[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 29 (Wednesday, March 7, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H684-H708]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISAPPROVING DEPARTMENT OF LABOR RULE RELATING TO ERGONOMICS
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 79, I call up
the Senate 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, and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate joint resolution.
The text of the Senate joint resolution is as follows:
S.J. Res. 6
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress
disapproves the rule submitted by the Department of Labor
relating to ergonomics (published at 65 Fed. Reg. 68261
(2000)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 79, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from California
(Mr. George Miller) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
General Leave
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on S.J. Res. 6.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring this matter of great importance to
our economy to the floor of the House for debate. For the first time
the House will act under the auspices of the Congressional Review Act
of 1996. We do so because of the over-reaching ergonomics regulation
finalized by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration last
November.
The ergonomics regulation has long been the subject of much debate in
this House. Yet despite the efforts of so many in Congress to get
OSHA's attention about specific concerns with ergonomics regulations,
the regulators have not listened.
Well, contrary to the belief of many, Congress is neither a bit
player nor an innocent bystander in the regulatory process. In
considering this joint resolution, Congress will demonstrate that we do
indeed read the fine print in the Code of Federal Regulations.
Since the ergonomics regulation went into effect 4 days before the
start of the new administration, I have heard from numerous companies
and associations employing hundreds of thousands
[[Page H685]]
of workers. Each one has asked that the House pass a joint resolution
of disapproval on this ergonomics regulation. And why is that?
Not because they are anti-worker or opposed to safety and health
protections in the workplace. Many of these employers already have
their own well-established ergonomics programs in place. Now they find
themselves confronted with an unworkable, excessive regulation that
will create more problems than it solves.
We will hear much today about the congressionally mandated National
Academy of Sciences study on musculoskeletal disorders in the
workplace. Let me make two important observations about that study.
First, despite Congress' desires that OSHA wait until completion of the
National Academy study before going forward with an ergonomics
regulation, OSHA completed its ergonomics regulation without the
benefit of the National Academy study.
Secondly, while the study confirms that MSDs are a problem and there
are ways to help alleviate them in the workplace, many of which are
already being done by employers, the National Academy of Sciences study
does not offer an opinion or endorsement of this ergonomics rule.
Again, no one is opposed to providing appropriate ergonomics
protections in the workplace. The Secretary of Labor has indicated her
intent to pursue a comprehensive approach to ergonomics protections. I
look forward to working with her and my colleagues on such an effort.
But this ergonomics rule that we are debating today cannot stand, and I
strongly urge my colleagues to support the resolution of disapproval.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3
minutes.
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the matter before the
House tonight is nothing more than a frontal assault on the rights of
millions of workers, millions of workers who get up and go to work
every day and work hard on behalf of their employer and on behalf of
their family so they can provide for their family, so they can provide
a standard of living that they desire for their children.
In the process of working every day, many of these workers suffer
injuries to their hands, wrists, to their back and neck because they
have repetitive motion in their jobs. Whether they are keypunch
operators, whether they work in a warehouse, whether they work as a
baggage handler or waitress or waiter in a restaurant, whether they
work in a lumber mill or hospital, these workers suffer these injuries,
some 600,000 of them every year.
As a result of these injuries, these workers lose wages, they lose
hours of work, they lose the ability to provide for their family. Some
of them lose the ability to even ever go back to work, they are so
badly damaged. But one of the things we know is that most of these
injuries are preventable.
The workplace can be adjusted. We see it all of the time, in the
supermarket, in the offices, in the hospitals. We have made adjustments
to try to protect these workers. But what this legislation does today,
it says you cannot have this standard as a matter of national right. So
if you do not have protection in that workplace, if you do not have
protection in that State that is adequate, you do not get it now,
because if we vote to repeal the standard that is now on the books to
protect workers, we do not get to come back.
I appreciate what the Secretary of Labor has said. But the law as
written says you do not get to come back and write an equivalent
standard, a standard that is similar to this, because then someone will
take you to court and you will be violating the law. This is about the
repeal of the protections of 6 million workers who go to work every
day.
I do not know if my colleagues recognize them when the Fed Ex driver
comes to their door. I do not know if they recognize these workers as
the flight attendants who are wearing braces on their wrists. I do not
know if they recognize them at Wal-Mart and Home Depot as they are
wearing belts around their back, as they are wearing braces on their
wrist because of those activities, but those are the people that make
America go. The least they ought to have is protection against those
damaging kinds of injuries. The least they ought to have is
compensation to take care of them. And they ought to understand that we
ought to be trying to improve these workplaces. When we do it, we save
employers millions of dollars. When we do it, we keep workers from
getting injured.
But this now says that we are not going to have that as a matter of
standard. This now says that we are going to take 10 years of medical
evidence, 10 years of scientific evidence, 10 years of testimony by
workers, men and women all across this country, about the damage that
they have suffered and the manner in which it can be prevented. And in
1 hour of debate tonight, we are going to throw that argument out. We
are going to throw these standards out. We are going to take this
protection away from America's working men and women. It is not fair to
them. It is not fair to their families. It is not fair to the standard
of living that they are trying to maintain.
I would urge that we vote against this resolution.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Norwood), the chairman of the OSHA subcommittee.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this quickly and make
it very clear what this is about today. This is legislation that simply
says a standard written by the Labor Department is very bad. It does
not mean we cannot come back and have decent standards. But when we
have one that is bad and wrong and it will hurt the workers and
patients, then we should do away with it and begin again.
I do not think this is an argument about science. The National
Academy of Science has said, yes, there is such a thing as
musculoskeletal pain. We all agree there is such a thing as repetitive
motion injury and it can occur in the workplace. But it gets very
cloudy at that point. It is not clear what they mean by that. For the
record I will tell Members exactly what the National Academy says. They
said this is a very complex nature of musculoskeletal disorder
phenomenon and it makes it very difficult to regulate in the workplace
with any precision. They go on to say that the common musculoskeletal
disorder is uniquely caused by work exposures.
I urge us all to do away with this rule.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this joint
resolution. Here we go again. This is yet another attempt to block the
protection of the American worker from repetitive stress injuries. My
colleagues, enough is enough. The science exists. The evidence has been
gathered. The public comment has been heard. And frankly our
experiences in our own offices confirms it. We will fight to keep these
rules. We will fight for the American worker. We will fight for what is
right.
Each year, more than 650,000 Americans suffer disorders caused by
repetitive motion, heavy lifting or awkward postures that occur in the
workplace. These disorders account for more than a third of all
workplace injuries. Implementation of these rules would save workers
and employers more than $9 billion each year and increase productivity
and lower health care costs. We must try our best to prevent these
injuries. These are serious health problems and OSHA should be able to
work with employers and employees to prevent and relieve them. It is
time to stop these injuries. It is time to live up to our obligation to
protect American workers. Vote no on this resolution.
{time} 1800
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger).
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Boehner) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, throughout my tenure on the Committee on Education and
the Workforce, I have opposed the costly and overreaching ergonomics
standard that was finalized by the Clinton
[[Page H686]]
administration. I believe this ill-conceived regulation will have a
detrimental effect on American business and its workers.
This ergonomics regulation is very broad and presumes that every
muscle strain and pain is caused by work instead of gardening on the
weekend or playing football with friends. How can business correct or
why should it be responsible for pains that do not occur at the
workplace? How could business possibly be expected to control these
costs?
Last fall, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) and I passed the
OSHA Needlestick legislation, and it was bipartisan and bicameral. The
difference between that legislation that we passed and this one is the
fact that we targeted a specific problem and we solved it with a
flexible solution that is endorsed by both employers and employees.
This ergonomics standard, on the other hand, targets every motion of
every work activity and gives no specific solutions. Not giving
employers specific targets and solutions is unfair for both workers and
employers. American workers deserve better.
Even OSHA is projecting that this standard will prevent only 50
percent of the problems it seeks to fix. However, that same regulation
is estimated to cost the American business at least $100 billion. Why
would one risk bankrupting business with a broad Federal regulation
when many industries, such as poultry, have voluntarily implemented
programs which have reduced repetitive trauma disorders to almost 50
percent or 46 percent, in 5 years?
