me also congratulate the workplaces that are already spending
enormous sums of money to address this issue. All of us know in
workplaces that, where we are, maybe in our own offices, I might add,
where we have spent money to address these problems, we are to
recognize that, as a country, we are addressing this problem.
But the big problem here is that, as we address this problem, because
let us face it, in our economy, we need every worker we can get. It is
important to us that we keep them healthy and able to work so that we
are able to keep our economy growing.
But there is someplace where there is not every worker working. There
are places overseas where they are desperate to have our jobs and they
are eager for our data processing jobs and they would be glad to have
them at the less cost. It is very easy to transfer those jobs overseas;
and with one click of the mouse, one can send all that processed
information back into this country and not have the unreasonable cost
that this rule invokes.
This problem is not that we went on 10 years, it is that we had a
Labor cabinet that was totally tone deaf. They did not learn anything
from all of the testimony they took. They were determined to take an
idea that was hatched back in the early 1990s, and let us give
Elizabeth Dole credit for the first person that raised this issue and
had a good idea about ergonomic problems, and hijacked it and took it
in a very wrong direction.
There is no balance to this rule. That is why we are here today
because 10 years have been wasted by somebody that never listened to
what the balance was in this issue.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to bringing this
resolution forward, Senate Joint Resolution 6 to the floor. This
legislation would repeal the worker-safety standards recently
established by OSHA. Remember, it took 10 long years to get here. We
studied this thing to death.
The worker-safety standards are critically important to preventing
work-related injuries, and it is shameful that the Republican majority
is trying to overturn them.
Maybe those of us in Congress do not have to worry about repetitive
injuries or forceful exertion or awkward postures because of the type
of work we do. But look at the stenographers right in front of us that
sit here day in and day out, does one not think that they might have
had some problems with carpal tunnel syndrome?
Take a look around your own offices. I know in my district office it
is very important that we have safety protections put in place.
Mr. Speaker, I know also in my district we have many constituents who
work in a hard and unsafe manner, many of them work in sweat shops,
many of them work for big garment industries, they work 10 and 12 hours
sewing materials, barely being able to lift up their heads. Many of
them are women, many of them are new immigrants that come to this
country with the hope of prosperity in bringing up their families. They
sacrifice themselves for that. The least that we can do is provide them
with better protections in the workplace.
I know that myself and many of my colleagues in California have
worked hard to study this issue as well. As a member of the State
Senate and former chair of the labor committee there, we worked hard to
try to bring labor and businesses together on this.
Mr. Speaker, it is shameful to see that the Chamber of Commerce is
opposing this very important legislation.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for the
time, and as our ranking minority member said a few minutes ago, this
is not a very complicated issue. This is not an issue about basically
ergonomics and workforce problems with repetitive motion, this is an
issue about a rule that is absolutely awful. It is about a rule that
will stop repetitive motion injuries by making sure people cannot work.
It is a rule that must be rewritten in a fair and balanced way.
On November 14, 2000, OSHA finalized a fatally flawed rule that
regulates every motion in the workplace. But OSHA did not stop there.
As they did years ago with the blood-borne pathogen standard, OSHA also
created a Federal workers' compensation system that will undermine
State workers' compensation laws.
This ergonomics regulation simply cannot be salvaged as written. This
must be sent back to the drawing board, and that is what this debate is
about, that is what this vote is about. This is a bad rule. Let us
begin again and get it right.
Although OSHA tells us that this is an ergonomics regulation, this
regulation is not limited to those repetitive stress injuries generally
associated with ergonomics; no, this ergonomics regulation covers all
disorders of the muscles, the nerves, the tendons, the ligaments, the
joints, cartilage, blood vessels, and spinal disks.
To make matters worse, OSHA has made it nearly impossible in this
rule for an employer to claim that an injury is not work related. Any
MSD injury, no matter how caused, will be considered work related if
work makes it hurt. Think about that.
Instead of creating an ergonomics regulation that helps employers and
employees prevent repetitive stress syndrome, OSHA has created a rule
that makes employers responsible for softball injuries. Despite this
wide-open definition, OSHA felt that some employees would still find
some way to claim that softball injuries were not work related. So OSHA
made it illegal for employers to ask the employee's doctor about
nonwork causes of injury. Think about that.
Despite the extreme difficulty of determining the cause of any MSD
injury, OSHA requires employers to begin redesigning their workplaces
based upon the report of one injury by one employee. The single-injury
trigger raises the likelihood that employers will be required to embark
on expensive redesigns of their workplaces because of injuries that
were not caused at work. Think of the connotation of that and what it
does to jobs.
OSHA was not content, however, to merely require expensive redesigns
of workplaces across the country, OSHA also set up a Federal workers'
compensation system that will undermine existing State workers'
compensation laws. OSHA has mandated a parallel workers' compensation
system for ergonomic injuries that will pay higher rates of
compensation than for other injuries covered by State workers'
compensation. Think about that.