I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution. Let us protect
American business and, most importantly, American jobs.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes
to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I am glad my good friend mentioned
business because from a business perspective this motion is narrow
minded. A productive workforce is a healthy and skilled workforce.
When workplace injuries cause workers to take time away, businesses
have to train new workers and pay higher worker's compensation
premiums. All of these costs will get higher and higher if this motion
passes. That escalation will cut into productivity and render American
business less competitive in the future.
Beyond that, this motion will stop OSHA from protecting Americans
against repetitive stress disorder, carpal tunnel syndrome and the
physical injuries that workers sustain every day. Many of these
millions are women. They are our mothers, our aunts, our sisters and
our daughters.
Each year 400,000 women workers suffer injuries from dangerously
designed jobs. Sixty-nine percent of all workers who suffer from carpal
tunnel syndrome are women.
This motion represents a betrayal of promises made to the women of
America. In 1998, the House Committee on Appropriations majority report
stated the committee will refrain from any further restrictions with
regard to the development, promulgation or issuance of an ergonomics
standard following fiscal year 1998.
The chairman signed and sent a letter reiterating that promise. What
we have here are broken promises, broken bodies, broken faith in
government. This ought to be defeated.
Mr BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the chief deputy whip of the House.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner)
for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I am also glad to see the Congress using for the first
time the Congressional Review Act. It has been very comfortable for a
long time to not use this act. This act was not on the books until
1996, and to say that we cannot do anything about regulation no matter
what the cost, no matter what the cost to competitiveness, no matter
how ill-conceived it is, no matter how unbased it is on true science,
we could not do anything, has been a great excuse for the Congress to
use for decades now.
Many Members on the floor today voted in 1996 to give the Congress
the authority to use the Congressional Review Act. My good friend, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), just said that this could not be
addressed again.
When we look at the legislative history of the Congressional Review
Act, it is clear that this issue can be addressed again. In fact, the
Secretary of Labor said today and earlier this week as well that she
intended to start immediately looking at a more common sense way to
really address these problems.
The legislative history states that the same regulation cannot be
sent back essentially with one or two words changed. It talks about not
being able to send back similar regulation. When we look carefully, it
is clear that we can send back regulations in the same area; in this
case, regulations that still allow American businesses to compete, that
ensure that we maintain jobs rather than lose jobs; that ensure that
this set of regulations can be brought back in a much different and
better way.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as
she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-
McDonald).
(Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this
joint resolution on behalf of the women of the Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Joint Resolution which
repeals a job safety measure under the Congressional Review Act which
regulates the Ergonomics Standard. Every year, more than 600,000 U.S.
workers suffer painful repetitive strain and back injuries on the job.
These ``ergonomic'' injuries are caused by heavy lifting, repetitive
work and poorly designed jobs. Ergonomic injuries are the biggest job
safety problem U.S. workers face.
As the Co-Chair of the Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues, I am
particularly concerned about the disproportionate effect repealing
ergonomics standards will have on women.
Women workers are particularly affected by these injuries. Women make
up 46 percent of the overall workforce, but in 1998 in fact accounted
for 64 percent of repetitive motion injuries (42,347 out of 65,866
reported cases) and 71 percent of reported carpal tunnel syndrome cases
(18,719 out of 26,266 reported cases). There is strong consensus within
the scientific community, based on an extensive body of evidence that
the consequences of ergonomics-related illnesses are serious and must
be addressed.
Janie Jones told a group the carpal tunnel syndrome she developed in
both her hands came after working in a poultry plant where she and
other workers on the deboning line were expected to process 28 chickens
a minute--some 1,680 an hour--with just a 15-minute break in the
morning and one in the afternoon plus a 30-minute lunch break. This
should be unconscionable here in America.
Ms. Jones reported that even after having surgery to try to relieve
the pain, it was still difficult for her to do housework and cooking.
She said if OSHA's ergonomics standard had been in effect while she was
on the deboning line, her hands wouldn't be riddled with crippling pain
today.
Mr. Speaker, it is imperative to protect the ergonomics standard so
that workers across this nation, many of whom are women, will have the
opportunity to continue working in safe and productive environments.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a disgrace. I do not agree
with every aspect of the rule that OSHA adopted; but if one disagrees
with it, the proper way to change it is to have the Department of Labor
propose changes, have an open hearing and comment process and then come
up with changes to the rule.
Instead, what this action does is it represents a blanket wipe-out of
virtually every protection that workers have in this country from
repetitive motion injuries. It was done without notice, without
hearings, without consultation and without any spirit of compromise
whatsoever.
If there is any remaining illusion in this House that the House
leadership is interested in bipartisanship, this is exhibit number one
in the fact that that is pure fiction.
It is very easy for Members of Congress to vote to do away with these
protections for workers because the only repetitive motion injury that
Members of Congress are likely to get is to their knees from consistent
genuflecting to every special interest in
[[Page H687]]
this country. But the real workers of this country, the people who work
with the sweat of their brows, the people who lift weight that is too
heavy, the people who go through motions that are too injurious over
time, the people I meet every day in plants as I go through my
district, those are the people who expect us to do our duty and stand
up for them because they are too busy to stand up for themselves.
Do what is right. Vote no on this resolution.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), a surgeon in the House.
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, I am the only Member of Congress who has
operated on patients with repetitive stress injury. I am a member of
the American Society for Surgery of the Hand and the American
Association of Hand Surgeons. I have taken care of hundreds of patients
with these problems.
There are thousands of hand surgeons around the country who share my
views on this. I share, we share, OSHA's concerns about the health and
safety of workers and are dedicated to help prevent workplace injuries.
However, we believe that OSHA's new ergonomics rules are not founded on
``a substantial body of evidence''.
We agree with the National Research Council that we need a much
better understanding of the mechanisms that underlie the relationships
between the causal factors and outcomes.
This rule, in our opinion, could actually harm workers. For instance,
OSHA describes ``observable'' physical science that constitute a
recordable musculoskeletal disease. These signs include increased grip
strength or range of motion. Any hand surgeon in the country knows that
those are highly subjective findings. Truly objective findings like
atrophy, reflex changes, electrodiagnostic abnormalities and certain
imaging findings are not what precipitate the recordings. The MSD
symptoms in the rule do not require those objective verifications in
order to be ``recordable''.
So, in my opinion, this places too much responsibility on the
employer to make a correct diagnosis.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, let us be clear about what is going on
here. In the space of about 10 minutes, people that supported the
Republican Party in the last campaign have gotten them to step forward
and do away with rules and regulations that took some 10 years to
devise and promulgate. We have had hearing after hearing, study after
study, thousands of studies, all of which come to the conclusion that
MSD injuries do happen in the workplace and are related to the kinds of
repetitive practice that go on there and can be resolved with very
reasonable solutions, reasonable efforts between the employer and the
employee to resolve these situations.
The rule is a very short rule, 9 pages. It is very clear. It is
flexible, and if it were not flexible we would hear complaints about
how it was too rigid and prescriptive, but it is flexible. The
employees and employers can work out solutions to it in the best way
possible, and it can happen and should happen for the number of
injuries that go on year in and year out.
For a few businesses that have this continued practice and refuse to
deal with it, they have cast aside millions of workers and their
problems. Let me say every time there is a regulation, we hear from
industry how it is going to be the ruination of the industry.
Back in 1995, the Office of Technology Assessment released a study of
six OSHA rules. Every single one of them the industry said would be the
ruin of business; but in the end, it turned out that they had
overestimated the cost from between 50 to 300 times. In fact, in five
out of six of those instances, the OSHA estimates were the correct
estimates; or, in fact, they were overestimates. So that they were not
as ruinous. In fact, they did resolve things to get people a better,
healthier way of conducting their business.
This is not a practice that should be condoned. We have a process.
This process is being cast aside for purely political reasons in many
instances. The fact of the matter is, the process worked. It was
started by a Republican Secretary of Labor. The understanding has
always been there that these injuries are harmful and can be resolved.
It continues on now. As I said, in 10 minutes, they are being cast
aside and casting aside millions of people who rely on this government
and this process to find ways to make it safer for them to be at work.
In the end, it is better for business.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I support this measure wholeheartedly. If we
do not, what we have before us with the proposed regulations, those are
the Titanic. It is headed straight for the iceberg. But before
businesses have to abandon ship, before workers have to hit the
lifeboats, we are stopping the engines. We are saying we are going to
bring this thing to a safe halt and steer a safer course.
The Secretary of Labor, the former Secretary of Labor, I had the
chance to visit with last year about these provisions that they are
proposing. They were going to hire 300 brand-new people, train them for
30 days, hundreds and thousands of pages of these red-tape strangling,
minute jargon regulations, and put them in charge of micromanaging
businesses all across the country; millions of workers under the
command of these brand-new government bureaucrats. That is a formula
for disaster. That is a disaster that is not going to happen this time.
We are going to stop this ship before it hits the iceberg and we are
going to bring it home safely and it is going to be safer for the
workers on board American businesses.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
(Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, this legislation that we are being
asked to vote on today is a piece of legislation which will actually be
injurious to thousands of women all across this country. The women are
the ones who hold down the lowest paying jobs in this country. They are
the most that are on minimum wage, and they are the ones who are
affected by the type of injuries that we are attempting to find some
sort of protective safety regulations.
All of us know when we deal with our own health, we believe that
preventive measures are the things that are going to save our lives.
There is no one here that would vote against preventive health
measures, and yet today the majority of this body is asking the
legislature here to vote against preventive worker safety legislation
that will have the effect of saving tens of thousands of people from
having to be laid off their jobs; lost productivity for that particular
business. It just does not make sense.
All this legislation is that the OSHA people are trying to advocate
for is worker safety. Who can be against worker safety?
There are thousands of people out there who have to go home, injured
from their jobs, who cannot find a better way to save themselves
because their employers do not put into effect those measures that can
save them from this type of injury. So it just is mind-boggling to me
that the majority of this body is asking the Congress to eradicate the
safety measures that have been put into effect after 10 years of
careful consideration.
This is not just an idle postponement or a moratorium. This is the
finale. If we vote on this measure today, there will be no possibility
for the Department or for OSHA or for anybody to come forward with
regulations that will provide worker safety. In the name of preventive
measures for the women of this country, I ask for a no vote.
{time} 1815
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson), a fine member of this
subcommittee.
(Mr. CULBERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for
yielding me this time.
I rise today in very strong support of the repeal of this rule and to
point out to my fellow Members and Americans
[[Page H688]]
listening here tonight that the Employment Policy Foundation estimates
that compliance costs alone with this rule will be about $91 billion.
The rule itself and its explanatory information consume about 600 pages
of fine print. Every small business owner out there who is listening
ought to know what it looks like, because this is it. It will affect
102 million employees by OSHA's own estimates, and about 6.1 million
businesses. It applies to any job that requires occasional bending,
reaching, pulling, pushing, gripping; 18 million jobs, again, by OSHA's
own estimates.
This flawed ergonomic standard will interfere with State worker
compensation laws. The one we have in Texas works very well. Under this
ergonomic standard, however, which would interfere and preempt that
State law, if a worker is put on light-duty work, they will receive 100
percent of their pay. If they are unable to work, they will receive 90
percent of their pay and 100 percent of the benefits. I urge the
Members to adopt the repeal of this rule.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), who has been fighting
this long and hard for a number of years as a member of the Committee
on Appropriations.
Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, the 20th century began with Ida Tarbell and Upton
Sinclair pointing out the dangers in the workplace to American workers.
Here we are at the beginning of a new century much more enlightened,
yet still debating whether or not we should protect workers.
Let us not ignore this historical context. As we look with great
embarrassment at the exploitation of workers at the beginning of this
century, we must have a different start to this one. The new
information technology has presented some challenges with many more
people at keyboards, but science has given us answers.
Today, the Republican majority is taking extreme measures to
undermine the voluminous scientific evidence supporting a workplace
safety standard. In prior Republican administrations, Labor Secretaries
supported an ergonomic standard. Secretary Dole stated, ``By reducing
repetitive motion injuries, we will increase both the safety and
productivity of America's workforce. I have no higher priority than
accomplishing just that.'' And Secretary Lynn Martin also reiterated
her commitment in 1992 to an OSHA rule. Secretary Chao yesterday
indicated her intention to pursue a ``comprehensive approach to
ergonomics,'' her words. She said she would be open to working on a new
rule that would ``provide employers with achievable measures that
protect their employees before injuries occur.''
Mr. Speaker, a vote on this repeal today would foreclose that option
to the Secretary. She would not be able to do that. Only a vote in this
body to sustain that would allow us to have those negotiations with the
Secretary.
The scientific evidence supporting a standard is extensive. The
National Academy of Science, responding to conservatives and business
groups, issued a report saying that the weight of evidence justifies
the introduction of appropriate and selective interventions to reduce
the risk of musculoskeletal disorders of low back and upper
extremities. No wonder the Republicans did not want Members to have a
briefing on that report.
This disproportionately affects women. I urge my colleagues to vote
``no.''
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, just to set the record straight, the
National Academy of Sciences does not support this standard in any way
at all.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs.
Biggert), the vice chairman of this subcommittee.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S.J. Res. 6. I
have absolutely no quarrel with the idea of OSHA or Congress writing or
implementing an ergonomics law or regulation. What I do have a problem
with is this particular ergonomics regulation. It is exceedingly
costly, overly broad, and it wrongly presumes that every muscle strain
or ache a worker suffers is caused by the workplace. For instance, it
does not take into account personal attributes that may cause body
pains such as obesity or age, nor does it anticipate the possibility
that employees may actually hurt themselves outside of the workplace
while skiing, playing basketball, or gardening.
Here is what the Chicago Tribune had to say about the new rule: ``In
short, they amount to a simplistic and expensive meat-ax solution for a
complex scientific puzzle that researchers do not fully understand.''
Workers do have legitimate claims to workplace-induced repetitious
motion injuries, but not with this regulation.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, we should oppose this resolution. When a
woman stands at a supermarket checkout counter and when many women who
stand with her get hurt, when there is a pattern of people getting hurt
because the cash register is at waist level instead of higher up, and
the evidence shows that one could spend a few hundred dollars per cash
register and lift them up to chest level and people will not get hurt;
and the evidence shows that by spending a few hundred dollars per cash
register, we could avoid tens of thousands of dollars of health care
and workers' comp claims, we think the law ought to say that the
employer should have to do it. That is what this is about.
This is a compilation of 10 years of research; it is an understanding
that one-third of the workers' comp expenditures by insurers in this
country pay for ergonomics injuries, and it is a cry for simple justice
and common sense.
Do not be fooled by those who say they want a better ergonomics rule,
because if this resolution passes, there will be no ergonomics rule.
This sends ergonomics to the death penalty, and it is wrong.
Mr. Speaker, there are 6 million injured Americans who cannot speak
for themselves tonight, but we, I say to my colleagues, can. The way we
should speak for them is to rise up and vote ``no.'' Defeat this
resolution in the sense of fairness and justice.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Keller), a new and valued member of our subcommittee.
Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the joint resolution to
disapprove the ergonomics rule. I would like to tell my colleagues why.
This will cost businesses, large and small, approximately $90 billion
a year, a $90 billion-a-year unfunded mandate on private businesses.
Someone mentioned grocery stores a few minutes ago. It is also true
that if a bagger in a grocery store lifts a turkey up and we are in the
Thanksgiving season, that is 16 pounds, he is now violating Federal law
in the minds of some OSHA bureaucrats because they think you should not
be able to lift anything over 15 pounds. We need a little common sense
here.
Now, should there be incentives for workplace safety? Absolutely,
there should. We have that right now under workers' compensation
insurance premiums. One small employer in my district who runs a gas
station found his workers' compensation insurance went up $3,000 this
year. Why? Because there was a serious workplace accident the year
before. That is a pretty strong incentive to maintain a strong and safe
workplace.
Mr. Speaker, we do not need to nationalize our workers' compensation
laws. I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' and disapprove these
ergonomics regulations.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the minority whip.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, the workplace safety standards before us, as
we have heard, have been in the making for 10 years and, once
implemented, would help prevent no fewer than one-third of all serious
job-related injuries. That can help save our economy more than $50
billion a year.