{time} 1130
The tragedy of this regulation is that workers do suffer injuries
caused by repetitive stress. Fortunately, these injuries have declined
by 22 percent over the past 5 years, thanks to the voluntary efforts of
employers. Instead of
[[Page H662]]
building on these efforts, OSHA has issued a rule that assumes that
every employer is a bad actor that will not help its own employees,
even when it saves the employer money. Think about that.
By finalizing a regulation that is universally opposed by the
regulated community, OSHA has shown its contempt for employers, many of
whom have made a great effort to establish comprehensive, voluntary
ergonomic programs in the workplace. By disapproving the ergonomics
regulation, Congress can support the voluntary efforts of employers
that have brought real reduction in ergonomic injuries, and OSHA can
focus on promoting reasonable and workable ergonomic protections for
the workplace.
This is about eliminating a bad rule.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in the strongest opposition to this
abandonment of American workers. Elections have consequences, and today
the Republican leadership starts down a road on what I believe will be
a long list of repealing worker rights. It is shameful.
Today, the Republican leadership will sacrifice the health and safety
of hard-working Americans for pure political gain. This is nothing more
than Republicans paying back their big contributors who helped them get
all elected. It is certainly not compassionate, and the process being
used today to overturn workplace safety is not bipartisan.
Common sense tells us that workers are our most valuable asset.
Without them there are no corporate profits, without them there are not
going to be increasing stock prices, without them as the hard-working
engine there is no one fueling our economy. But Republicans argue that
it would cost companies too much to protect them, despite the fact that
these workplace injuries are already costing businesses $50 billion a
year and that there are 600,000 men and women suffering from such
injuries each year.
These are men and women who cannot prepare dinner for their families
or help dress their kids for school because their hands have been
crippled by repetitive-stress injuries; or who cannot have the joy of
picking up their child because of back injuries, injuries that are no
fault of the workers themselves.
To argue these protections were rushed through at the last minute is
to deny that more than 10 years ago this effort was started by a
Republican Labor Secretary. My colleagues should understand that if
they vote for this resolution they will repeal and strip away a right
American workers have now and that there will be no recourse.
American workers have been driving our Nation's economy. Today,
Republicans throw them in the back seat and take them for a ride. Vote
against the rule and the resolution. Protect America's workers. Help
our families and stand by what is right in making sure that that which
drives this economy, which is the labor of men and women, is preserved.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I just want to point out this does not repeal anything. This is
us standing up as the Congress of the United States and saying this
Federal agency wrote a bad rule. We have let them get away with this
over and over again.
This does not mean that Secretary Chao, the new Secretary, will not
write ergonomic regulations; but it does mean, however, we will repeal,
we will disagree, we will say the way they wrote these rules will not
do.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NORWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman clearly recognizes
that if we have a set of rules that protect workers today and we repeal
them we are taking away a right they presently have.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman does
recognize that this set of rules may well not protect workers because
they may not have a job in which to be protected.
OSHA people are not going to Mexico and they are not going to Canada
to check on them. We need to write a set of rules that will encourage
employers in the workplace to be healthy and safe, including ergonomic
rules. But this rule is a bad rule, and that is all we are talking
about.
The Labor Department issued a bad rule. Let us get rid of it and
write a good rule.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, Republicans have a bad reputation for
supporting the rich and the powerful and disregarding the needs and
concerns of low-wage workers, poor people, and working people in
general; and they have wasted no time in attempting to repeal worker
safety standards.
I am surprised that they would move so quickly and so blatantly to do
this. This attempt by Republicans to disapprove the results of the
congressionally mandated OSHA study is a blatant example again of the
extent the Republicans will go to protect those corporate interests.
During all of this delay and these delaying tactics, over 600,000
workers suffered injuries caused by repetitive motion, heavy lifting,
and forceful exertion. These kinds of injuries affect every sector of
the economy: nurses, who are lifting people, rolling over the sick,
taking care of their bed sores; cashiers who stand there all day
punching and counting and adding; computer operators.
Everybody knows about this. Members should talk to the computer
operators in their own offices, talk to their office workers. Many of
them are requiring special equipment to work with to protect them.
Truck drivers, construction workers and meat cutters, all of these
people are affected; and we should want to do something to help the
workers that basically make the least amount of money, that are the
most vulnerable, the ones who have the least dollars to take care of
their families with to get the kind of medical help that they need to
address these kinds of issues. I think it is obvious.
I certainly hope that the Members of this House will not support this
disapproval resolution by the opposite side of the aisle. I hope that
we can draw attention to what they are trying to do. American workers
deserve better than this.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I want to start out just asking a couple of questions here.
Should a grocery store employee be prohibited from bagging a turkey
that weighs more than 15 pounds? Now, I have a family of four, so if I
can find a 15 pound turkey, I am going to buy it. Now, my wife can pick
up a 15 pound turkey because she has been picking up four children.