Now, the people back home in Michigan would say, well, that is a
pretty
[[Page H689]]
good bargain. And do my colleagues know what? They are absolutely
right. Over the course of 1 year alone, more than 21,000 workers in
Michigan suffered from repetitive motion injuries severe enough to keep
them away from work, and the cost to Michigan's economy in lost wages
and productivity, about $2 billion a year. That is why there is only
one issue in this debate. It is not whether we need these safety
standards. It is who on earth would ever want to keep us from having
them?
Well, we know what that answer is. It is the same people, the same
special interests who have opposed every other single worker safety
measure to come before the United States Congress.
Well, today we have an obligation to talk back to that special
interest. Our message today is that too many lives have been lost, too
many bodies have been broken, too many workers have been injured, too
many lives have been ruined, and too many tears have been shed.
Mr. Speaker, today our message is that American workers have a right
to a healthy and a safe workplace and, by God, vote ``no'' on this
resolution. Those who do not should and will be held accountable.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Bonilla), my friend.
(Mr. BONILLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
resolution. Workplace injuries over the last decade in this country are
down. Workplace injuries are down in large part because ergonomics
rules are already in place at most of America's workplaces; and
employers, believe it or not, do care about keeping workers safe and
productive on the job.
This is the copy of the new rule we are talking about showing up on
the doorsteps of bakeries and of auto parts stores and small
restaurants and grocery stores and dance studios and farms and ranches.
Every small business employer in America would get this big fat 600-
page regulation to try to have them not only implement a policy, but to
change a policy that is already working, that is causing workplace
injuries to go down.
Union membership has not asked for this. Small business in America
has not asked for this. At town meetings that we have across the
country, there is no request for this to show up on the doorstep of
America's small businesses. This is simply a power grab by certain
special-interest leaders in this country; and we will not name them,
but we know who they are. They want this so they can have a bigger grip
on America's small business employers. That is what it is all about.
This, in itself, delivered to the small businesses in this country is
enough to cause a workplace injury to the post office delivery people
who will be sending this to small businesses across the country. And,
by the way, the post office does not want it either. Nobody wants it.
Why are we doing this? Thank goodness we have this opportunity to stop
this and to watch workplace injuries continue to go down, because of
ergonomics policies that are already in place in America's workplaces.
Mr. Speaker, today we have a chance to show the American people whose
side we are on. A vote for this resolution is a vote for small
business, jobs and sound science. A vote against it is for one-size-
fits all regulations and government-knows-best bureaucrats.
There are many of us who came to this body to fight for the driving
engine of America's economy, small business. Small business produces 90
percent of all new jobs in America. These are the people who work hard,
people who are fighting for raises and better benefits, people who are
creating higher-paying jobs in their community and expanding
opportunity for people across the country.
The Clinton OSHA ergonomics regulation has a mammoth price tag. And
America's workers are going to foot the bill. OSHA itself is willing to
concede a $4.5 billion cost to the economy. the food distributing
industry predicts its initial cost would be upwards of 420 billion.
Furthermore, their recurring cost could be 46 billion annually. And
that is just for that industry alone. What does this really mean? It
means fewer jobs and fewer opportunities for American workers.
We all support safe workplaces. That is not what this debate is
about. Let us review the statistics put out by the Clinton Labor
Department. Workplace injuries are down consistently over the last
decade. In fact, the injuries we are talking about today, repetitive
stress injuries, are down 24 percent over the past three years. Grocery
stores, bakeries, bottling companies, florists, computer
manufacturers--all of those job creating businesses that are creating
out tremendous economic growth have voluntarily dealt with this issue
and it is working.
Some have argued today that this resolution kills ergonomics forever.
That is simply not true. Yesterday, Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao
stated that she intends to address the issue of ergonomics, if given
the chance. Let's give her that chance to get the job done right.
This rule is unprecedented in its breadth and unprecedented in its
complexity. OSHA doesn't even understand it. The rule is already in
effect and OSHA has yet to provide compliance guidelines to businesses.
Unfortunately, they probably have not because they cannot. That
I call on my colleagues to look at whose side they are on. There is
no gray. I urge them to stand up for the people out there in the
heartland who are working hard and want to keep doing so. I urge a
``yes'' vote on the resolution.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would have yielded, I would have
pointed out he is not holding up the regulations at all, he is holding
up the comments. The regulations is 9-pages long. It is not 600 pages,
and the gentleman completely misrepresented what, in fact, he was
telling the American public.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, before I came to Congress, I was a human
resources professional in the electronics manufacturing industry, and I
know from experience how important workplace safety is. Over 20 years
ago, my company began seeing repetitive stress injuries because
employees were using the same motions repeatedly to put parts in
printed circuit boards. I have to say that the majority of those
workers were women.
So in response to what was going on out on our manufacturing floor,
and those of my colleagues who do not think of OSHA as a friend might
think this is weird, but as the human resources manager of this
company, I called OSHA for help. We worked. They came and worked with
us as partners and came up with a solution that reduced the injuries
for our workers and saved a lot of money for our company.
We knew that if we wanted to be successful, we wanted to protect our
workers from the injuries that they were experiencing. If my colleagues
want to know did this company become successful? Yes, indeed. This
company became a Fortune 300 company.
Mr. Speaker, workplace safety standards protect workers; they save
business money. It is a win-win all the way around. It must not be
repealed. Vote against this resolution, and vote for the protection of
worker safety.
{time} 1830
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would just point out that the regulation is 9 pages,
and it is of great interest to me that OSHA took 591 pages to explain
to us why this was a good rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Manzullo), my friend.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, these OSHA regulations are very
interesting. First of all, they do not apply to any Federal employees,
and I would like to point out that one of the charts using the
explanations here is that it is dangerous if you move your wrist more
than 30 degrees 2 hours a day.
This is an official chart here that points to people that move their
wrists. Mr. Speaker, there are 281,000 restaurants in the United
States. And I was raised in a restaurant business, and my brother,
Frank, he still continues the family business. And this is how you wash
dishes. You go like this. Sometimes it is 2 hours a day, sometimes 4
hours a day. It depends upon the extent of the business. If business is
good, you have more dishes to wash.
Here is the problem: If somebody washing dishes has a problem with
their hand and they go to the small employer, such as my brother,
Frankie,
[[Page H690]]
who has 13 tables in his restaurant, this is what Frankie has to do, he
has to adopt a program that contains the following elements, hazardous
information and reporting, management leadership and employee
participation, job hazard analysis and control, training, MSD
management and program evaluation.
The standard provides the employer with several options for
evaluating and controlling risk factors for jobs covered by the
ergonomics program.
This is washing dishes. How else can you wash dishes where you cannot
move your hands? That is the absurdity of these ergonomic 9 pages of
regulations and hundreds of pages of attempted clarifications of them.
To all the restaurant owners, to all the small mom-and-pops that are
trying to eke out a living and to my brother, Frankie, with 13 tables
and 13 stools at his bar and a handful of employees, he is going to
have to put a sign that says dish washing is hazardous to your health.
How else can you wash dishes?
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the
Chair how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The gentleman from California
(Mr. George Miller) has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining and the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) has 13 minutes and 15 seconds remaining.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader.
(Mr. Gephardt asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, this is a sorry day in the House of
Representatives, and what I am afraid is going to be a sorry week. Ten
years of studies and work and comment are being swept aside with 1 hour
of debate in our House of Representatives.
This is not right, and it is not the right way to do this. It is not
right for American workers who will be seriously affected and degraded
by this decision that we are making tonight.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why we could not spend the last 3
hours that we have been in this building at least on this floor talking
about what went on over the last 10 years. We could not find it within
ourselves in this House of Representatives to spend the last 3 hours
when we were in recess to be on this floor at least discussing this
matter.
We know there is a disagreement about this, that is legitimate, but
to not allow the Members of this House to be out here, when the law
that calls for this procedure says that we are going to have 10 hours
of debate, when we did not have another thing to do on this floor, to
not allow this debate to go on is reprehensible. It sure is not
bipartisan.
This is an issue that affects real people, people that work on
computers, poultry workers, factory workers, and what we are saying is
that the science says that these regulations are the right thing to do.