Most kids quickly get to be in excess of 15 pounds. But let us just
think this through. Libby Kingston goes to the Piggly-Wiggly to buy the
15 pound turkey and she lifts it up; yet the 18-year-old football
player from Savannah High School, Johnny Simmons, cannot lift it from
the cashier to the bag.
Maybe we need to install forklifts at all the Piggly-Wigglys so that
we can get those 15 pound turkeys into the bags so that the mamas can
pick them right up and carry them and put them into the SUVs.
Another question. Should hospitals and nursing home employees be
restricted in their ability to help lift patients from their bed? I
have an employee right now whose father, very sadly, has suffered a
stroke, and he needs assistance when he goes to the bathroom. Now,
under these rules it is no problem, all an employee has to do is say,
Well, you are on your own. We know you had your stroke, but, good luck,
sorry, I am on break right now. That is what these rules do.
Should a worker be prohibited from spending more than 4 hours a day
at a keyboard? I am glad the previous speaker said her employees seem
to be suffering from this every day at the word processors. I do not
know, but maybe she should move them to another job. My folks over at
the first district of Georgia, they can spend 4 hours a day at a
keyboard. And if they cannot, they can tell me and we can work it out.
Here is one of the questions. Maybe not all employees should be
picking up
[[Page H663]]
15 pound turkeys, maybe not all employees in hospitals should be
helping patients go to the bathroom, and maybe not all employees should
be sitting at a keyboard for 4 hours; but that, my colleagues, should
be the decisions made locally at the place of employment, not by some
bureaucrat in Washington who knows everything.
What is it with the Democrat Party that they think the wizards of Oz
are in Washington, D.C. and that they should dictated to all the
businesses all over the country who should do what, when they should do
it, and how they should do it?
I will give another example. A couple of years ago this same outfit
came into my district and told a woman who runs a courier service with
two cars, she takes packages from the north side of town to the south
side of town, it is real complicated business, from a government
standpoint, they came in and told her that she would need to have a
smoking and a nonsmoking car for her smoking and nonsmoking employees
to deliver packages to smoking and nonsmoking businesses. She said,
``Guys, I only have two cars. I can figure this out in Savannah,
Georgia. Why don't you all go back to Washington and solve real
problems. Get a real life.''
All this is about is common sense. We are not pulling out the rug on
workers' safety. This is saying there is still going to be Federal
worker-protection laws. There will still be State worker-protection
laws. There will be all kinds of insurance and business premises rules
and regulations.
I know it is hard for some people to understand, but there are
business owners and entrepreneurs who do not want their employees hurt.
Hey, what a revolutionary thought for the liberal party.
The fact is the National Academy of Sciences was coming out with
rules and regulations on ergonomics; but the Clinton folks, on their
way out of town, along with pardoning a lot of people at 2 in the
morning, decided, hey, lets jam this through on the small businesses
and the entrepreneurs of America on the way out of town, and let the
next administration try to make sense of it.
That is all this legislation does. It lets the current administration
try to make some sense, some common sense, out of another bureaucratic
nightmare out of Washington, D.C.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, can the Chair tell me how much time we
have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Hall) has 13\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Linder) has 8 minutes remaining.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me this time, and to the previous speaker I would say, I am not the
Wizard of Oz, I am Dorothy, and I am pulling the cloak off the wizard
to let you know that the rule here, the disapproval resolution, does
not only rescind the rule, it prohibits issuance of a similar rule. A
bad rule.
I am worried about my mother, 80 years old, who folded boxes for a
company. Her hand looks like this. I have said this on the floor
before. It is like this because she cannot move it as a result of the
repetitive motion of folding a box. Let us make the argument that
instead of just saving money for companies, we might save the health
care costs for all these workers who are stuck like this, or stuck like
this, from doing repetitive motion.
Wake up, Republican Party. Understand that we are not saying
Republican-Democrats. We are for workers. Democrat-Republican, black-
white, male-female, old-young. Lifting a turkey? Lifting a turkey all
day every day may present a problem. Women can lift babies, all women
have lifted babies forever; but maybe that is the problem they have
currently as a result of doing the repetitive motion.
We are Dorothy, not the Wizard.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the
resolution.
I came to Congress to represent the working men and women of
Minnesota's fourth district, and they deserve the right to be protected
in the workplace.
{time} 1145
This resolution denies American workers the protection that they need
from needless injuries. Repetitive motion injuries are painful and they
are crippling. These injuries disproportionately impact women and
workers in low wage jobs. The good news is that these injuries are
preventable. My largest employer in the Fourth District, 3M, has
reported that following the implementation of an ergonomics program,
they reduced lost time injuries by 58 percent.
The fact that the voices of millions of American workers have been
restricted to 1 hour of debate is also an insult. This procedure not
only repeals the ergonomic rule but will effectively prohibit OSHA from
issuing workplace safety standards on this issue. That is the legacy of
this resolution. As a result, millions of Americans will be needlessly
injured.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker from the Democratic
side made the point very nicely that if you will not have onerous
rules, the workforce today, the employers today recognize the value of
having workforce protections, and they have indeed. There is no
question about it. Left alone, they have reduced repetitive motion
stress in the workplace. But you are not going to get it reduced any
further with the kind of onerous rule we are putting on them now.
Remember what this is. This is about repealing a bad rule. It is not
about making ergonomics go away. Lastly, I would simply add, it dawned
on me as I was listening about the 15-pound turkey. I am more
interested in the 15-pound child. What about the mothers all across
America that have a 15-pound baby who is 8 months, 10 months old? What
are we going to do next? In leaving the Labor Department to its own
devices, we might. Should the Federal Government furnish a helper for
every mother in America that has a 15-pound child that she lifts up and
down all day?
There are things in life we have to do in terms of our workforce. Can
we make those better? Yes, of course we can make them better. It is
pretty clear to me that the small businesses and large businesses of
America are working on that, but we are not going to help them at all
if we pass this rule. Let us get rid of a bad rule. For once let us say
a Federal agency has written a bad rule and a bad regulation that will
not solve the problem and let us try to relook at that and see if in
fact we can help the workforce.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Baca).
(Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise against the rule. It is a shameful act
that is being committed against the American worker this week. The
Republicans have decided to strip away worker safety rules, protections
we have fought hard for for working families across America. These
protections have been under development for over a decade. In fact,
they were initiated by former President Bush. They save money in the
long term by reducing workplace injuries and keeping workers'
compensation costs down. Many businesses have already adopted programs
to reduce injuries. But opponents have repeatedly tried to block these
protections. As a result, over 6 million workers have suffered injuries
that could have been prevented. This affects everybody, nurses,
construction workers, white collar workers. This is an attack on the
American worker. We should oppose this cowardly effort.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Owens).
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to the
effort to repeal the ergonomics standard. As the ranking Democrat on
the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, I have followed this
deliberation for the last 5 years. I have in my hand a chronology which
shows it has gone on for 10 years. We have been considering what we
should do about ergonomics.
[[Page H664]]
Reasonable people, reasonable legislators, scientists, we have all
been involved in this since August of 1990. At that time the Republican
Secretary of Labor, Elizabeth Dole, committed herself to taking the
most effective steps necessary to address the problem of ergonomic
hazards on an industrywide basis and to begin rulemaking on an
ergonomics standard. Secretary Dole said this is ``one of the Nation's
most debilitating across-the-board worker safety and health illnesses
of the 1990s.''
The present Republican majority committed themselves to complying
with the results of a study. We get one study and then they want
another. I think we appropriated about a million dollars for the last
study requested by the Republican majority. Now we are engaged in a
process which says we are not interested in reason, logic, science, we
are going to use brute political force. As Newt Gingrich says, politics
is war without blood. We have the numbers, we have an army of business
lobbyists behind us, and we are just going to overwhelm the Congress
and make a decision which is inhumane and an unwise decision.
A 10-year process ended in January of this year when the ergonomics
standard was issued. In the same month, the results of a study was
released and the scientists said again, in its second report in 3 years
on musculoskeletal disorders, the report confirms that musculoskeletal
disorders are caused by workplace exposures to risk factors, including
heavy lifting, repetition, force and vibration and that interventions
incorporating elements of OSHA's ergonomics standard have been proven
to protect workers from ergonomic hazards.
I have copies of this chronology for all people who have forgotten,
especially those members of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce. What we are experiencing today is the beginning of warfare
on a large scale which has a psychological significance. It is very
strategic. After we roll over ergonomics, it is going to be Davis-
Bacon's prevailing wage act. It is going to be onward marching toward
the elimination of any consideration of any minimum wage from now until
this administration goes out of power.
This is war. It is war on the working families of America. You are
declaring war. The working families of America need to understand this.
The only way this war is going to be won is to let it be understood
that the overwhelming power that appears to be in place for the
Republicans in Washington at this point will not be utilized to wipe
out all the gains we have made over the years for working families.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following material for the Record:
Chronology of OSHA's Ergonomics Standard
August 1990--In response to statistics indicating that RSIs
are the fastest growing category of occupational illnesses,
Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Dole commits the Labor
Department to ``taking the most effective steps necessary to
address the problem of ergonomic hazards on an industry-wide
basis'' and to begin rulemaking on an ergonomics standard.
According to Secretary Dole, there was sufficient scientific
evidence to proceed to address ``one of the nation's most
debilitating across-the-board worker safety and health
illnesses of the 1990's.''
July 1991--The AFL-CIO and 30 affiliated unions petition
OSHA to issue an emergency temporary standard on ergonomics.
Secretary of Labor Lynn Martin declines to issue an emergency
standard, but commits the agency to developing and issuing a
standard using normal rulemaking procedures.
June 1992--OSHA, under acting Assistant-Secretary Dorothy
Strunk, issues an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on
ergonomics.
January 1993--The Clinton Administration makes the
promulgation of an ergonomics standard a regulatory priority.
OSHA commits to issuing a proposed rule for public comment by
September 30, 1994.