We believe with all our hearts that OSHA and these kinds of regulations
have not only helped the safety of our workers, but has saved companies
money by preventing these injuries, and employers who have used OSHA
regulations like these to their benefit have had a better bottom line
than companies that simply blindly fight these things.
This is a mistake. It is a mistake for people. It is a mistake for
workers. I simply ask our friends on the other side who are running
this procedure, please, the next time before my colleagues do something
like this, they stop and think about what they are doing to the process
of this House and, most importantly, what my colleagues are doing to
the hard-working American people who are out there everyday giving it
everything they have to make a living for their families and would like
to be in a safe working environment.
Vote against this bill. It is an abomination.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Kentucky (Mrs. Northup).
Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I am angry, too. I am angry that we had a
good idea in 1990 and 1992. Libby Dole and other Republicans encouraged
an ergonomics standard, but what we have had over the last 8 years is
an absolute tone deaf Labor cabinet that was going to pass a regulation
without regard to how we best remedy the challenges that ergonomic
injuries cause us.
Mr. Speaker, give us good direction so that we can have both good
jobs and also best effect in any injuries that occur in the workplace.
It is hilarious to think that businesses are going to save money when
we have runaway costs and you spend and you spend and you spend without
any understanding of what you might be able to achieve and what would
be cost effective.
What happens when we do that? What happens right now in this country,
where we fight everyday to keep our good jobs right here in this
country, to keep them from moving overseas, the fact of the matter is,
is that OSHA increases the costs of regulations. As OSHA increases
costs without always knowing what the objective and the benefit will
be, we make ourselves less able to be internationally competitive as we
produce goods in this country.
Mr. Speaker, what we have to do is be proud of the fact that the
American workplace, which is the thing that brings us our prosperity,
the thing that has built us a middle class that is able to buy homes
and cars and go to work and provide for their children, that they
depend on these jobs, and what they ask of us is for balance, to have
regulations and government programs that make it possible to keep good
jobs here and also make sure that we have healthy workers.
The law of unintended consequences is going to go into effect if this
rule went into effect. It would drive our best jobs overseas.
Mr. Speaker, please, I ask my colleagues, let us have a real rule
that really accomplishes what we want.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he
may consume to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci).
(Mr. Baldacci asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller) for yielding the time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition and say this should not be
done in this way. As a restaurant owner and an owner of a small
business in Maine, this is the wrong thing to do at the wrong time, and
it is not thoughtful.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my opposition to the Joint
Resolution of Disapproval of OSHA's Ergonomics Standard.
Mr. Speaker, I am a small business owner. I understand the concerns
of small business owners in my home state of Maine and throughout the
country regarding the costs of implementing these new rules.
Nevertheless, we must be proactive. Ergonomics is a serious matter and
the new ergonomics standard will save businesses billions of dollars
every year by preventing lost work days and workers' compensation
claims. In 1998, more than 12,500 disabling injuries were reported to
the Workers Compensation Board in Maine alone.
True, the start up costs involved with applying the new standard are
significant. But the money we will save far outweighs the money we will
spend. In a requested report to Congress, the National Academy of
Sciences found that repetitive stress injuries in the workplace cost
$50 billion a year in lost wages, productivity and compensation costs.
It also concluded that injuries could be reduced by using new equipment
and by varying workplace tasks. OSHA's new rule requires compliance
with both of these recommendations. OSHA analysis shows that the new
ergonomics standard will prevent 4.6 million injuries over the next 10
years. It will also save employers and workers $9 billion every year.
Surely, we can agree that these numbers are worth fighting for.
Mr. Speaker, I must also voice my disappointment in the decision to
employ the Congressional Review Act to address this legislation. It was
my sincere hope that the CRA would be employed only to address rules
that a vast majority of members agreed simply got it wrong. This is
certainly not the case here. Many of us agree that the new rules could
be refined. But that is no reason to throw the baby out with the bath
water, utilizing a process that will effectively preclude further
action in this area. This is too important an issue to be taken off the
table in a cavalier and partisan manner. I urge my colleagues to vote
against the Joint Resolution of Disapproval of OSHA's Ergonomics
Standard.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he
may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
(Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
[[Page H691]]
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
George Miller) for yielding the time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose the matter that is before us today.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my outrage over the Republican
proposal to rollback important safety protections for American workers.
For the first time in the history of the House, we are repealing
critical protections for over 100 million American workers.
The Congress has a responsibility to protect the safety and health of
hundreds of thousands of workers--not the profits of big contributors.
Today, I released a report with Representative George Miller on
ergonomic injuries in California. This report makes clear that the
repeal of the ergonomic rule will have a very real impact on California
workers and the state's economy.
More than one in four workplace injuries in California are repetitive
stress injuries like carpel tunnel syndrome. In 1998, more than 52,000
California workers suffered ergonomic injuries so severe they were
forced to miss at least one day of work. Many of these injuries cause
workers to miss significant time away from work. More than 30,000 of
the injuries cause workers to miss more than one week of work.
The economic cost to the state is enormous--$4.5 billion a year.
The real numbers may be much higher. Many workers fail to report
their injuries out of fear they'll be fired or branded troublemakers,
and other workers only realize the extent of their injuries when they
can no longer work.
Today's LA Times tells the story of Gloria Palomino, who worked in a
chicken processing plant for over twenty years. For most of her career,
she shot an airgun into chickens on a slaughter line--squeezing the
triggers 30 to 40 times a minute. As a result, her fingers are
constantly swollen and sore and her injuries are so severe she can no
longer work. She says, ``How I battle in the morning to open my hands.
Tell me, who will hire me with hands like this?''
The ergonomics rule came too late to help Gloria Palomino, but there
will be many, many more like her if we repeal the rule today. I urge my
colleagues to oppose this effort--which protects the profits of
contributors at the expense of the health of America's workers.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes
to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), a member of the
Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.
(Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and include extraneous material.)
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, as the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee
on Workforce Protections, the last 6 years I have lived with the
hearings, the dialogue, the debates on this issue, and I do not want to
repeat all of those technical considerations.
I do want to submit for the RECORD a chronology of OSHA ergonomics
standards preparations over the last 10 years. I have many extra copies
if the majority wants them.
We also have a list of the questions that we asked the National
Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine to resolve. We have
the questions that we posed to them, and we also have their answers.
Earlier today the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) said that
there was some disagreement with the notion that ergonomics was a
legitimate cause of problems in the workplace, and he quoted 1 of the
19. There were 19 experts on the panel, and one dissented. When you
have a panel and one dissent among the people who are on the Academy of
Sciences and the Institute of Medicine, then you have an authoritative
statement.
We ought to address the political problem here. Here is the real
problem. Reinforced by an army of business lobbyists, the Republican
majority has launched a blitzkrieg to obliterate the recently issued
ergonomics standards by using the Congressional Review Act. That act
was passed under the Newt Gingrich doctrine of politics as war without
blood.
This Republican offensive is more than one invasion of one theater of
the war. This is just the beginning. By ruthlessly destroying the
ergonomics standards at the beginning of this 107th session of
Congress, the Republican majority is attempting to send a message of
intimidation to all the working families of America.
We will not be intimidated. We will strive to work for the families
of America.
Mr. Speaker, reinforced by an army of business lobbyists, the
Republican majority has launched a blitzkrieg to obliterate the
recently issued OSHA Ergonomic Standard by using the Congressional
Review Act passed under the Newt Gingrich doctrine that ``politics is
war without blood.'' This Republican offensive is more than one
invasion of one theater of the war. The operation against ergonomics is
also conceived as a master stroke of symbolic and psychological
warfare.
By ruthlessly destroying the Ergonomic Standard at the beginning of
the 107th Session of Congress, the Republican majority is attempting to
send a message of intimidation, and to show that it will utilize its
dominance of the political process in Washington to annihilate its
perceived most formidable enemy--the organized workers in labor unions.
Millions of victims and casualties who are not union members will
suffer greatly as a result of this barbaric attack. The majority of the
working families in America have at least one member who could directly
benefit from the preventive measures required by the new Ergonomic
Standard. They are the civilian casualties of this massive Republican
offensive.