March 1995--The House passes its FY 1995 rescission bill
that prohibits OSHA from developing or promulgating a
proposed rule on ergonomics. Industry members of the
Coalition on Ergonomics lobbied heavily for the measure.
Industry ally and outspoken critic of government regulation,
Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX), acts as the principal advocate of the
measure.
--OSHA circulates draft ergonomics standard and begins
holding stakeholders' meetings to seek comment and input
prior to issuing a proposed rule.
June 1995--President Clinton vetoes the rescission measure.
July 1995--Outspoken critic of government regulation Rep.
David McIntosh (R-IN) holds oversight hearings on OSHA's
ergonomics standard. National Coalition on Ergonomics members
testify. By the end of the hearing, McIntosh acknowledges
that the problem must be addressed, particularly in high risk
industries.
--Compromise rescission bill signed into law; prohibits
OSHA from issuing, but not from working on, an ergonomics
standard. Subsequent continuing resolution passed by Congress
continues the prohibition.
August 1995--Following intense industry lobbying, the House
passes a FY 1996 appropriations bill that would prohibit OSHA
from issuing, or developing, a standard or guidelines on
ergonomics. The bill even prohibits OSHA from requiring
employers to record ergonomic-related injuries and illnesses.
The Senate refuses to go along with such language.
November 1995--OSHA issues its 1996 regulatory agenda which
does not include any dates for the issuance of an ergonomics
proposal.
December 1995--Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) releases
1994 Annual Survey of Injuries and Illnesses which shows that
the number and rate of disorders associated with repeated
trauma continues to increase.
April 1996--House and Senate conferees agree on a FY 1996
appropriation for OSHA that contains a rider prohibiting the
agency from issuing a standard or guidelines on ergonomics.
The compromise agreement does permit OSHA to collect
information on the need for a standard.
June 1996--The House Appropriations Committee passes a 1997
funding measure (H.R. 3755) that includes a rider prohibiting
OSHA from issuing a standard or guidelines on ergonomics. The
rider also prohibits OSHA from collecting data on the extent
of such injuries and, for all intents and purposes, prohibits
OSHA from doing any work on the issue of ergonomics.
July 1996--The House of Representatives approves the Pelosi
amendment to H.R. 3755 stripping the ergonomics rider from
the measure. The vote was 216-205. Ergonomic opponents vow to
reattach the rider in the Senate or on a continuing
resolution.
February 1997--Rep. Henry Bonilla (R-TX) circulates a draft
rider which would prohibit OSHA from issuing an ergonomics
proposal until the National Academy of Sciences completes a
study on the scientific basis for an ergonomics standard. The
rider, supported by the new coalition, is criticized as a
further delay tactic.
--During a hearing on the proposed FY 1998 budget for the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Rep.
Bonilla questions Centers for Disease Control head David
Satcher on the scientific underpinnings for an ergonomics
standard. Bonilla submits more than 100 questions on
ergonomics to Satcher.
April 1997--Rep. Bonilla raises questions about OSHA's
plans for an ergonomics standard during a hearing on the
agency's proposed FY 1998 budget.
July 1997--NIOSH releases its report Musculoskeletal
Disorders and Workplace Factors. Over 600 studies were
reviewed. NIOSH concludes that ``a large body of credible
epidemiological research exists that shows a consistent
relationship between MSDs and certain physical factors,
especially at higher exposure levels.''
--California's ergonomics regulation is initially adopted
by the Cal/OSHA Standard Board, approved by the Office of
Administrative Law, and becomes effective. (July 3)
October 1997--A California superior court judge rules in
the AFL-CIO's favor and struck down the most objectionable
provisions of the CA ergonomics standard.
November 1997--Congress prohibits OSHA from spending any of
its FY 1998 budget to promulgate or issue a proposed or final
ergonomics standard or guidelines, with an agreement that FY
1998 would be the last year any restriction on ergonomics
would be imposed.
May 1998--At the request of Rep. Bonilla and Rep.
Livingston, The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) receives
$490,000 from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to
conduct a review of the scientific evidence on the work-
relatedness of musculoskeletal disorders and to prepare a
report for delivery to NIH and Congress by September 30,
1998.
August 1998--NAS brings together more than 65 of the
leading national and international scientific and medical
experts on MSDs and ergonomics for a two day meeting to
review the scientific evidence for the work relatedness of
the disorders and to assess whether workplace interventions
were effective in reducing ergonomic hazards.
October 1998--NAS releases its report Work-Related
Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Review of the Evidence. The NAS
panel finds that scientific evidence shows that workplace
ergonomic factors cause musculoskeletal disorders.
--Left as one of the last issues on the table because of
its contentiousness, in its massive Omnibus spending bill
Congress appropriates $890,000 in the FY 1999 budget for
another NAS study on ergonomics. The bill, however, freed
OSHA from a prohibition on the rulemaking that began in 1994.