After an exhaustive two-year study at a cost of $1 million conducted
by 19 experts in the field of causation, diagnosis, and prevention of
musculoskeletal disorders under the direction of the Academy of
Sciences, they found that ``there is a direct relationship between the
workplace and ergonomic injuries can be significantly reduced thorough
workplace interventions.''
Mr. Speaker, earlier today, during the debate on the rule Mr. Norwood
quoted from the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of
Medicine's report. I would like to make very clear the fact that Mr.
Norwood was quoting from the only dissenting view on the panel of 19
experts.
Here are the key findings of the study by the Academy of Sciences:
The Problem. ``Musculoskeletal disorders of the low back and upper
extremities are an important national health problem, resulting in
approximately 1 million people losing time from work each year. These
disorders impose a substantial economic burden in compensation costs,
lost wages, and productivity. Conservative cost estimates vary, but a
reasonable figure is about $50 billion annually.''
The Cause. ``The weight of the evidence justifies the identification
of certain work-related risk factors for the occurrence of
musculoskeletal disorders of the low back and upper extremities * * *
the panel concludes that there is a clear relationship between back
disorders and physical load; that is, manual material handling, load
moment, frequent bending and twisting, heavy physical work, and whole-
body vibration. For disorders of the upper extremities, repetition,
force and vibration are particularly important work-related factors.''
The Answer. ``The consequences of musculoskeletal disorders to
individuals and society of the evidence that these disorders are to
some degree preventable justify a broad, coherent effort to encourage
the institution or extension of ergonomic and other preventive
strategies.''
The Republican Leadership--once desperate to have confirmation of a
sound scientific support for the ergonomic rule--is ignoring the very
report it commissioned for a million dollars and instead plans to gut a
rule ten years in the making. This action shows their contempt for
millions of workers who want to work hard and stay healthy. And this
action shows contempt for the findings of the nation's leading
ergonomic scientists who have thoroughly documented the tragedy of
ergonomic injury and illness. I am submitting for the Record the seven
questions Congress asked the National Academy of Sciences and the
answers arrived at by the experts on the panel.
The strategy of the Republican war machine first seeks to crush the
will of the opposition with its speed and overwhelming support from
contributors. After the defeat of ergonomics, overtime under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Davis-Bacon Prevailing Wage Law are the
next targets with many other islands of labor law to be attacked and
subdued on a great march toward the ultimate objective--``paycheck
protection.'' The concepts of minimum wages and cash payment for
overtime may be eliminated forever; or
[[Page H692]]
at least for the duration of this administration there will be a
``final solution'' for these longstanding objects of Republican
contempt.
The term ``barbaric'' is most appropriate for the description of this
partisan onslaught. All logic, reason and science has been bulldozed
off to the ditches. Primitive, brut political force has now overwhelmed
ten years of scientific research, public testimony, empirical evidence
and long debates, dialogues and policy deliberations. The attached
chronology which ranges from August, 1990 to January, 2001 presents a
record of the most patient Democratic process possible; however,
suddenly the troops are massed on the border and this time-honored
process has been declared ``non-negotiable.''
Barbarians often win battles; however, the working families of
America are not without their own means of counterattack. We must begin
today with a new campaign in a more direct language: an Ergonomic
Standard means salvation from paralyzing injuries. It means preventing
total disability of the muscles and joints needed to earn a living.
Working families are the troops who must be made to understand clearly
what is at stake today and in the weeks and months ahead as the
Republicans march on to eradicate labor laws. Working families must
also understand that in a war as vicious as this one that has been
declared by the Republicans, there is no substitute for victory.
Working families must mobilize to achieve unconditional surrender by
taking control of the Congress in 2002; and by regaining the White
House in 2004.
Yesterday was Pearl Harbor for working families. We have nothing to
fear but sluggishness, wimpishness and betrayal by the Benedict Arnolds
among us. We have the votes and we believe fervently in the Democratic
process. Reason and justice are on our side and we shall all experience
our political VE Day. We shall overcome.
Musculoskeletal Disorders and the Workplace--A Study by the National
Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine, January 2001
APPENDIX A
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS POSED BY CONGRESS
The questions below provided the impetus for the study. The
charge to the panel, prepared by the NRC and the IOM was to
conduct a comprehensive review of the science base and to
address the issues outlined in the questions. The panel's
responses to the questions follow.
1. What are the conditions affecting humans that are
considered to be work-related musculoskeletal disorders?
The disorders of particular interest to the panel, in light
of its charge, focus on the low back and upper extremities.
With regard to the upper extremities, these include rotator
cuff injuries (lateral and medial) epicondylitis, carpal
tunnel syndrome, tendinitis, tenosynovitis of the hand and
wrist (including DeQuervains' stenosing tenosynovitis,
trigger finger, and others) and a variety of nonspecific
wrist complaints, syndromes, and regional discomforts lacking
clinical specificity. With regard to the low back, there are
many disabling syndromes that occur in the absence of defined
radiographic abnormalities or commonly occur in the presence
of unrelated radiographic abnormalities. Thus, the most
common syndrome is nonspecific backache. Other disorders of
interest include back pain and sciatica due to displacement
and degeneration of lumber intervertebral discs with
radiculopathy, spondylolysis, and spondylolisthesis, and
spinal stenosis (ICD 9 categories 353-357, 722-724, and 726-
729).
2. What is the status of medical science with respect to
the diagnosis and classification of such conditions?
Diagnostic criteria for some of the musculoskeletal
disorders considered to be work-related and considered in
this report are clear-cut, especially those that can be
supported by objective ancillary diagnostic tests, such as
carpal tunnel syndrome. Others, such as work-related low back
pain, are in some instances supported by objective change,
which must be considered in concert with the history and
physical findings. In the case of radicular syndromes
associated with lumbar intervertebral disc herniation, for
example, clinical and X-ray findings tend to support each
other. In other instances, in the absence of objective
support for a specific clinical entity, diagnostic certainty
varies but may nevertheless be substantial. The clinical
picture of low back strain, for example, while varying to
some degree, is reasonably characteristic.
Epidemiologic definitions for musculoskeletal disorders, as
for infectious and other reportable diseases, are based on
simple, unambiguous criteria. While these are suitable for
data collection and analysis of disease occurrence and
patterns, they are not appropriate for clinical decisions,
which must also take into account personal, patient-specific
information, which is not routinely available in
epidemiologic databases.
3. What is the state of scientific knowledge, characterized
by the degree of certainty or lack thereof, with regard to
occupational and nonoccupational activities causing such
conditions?
The panel has considered the contributions of occupational
and nonoccupational activities to the development of
musculoskeletal disorders via independent literature reviews
based in observational epidemiology, biomechanics, and basic
science. As noted in the chapter on epidemiology, when
studies meeting stringent quality criteria are used, there
are significant data to show that both low back and upper
extremity musculoskeletal disorders can be attributed to
workplace exposures. Across the epidemiologic studies, the
review has shown both consistency and strength of
association. Concerns about whether the associations might be
spurious have been considered and reviewed. Biological
plausibility for the work-relatedness of these disorders has
been demonstrated in biomechanical and basic science studies,
and further evidence to build causal inferences has been
demonstrated in intervention studies that show reduction in
occurrence of musculoskeletal disorders following
implementation of interventions. The findings suggest
strongly that there is an occupational component to
musculoskeletal disorders. Each set of studies has inherent
strengths and limitations that affect confidence in the
conclusions; as discussed in Chapter 3 (methodology), when
the pattern of evidence is considered across the various
types of studies, complementary strengths are demonstrated.
These findings were considered collectively through
integration of the information across the relevant bodies of
scientific evidence. Based on this approach, the panel
concludes, with a high degree of confidence, that there is a
strong relationship between certain work tasks and the risk
of musculoskeletal disorders.
4. What is the relative contribution of any casual factors
identified in the literature to the development of such
conditions in (a) the general population, (b) specific
industries, and (c) specific occupational groups?