This point was emphasized by a letter to Secretary of Labor
Alexis Herman from then Chair of the Appropriations Committee
Rep. Livingston and Ranking member Rep. Obey expressly
stating that the study was not intended to block or delay
OSHA from moving forward with its ergonomics standard.
December 1998--Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) releases
1997 Annual Survey of Injuries and Illnesses which shows that
disorders associated with repeated trauma continue to
[[Page H665]]
make up nearly two-thirds of all illness cases and
musculoskeletal disorders continue to account for one-third
of all lost-workday injuries and illnesses.
February 1999--OSHA releases its draft proposed ergonomics
standard and it is sent for review by small business groups
under the Small Business Regulatory and Enforcement Fairness
Act (SBREFA).
March 1999--Rep. Blunt (R-MO) introduces H.R. 987, a bill
which would prohibit OHSA from issuing a final ergonomics
standard until NAS completes its second ergonomics study (24
months).
April 1999--The Small Business Review Panel submits its
report on OSHA's draft proposed ergonomics standard to
Assistant Secretary Jeffress.
May 1999--The second NAS panel on Musculoskeletal Disorders
and the Workplace holds its first meeting on May 10-11 in
Washington, DC.
--Senator Kit Bond (R-MO) introduces legislation (S. 1070)
that would block OSHA from moving forward with its ergonomics
standard until 30 days after the NAS report is released to
Congress.
--House Subcommittee on Workforce Protections holds mark-up
on H.R. 987 and reports out the bill along party line vote to
forward it to Full Committee.
June 1999--House Committee on Education and the Workforce
holds mark-up on H.R. 987 and reports out the bill in a 23-18
vote.
August 1999--House votes 217-209 to pass H.R. 987,
preventing OSHA from issuing an ergonomics standard for at
least 18 months until NAS completes its study.
October 1999--Senator Bond offers an amendment to the LHHS
appropriations bill which would prohibit OSHA from issuing an
ergonomics standard during FY 2000. The amendment is
withdrawn after it becomes apparent that Democrats are set to
filibuster the amendment.
--The California Court of Appeals upholds the ergonomics
standard--the first in the nation--which covers all
California workers.
November 1999--Washington State Department of Labor and
Industries issues a proposed ergonomics regulation on
November 15 to help employers reduce ergonomic hazards that
cripple and injure workers.
--Federal OSHA issues the proposed ergonomics standard on
November 22. Written comments will be taken until February 1,
2000. Public hearings will be held in February, March, and
April.
February 2000--OSHA extends the period for submitting
written comments and testimony until March 2. Public hearings
are rescheduled to begin March 13 in Washington, DC followed
by public hearings in Chicago, IL and Portland, OR in April
and May.
March 2000--OSHA commences 9 weeks of public hearings on
proposed ergonomics standard.
May 2000--OSHA concludes public hearings on proposed
ergonomics standard. More than one thousand witnesses
testified at the 9 weeks of public hearings held in
Washington, DC, Chicago, Illinois, and Portland, Oregon. the
due date for post hearing comments is set for June 26; and
the due date for post hearing briefs is set for August 10.
--The House Appropriations Committee adopts on a party line
vote a rider to the FY 2001 Labor-HHS funding bill (H.R.
4577) that prohibits OSHA from moving forward on any proposed
or final ergonomics standard. The rider was adopted despite a
commitment made by the Committee in the FY 1998 funding bill
to ``refrain from any further restrictions with regard to the
development, promulgation or issuance of an ergonomics
standard following fiscal year 1998.''
June 2000--An amendment to strip the ergo rider from the FY
2001 Labor-HHS Appropriations bill on the House floor fails
on a vote of 203-220.
--The Senate adopts an amendment to the FY 2001 Labor-HHS
bill to prohibit OSHA from issuing the ergonomics rule for
another year by a vote of 57-41.
--President Clinton promises to veto the Labor-HHS bill
passed by the Senate and the House stating, ``I am deeply
disappointed that the Senate chose to follow the House's
imprudent action to block the Department of Labor's standard
to protect our nation's workers from ergonomic injuries.
After more than a decade of experience and scientific study,
and millions of unnecessary injuries, it is clearly time to
finalize this standard.''
October 2000--Republican negotiators agree to a compromise
that would have permitted OSHA to issue the final rule, but
would have delayed enforcement and compliance requirements
until June 1, 2001. Despite the agreement on this compromise,
Republican Congressional leaders, acting at the behest of the
business community, override their negotiators and refuse to
stand by the agreement.
November 2000--On November 14, OSHA issues the final
ergonomics standard.
--In an effort to overturn the ergonomics standard several
business groups file petitions for review of the rule. Unions
file petitions for review in an effort to strengthen the
standard.
December 2000--House and Senate adopt Labor-Health and
Human Services funding bill. The bill does not include a
rider affecting the ergonomics standard.
January 2001--Ergonomics standard takes effect January 16.
--NAS releases its second report in three years on
musculoskeletal disorders and the workplace. The report
confirms that musculoskeletal disorders are caused by
workplace exposures to risk factors including heavy lifting,
repetition, force and vibration and that interventions
incorporating elements of OSHA's ergonomics standard have
been proven to protect workers from ergonomic hazards.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I was prepared to respond to that, but I was
afraid I would laugh so hard I would hurt myself.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Norwood).
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, since supposedly Republicans are not
interested in reason or science, one might conclude that we have not
read the study done by the National Academy of Sciences and maybe
others have not, either. Let me just give my colleagues one little
quote out of that study: ``None of the common musculoskeletal disorders
is uniquely caused by work exposure.'' The study notes that nonwork
factors can cause MSD, also, which is why we believe this particular
rule and regulation, this particular standard, should be opposed.
I would like to point out that though President Bush and Secretary
Dole did bring to the forefront the discussion of workplace injuries
and repetitive motion syndrome, none of them approve of how we got
there with this rule. This is a bad set of rules and regulations that
will only worsen the problem, not make it better. Today let us
disapprove of the work that the Labor Department did over the last 8
years, because it will not do what we all want to do, which is to make
sure that our workplace is healthy and is safe.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NORWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman like a new study?
Mr. NORWOOD. I just quoted right out of the new study.
Mr. OWENS. Would he like another study? Or does he want to repeal it
forever and ever? This is off the table forever?
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am glad the gentleman
asked that because what we are basically saying is the Labor Department
last year issued a bad rule. We want the opportunity for the Secretary
of Labor and the Bush administration to look at this and issue a good
rule that in the end does help patients and does help workers in the
workplace.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, does that mean that the gentleman does not
agree with what the Senate passed?
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio of the Committee on Rules for yielding me this
time. I hope my words will carry forth through the general debate, and
I hope that they will be listened to and that my colleagues will come
to their senses and realize that we are not paid by the tax dollars of
the American people to kneel on bended knee to financial interests who
pay us to write their legislation.
Members can sense from my words that I am particularly outraged that
worker safety rules will fall today in the United States Congress. I am
not only outraged but I am saddened. It brings me to near tears that we
are so engaged with responding to special business interests that we
cannot accept the fact that 600,000 workers have suffered injury from
repetitive motion and heavy lifting. I say this in pain because I
watched my father, just a laborer, work for a great part of his life,
like most Americans, using a heavy pressing iron, up and down and up
and down, to be able to afford a good life at that time in our economy
for his family. As a young person, I worked in the United States Postal
Service. I am very proud of that. I did the kind of work that men and
women are doing every day in this country, up and down and up and down
and moving one's arm. It is a kind of injury that you cannot see. The
person looks perfectly fine, but the pain is severe.
Today this rule disallows us to even add amendments to suggest that
it is appropriate that we move forward with the OSHA rules which
protects these workers all over America, waitresses and bus drivers and
factory workers and small business workers who time
[[Page H666]]
after time are injured and we cannot solve their problem.
I wonder what my good friend is asking for when he says he needs a
study. The January 2001 National Academy of Sciences study once again
concluded that there is abundant scientific evidence demonstrating that
repetitive workplace motion can cause injuries and that such injuries
can be prevented through work safety intervention. Did we not just hear
Seattle, Washington, say thank you for the instructions that you gave
us on how to secure our buildings against earthquakes? You saved lives.
But yet on the floor of this House we are so committed to the rich
interests of people who are saying it is going to cost us too much that
the lives of working Americans, it pains me, it hurts my heart, are of
disinterest. But yet we can come on the floor tomorrow and talk about
returning tax dollars to the great Americans of this Nation. But it is
hardworking Americans today that we just step on. I believe it is an
outrage. As a member of the House Committee on Science, I have never
heard anybody question the National Academy of Sciences. Give us a
study. We will take a study. These rules have been coming for 25 years.
Today we crush them in the name of my father and all Americans. This is
a disgrace.
Vote against the rule and vote against this legislation. It is a
disgrace.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), our leader, the minority whip.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear colleague the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Hall) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, let me take a moment to tell my colleagues about a woman
by the name of Shirley Mack. Shirley is the mother of four and she is
someone who is proud of the fact that she has always worked to support
her children. That is why she took a job at a poultry plant. Shirley's
job was to pull chicken bones out with her hands and then feed them
into a skinner machine. She did this repetitively, hour after hour, day
after day, month after month, year after year. Before long, Shirley
began suffering some very intense pain in her arm and in her wrist. The
company gave her some pills and sent her back to the line. The pills
did not help her.
{time} 1200
Finally, Shirley saw a trained physician and found out her problem
had a name. It was called carpal tunnel syndrome. Her boss reassigned
Shirley to do cleanup work; and then 3 days later, they fired her. This
is not an uncommon story to hear of a worker in a poultry plant.
The company took away Shirley's job, but they never took away her
pain; pain that was so bad she cannot fix supper or she cannot push a
grocery cart in a grocery store; pain so bad she cannot even hug her
children without feeling that terrible hurt all over again.