A. Individual Risk Factors
Because 80 percent of the American adult population works,
it is difficult to define a ``general population'' that is
different from the working population as a whole. The known
risk factors for musculoskeletal disorders include the
following:
Age--Advancing age is associated with more spinal
complaints, hand pain, and other upper extremity pain, e.g.,
shoulder pain. Beyond the age of 60, these complaints
increase more rapidly in women than men. The explanation for
spinal pain is probably the greater frequency of osteoporosis
in women than in men. The explanation for hand pain is
probably the greater prevalence of osteoarthritis affecting
women. However, other specific musculoskeletal syndromes do
not show this trend. For example, the mean age for
symptomatic presentation of lumber disc herniation is 42
years; thereafter, there is a fairly rapid decline in
symptoms of that disorder.
Gender--As noted above, there are gender differences in
some musculoskeletal disorders, most particularly spinal pain
due to osteoporosis, which is more commonly found in women
than in men, and hand pain due to osteoarthritis, for which
there * * * determinant with increased incidence in daughters
of affected mothers.
Healthy lifestyles--There is a general belief that the
physically fit are at lower risk for musculoskeletal
disorders; there are few studies, however, that have shown a
scientific basis for that assertion. There is evidence that
reduced aerobic capacity is associated with some
musculoskeletal disorders, specifically low back pain and,
possibly, lumbar disc herniations are more common in
cigarette smokers. Obesity, defined as the top fifth quintile
of weight, is also associated with a greater risk of back
pain. There currently is little evidence that reduction of
smoking or weight reduction reduces the risk.
Other exposures--Whole-body vibration from motor vehicles
has been associated with an increase in risk for low back
pain and lumbar disc herniation. There is also evidence that
suboptimal body posture in the seated position can increase
back pain. Some evidence suggests that altering vibrational
exposure through seating and improved seating designs to
optimize body posture (i.e., reduce intradiscal pressure) can
be beneficial.
Other diseases--There is a variety of specific diseases
found in the population that predispose to certain
musculoskeletal disorders. Among the more common are diabetes
and hypothydroidism, both associated with carpal tunnel
syndrome.
B. Work-Related Risk Factors
Chapter 4 of this report explores the enormous body of
peer-reviewed data on epidemiologic studies relevant to this
question. Detailed reviews were conducted of those studies
judged to be of the highest quality based on the panel's
screening criteria (presented in the introduction and in
Chapter 4). The vast majority of these studies have been
performed on populations of workers in particular industries
in which workers exposed to various biomechanical factors
were compared with those not exposed for evidence of
symptoms, signs, laboratory abnormalities, or clinical
diagnoses of musculoskeletal disorders. A small number of
studies have been performed in sample groups in the general
population, comparing individuals who report various
exposures with those who do not.
[[Page H693]]
The principal findings with regard to the roles of work and
physical risk factors are:
Lifting, bending and twisting and whole-body vibration have
been consistently associated with excess risk for low back
disorders, with relative risks of 1.2 to 9.0 compared with
workers in the same industries without these factors.
Awkward static postures and frequent repetitive movements
have been less consistently associated with excess risk. For
disorders of the upper extremity, vibration, force, and
repetition have been most strongly and consistently
associated with relative risks ranging from 2.3 to 84.5.
The principal findings with regard to the roles of work and
psychosocial risk factors are:
High job demand, low job satisfaction, monotony, low social
support, and high perceived stress are important predictors
of low back musculoskeletal disorders.
High job demand and low decision latitude are the most
consistent of these factors associated with increased risk
for musculoskeletal disorders of the upper extremities.
In addition, in well-studied workforces, there is evidence
that individual psychological factors may also predispose to
risk, including anxiety and depression, psychological
distress, and certain coping styles. Relative risks for these
factors have been generally less than 2.0.
5. What is the incidence of such conditions in (a) the
general population, (b) specific industries, and (c) specific
occupational groups?
There are no comprehensive national data sources capturing
medically defined musculoskeletal disorders, and data
available regarding them are based on individual self-reports
in surveys. Explicitly, these reports include work as well as
nonwork-related musculoskeletal disorders without
distinction; therefore, rates derived from these general
population sources cannot be considered in any sense
equivalent to rates for background, reference, or unexposed
groups, nor conversely, as rates for musculoskeletal
disorders associated with any specific work or activity.
There are no comprehensive data available on occupationally
unexposed groups and, given the proportion of adults now in
the active U.S. workforce, any such nonemployed group would
be unrepresentative of the general adult population.
According to the 1997 report from the National Arthritis Date
Workgroup (Lawrence, 1998), a working group of the National
Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases,
37.9 million Americans, or 15 percent of the entire U.S.
population, suffered from one or more chronic musculoskeletal
disorders in 1990 (these data cover all musculoskeletal
disorders). Moreover, given the increase in disease rates and
the projected demographic shifts, they estimate a rate of
18.4 percent or 59.4 million by the year 2020. In summary,
data from the general population of workers and nonworkers
together suggest that the musculoskeletal disorders problem
is a major source of short- and long-term disability, with
economic losses in the range of 1 percent of gross domestic
product. A substantial portion of these are disorders of the
low back and upper extremities.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data, while suffering
a number of limitations, are sufficient to confirm that the
magnitude of work-related musculoskeletal disorders is very
large and that rates differ substantially among industries
and occupations, consistent with the assumption that work-
related risks are important predictors of musculoskeletal
disorders. BLS recently estimated 846,000 lost-workday cases
of musculoskeletal disorders in private industry.
Manufacturing was responsible for 22 percent of sprains/
strains, carpal tunnel syndrome, or tendinitis, while the
service industry accounted for 26 percent. Examining carpal
tunnel syndrome alone, manufacturing, transportation, and
finance all exceeded the national average, while for the most
common but less specific sprains and strains, the
transportation sector was highest, with construction, mining,
agriculture, and wholesale trade all higher than average.
These data suggest that musculoskeletal disorders are a
problem in several industrial sectors, that is, the problems
are not limited to the traditional heavy labor environments
represented by agriculture, mining, and manufacturing.
The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) survey
data provide added information on self-reported health
conditions of the back and the hand. This survey presents
estimates for back pain among those whose pain occurred at
work (approximately 11.7 million) and for those who
specifically reported that their pain was work-related back
pain (5.6 million).
The highest-risk occupations among men were construction
laborers, carpenters, and industrial truck and tractor
equipment operators, and among women the highest-risk
occupations were nursing aides/orderlies/attendants, licensed
practical nurses, maids, and janitor/cleaners. Other high-
risk occupations were hairdressers and automobile mechanics,
often employed in small businesses or self-employed.
Among men, the highest-risk industries were lumber and
building material retailing, crude petroleum and natural gas
extraction, and sawmills/planing mills/millwork. Among women,
the highest-risk industries were nursing and personal care
facilities, beauty shops, and motor vehicle equipment
manufacturing.
Questions from the NCHS survey on upper-extremity
discomfort elicited information about carpal tunnel syndrome,
tendinitis and related syndromes, and arthritis. Carpal
tunnel syndrome was reported by 1.87 million people; over
one-third of these were diagnosed as carpal tunnel syndrome
by a health care provided and half were believed to be work-
related. Tendinitis was reported by 588,000 people, and 28
percent of these were determined to be work-related by a
health care provider. Over 2 million active or recent workers
were estimated to have hand/wrist arthritis. The survey did
not report these conditions by either occupation or industry.
6. Does the literature reveal any specific guidance to
prevent the development of such conditions in (a) the general
population, (b) specific industries, and (c) specific
occupational groups?
A. Development and Prevention in working Populations
Because the majority of the U.S. population works, the data
for the population as a whole apply to the 80 percent who are
working. There is substantial evidence that psychological
factors, in addition to the physical factors cited above (see
response to Question 4), are significant contributors to
musculoskeletal disorders. relevant factors are repetitive,
boring jobs, a high degree of perceived psychosocial stress,
and suboptimal relationships between worker and supervisor.
The weight and pattern of both the scientific evidence and
the very practical quality improvement data support the
conclusion that primary and secondary prevention
interventions to reduce the incidence, severity, and
consequences of musculoskeletal injuries in the workplace are
effective when properly implemented. The evidence suggests
that the most effective strategies involve a combined
approach that takes into account the complex interplay
between physical stressors and the policies and procedures of
industries.