The National Academy of Sciences tells us workplace injuries like
Shirley's are now so widespread that they cost our economy more than
$20 billion a year, $20 billion a year.
We have 1.8 million workers affected by an injury every year in this
country. Over this 10-year period of study, we could have prevented 4.6
million workers from having to go through what Shirley went through.
Now, Mr. Speaker, smart businesses are working to reduce the risk of
workplace injuries but not every employer is smart and not every
employer cares about his or her employees. That is why the Republican
Secretary of Labor, Elizabeth Dole, launched an effort that led to
these very rules that we are considering and are in place and are law
today; and that was 10 years ago.
More than six million workers have suffered serious injury since; and
many of them, as I said, could have been prevented.
Now, I want my colleagues to think about that when they vote today. I
want them to think about the price that Shirley Mack and her brothers
and sisters who work in that chicken plant and pull out those bones and
feed them into the skinner time after time, repetitively doing that,
try to do this for more than 5 or 10 minutes in a day. I want them to
think about other working mothers who cannot even use their hands and
their arms to lift their crying babies out of their crib. When they are
thought about, I want my colleagues to ask themselves, who is going to
comfort those mothers and those children? Because I can say, it will
not be the Business Roundtable and it will not be the Chamber of
Commerce and it will not be the National Association of Manufacturers
and it will not be the Republican leadership and it will not be this
President.
Mr. Speaker, this is the most important worker-safety rule that we
have had on the floor of this House in decades. It means a lot to a lot
of people. It means a lot to the people who work with their hands, who
work with their back, who make this country work every single day. For
us to go back on these rules, to cast them aside, to ignore them as if
they were a piece of chicken is to do injustice to the people that make
this country work. I beg my colleagues today to vote to retain these
rules, to vote against this present rule and to give a sense of justice
and dignity back to the working people who make America work.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to clear up a couple of things that
have been said. These rules that have been put in force are not Mr.
Bush's rules. Although they had the good sense to begin worrying about
ergonomics 10 years ago, they would never have come up with these
rules.
If these rules were so simple and straightforward, why were they not
brought forth during the legislative session? Why were they dropped on
the table after the election when no Congress was in session?
I am amazed they had time to do it when they were walking out the
door with the furniture and the silverware, but they dropped it on the
table to become effective 2 days before a new President was sworn in.
They are not in effect now. They do not go into effect until October.
So we are not taking away something that they already have. We have
heard all kinds of things about numbers.
One person said it is going to cost $20 billion a year and another
$50 billion a year. Documents show about $6 billion a year. But nobody
has mentioned the $125-billion-a-year cost on businesses. Nobody has
concerned themselves with reshaping the workforce.
I do not doubt that repetitive motion causes injuries. I do not
dispute the 600,000 people number. But should we create an additional
workers' compensation program on top of the States' programs for just
these kinds of injuries? Are they worse injuries than someone who loses
an arm or a leg on their job?
Right now, a typical workers' compensation package for businesses
lasts only 3 years and is rotated out because it is very expensive. Are
we prepared here with these regulations to double that cost on our
employees and employers over the next few years? Should we allow rules
that presume injuries are work related? If the employer wants to find
out if it is truly work related, should we not question a rule that
says it is against the law for the employer to talk to the doctor about
the work-related connection to even determine? Should we demand a
workplace design based on the claim of one person, with one injury that
may or may not have been workplace related?
We are saying that common sense ought to prevail. If we carried this
ruling to its ultimate conclusion, the Coca-Cola truck driver would be
bringing the Coke bottles into the store one bottle at a time. Who is
going to pay for that? The consumer, of course, will ultimately pay for
all of this.
We are saying get these egregious, overreaching rules off the table
and let an administration with just as much care about worker safety as
anyone else on this floor today impose some rules that would be helpful
and not hurtful, and let us at least admit one thing. Workplace safety
today, based on the initiatives of the employers, without some
bureaucrat telling them how to live their lives, is safer than it has
ever been at any time in the history of this great country. They have
done it because it is in their best interest. It is in their financial
interest to improve the workplace safety because
[[Page H667]]
it costs them money to have days out of work.
It is my guess that there is not a single agency of the Federal
Government that has workplace safety as safe, with as few days lost, as
virtually any major corporation in the United States; and yet these are
not going to be promulgated for this Federal Government. They are not
going to be watched over.
Let us take the time to take this rule off the table, give a new
Secretary of Labor an opportunity to do the right thing with common
sense.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum
is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222,
nays 198, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 29]
YEAS--222
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--198
Abercrombie
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--12
Ackerman
Becerra
Bishop
Dicks
Dingell
Edwards
Lewis (CA)
Roukema
Sanders
Shows
Stupak
Walsh
{time} 1232
Ms. BERKELEY and Mr. HONDA changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. BOYD, Mr. LUCAS of Kentucky and Mr. SANDLIN changed their vote
from ``present'' to ``nay.''
Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma and Mr. TURNER changed their vote from
``present'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________