The complexity of musculoskeletal disorders in the
workplace requires a variety of strategies that may involve
the worker, the workforce, and management. These strategies
fall within the categories of engineering controls,
administrative controls, and worker-focused modifiers. The
literature shows that no single strategy is or will be
effective for all types of industry; interventions are best
tailored to the individual situation. However, there are
some program elements that consistently recur in
successful programs:
1. Interventions must mediate physical stressors, largely
through the application of ergonomic principles.
2. Employee involvement is essential to successful
implementation.
3. Employer commitment, demonstrated by an integrated
program and supported by best practices review, is important
for success.
Although generic guidelines have been developed and
successfully applied in intervention programs, no single
specific design, restriction, or practice for universal
application is supported by the existing scientific
literature. Because of limitations in the scientific
literature, a comprehensive and systematic research program
is needed to further clarify and distinguish the features
that make interventions effective for specific
musculoskeletal disorders.
B. Development and Prevention in Specific Occupations
Occupations that involve repetitive lifting, e.g.,
warehouse work, construction, and pipe fitting, particularly
when that activity involves twisting postures, are associated
with an increased risk for the complaint of low back pain
and, in a few studies, an increased risk for lumbar disc
herniation.
The prevalence of osteoarthritic changes in the lumbar
spine (disc space narrowing and spinal osteophytes) is
significantly greater in those whose occupations require
heavy and repetitive lifting compared with age-matched
controls whose occupations are more sedentary. Despite these
radiographical differences, most of the studies show little
or no difference in the prevalence of low back pain or
sciatica between those with radiological changes of
osteoarthritis and those with no radiological changes. Based
on the current evidence, modification of the lifting can
reduce symptoms and complaints. Specific successful
strategies, which include ergonomic interventions (such as
the use of lift tables and other devices and matching the
worker's capacity to the lifting tasks), administrative
controls (such as job rotation), and team lifting, appear
successful. Despite enthusiasm for their use, there is
marginal or conflicting evidence about lifting belts and
educational programs in reducing low back pain in the
population with heavy lifting requirements. Some examples of
positive interventions include:
Truck drivers--Vibration exposure is thought to be the
dominant cause for the increased risk for low back pain and
lumbar disc herniation. There are some data to support the
efficacy of vibrational dampening seating devices.
Hand-held tool operators--Occupations that involve the use
of hand-held tools, particularly those with vibration, are
associated with the general complaints of hand pain, a
greater risk of carpal tunnel syndrome, and some
tenosynovitis. Redesign of tools is associated with reduced
risks.
Food processing--Food processing, e.g., meat cutting, is
associated with a greater risk of shoulder and elbow
complaints. Job redesign appears to reduce this risk, but
this information is largely based on best practices and case
reports.
7. What scientific questions remain unanswered, and may
require further research, to
[[Page H694]]
determine which occupational activities in which specific
industries cause or contribute to work-related
musculoskeletal disorders?
The panel's recommended research agenda is provided in
Chapter 12 of the report.
____
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.
--Comprise 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 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 OSHA from using a final ergonomics
standard until NAS completes its second ergonomics study (24
months).
April 1999--The Small Business Review Panel submits it
report to OSHA's draft proposed ergonomics standard to
Assistant Secretary Jeffress.
May 1999--The second NAS panel on Musculoskeletal Disorders
and the Workplace holds it 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 ergonomics 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 hearings briefs is set for August 10.
[[Page H695]]
--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 ergonomics 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 2000--Ergonomics standard takes effect January 16.
--NAS releases its second report in three years on
musculoskeletal disorders and the workplace. The report
confirms that musculosketetal 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. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham), my friend.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, in California we have an energy crisis.
We have several small businesses going out just because of the costs of
energy. We have restaurants that are on a very narrow margin. Those
people employ workers.
My colleagues that are opposed to this are generally from a liberal
philosophy of government control. If we fall out of line like the
blacklisting that the union, the Clinton-Gore administration, put out
last year, then we can control you. We can control your private profit.
We can control education. We can control your business. If you do not
comply, yes, we will send in the IRS or OSHA or EPA, and what we are
saying is that, yes, that my colleagues would make people think that we
do not want workplace safety, we are for the evil business. That is
just not true.
We support the working families, and we want to give them tax relief,
but my opponents, I would guarantee that over 90 percent of them that
are opposed to this do not want tax relief, and they did not want the
balanced budget and they did not want welfare reform, because they want
government control.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes
to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
(Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, this issue is not new to any of us who have
served in this body.
The Secretary of Labor for President George Herbert Walker Bush, a
lady I have a great deal of respect for, said we must do our utmost to
protect workers from these hazards of repetitive stress injuries.
We all know this is a problem. We are in our town meetings and our
constituents come up to us with the braces on their arms. We have our
case workers in our offices dealing with these issues day in and day
out. Our workers are suffering.
And more importantly, our businesses know that they have some
answers, they are out there working on this. Mr. Speaker, 3M, a big
American company, has had a 58 percent decrease in lost time cases, 58
percent decrease. SunMicrosystems, a high tech company with repetitive
injury claims, their claims went from $45,000 to $3,500.
My colleagues might say businesses are doing it, but do not tell us
to do more of it. President Bush is going to tell us to do a lot more
testing, because it works in Texas. We are going to hear that. Do not
give us that argument on our businesses.
Finally, I have to say that we have been in this great Chamber since
December 16, 1857, and had great debates, but today is one of the
darkest days literally when the majority said they would rather have a
dark Chamber than a Chamber filled with discussion and debate and
differences. I hope we do much better in the future.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) has
10 minutes and 15 seconds remaining, and the gentleman from California
(Mr. George Miller) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
{time} 1845
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, just to keep the record straight, there is no doubt
President Bush and Secretary Dole should be applauded for bringing up
ergonomics in 1990, but there is absolutely no reason to suspect they
would be for this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan).
(Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I have been in meetings during most of the debate. But I did want
to come to the floor and bring out one important point, and that is the
impact of cost to small businesses in the event that this ergonomic
thing is continued as proposed by the Clinton administration.
Any small business person would tell us today that their number one
problem is even securing workman's compensation. It is very seldom that
any major insurance company will insure any business for a period
longer than 3 years. They come in, and they give one a rate that seems
reasonable. Two years later, they raise that. Three years, they raise
it out of the possibility of affordability by small business.
So I encourage my colleagues to think what is going to happen.
Workman's compensation is going to at least double in cost to small
business people, if, indeed, they can get it at all. There is a
possibility, because of the extreme changes in coverage as proposed
under this regulation, that it could even triple.
So when my colleagues are back in their district, think about
addressing these small business people who are having to pay these
exorbitant costs now, and think about the impact that it is going to
cause if, indeed, we do not repeal this through this effort today.
So I plead with my colleagues to recognize what they are doing to
small business people. We all are concerned about all workers. We all
want them to have coverage. But if my colleagues put workman's
compensation out of affordability range, they are doing a great
disservice.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he
may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).
(Mr. BAIRD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this legislation. It is bad
for workers. It is bad for America.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Disapproval
Resolution for OSHA Ergonomics Rule, which threatens the health and
safety of our nation's workforce.
Each year, more than 650,000 American workers suffer from work
related musculoskeletal disorders caused by repetitive motion and
overexertion.
These are hardly minor aches and pains. These are serious, disabling
conditions that have extensive impacts on workers' lives, and are
estimated to cost the American public something in the realm of $40-$50
billion a year.
The lives of workers who suffer from carpal tunnel syndrome,
tendinitis, back injuries or other similar injuries, as a result of
unsafe workplace conditions, are changed forever.
Frequently, they lose their jobs, become permanently unemployed, or
are forced to
[[Page H696]]
take severe pay cuts to continue working. These injuries destroy lives
and they destroy families--and it's simply unacceptable.
I want to emphasize to my colleagues that, as a scientist and a
clinician, I am dogged in demanding strong, peer-reviewed science in
making important public health decisions.
OSHA's ergonomics standard, issued on November 14, 2000, is
critically important to working men and women. The standard is based on
voluminous evidence, sound science and good employer practices and
should not be repealed. This rule may not be perfect, but I can tell
you that this rule is far better than the alternative.
This is a common sense measure to help prevent the suffering of
American workers, while at the same time saving the American taxpayers
billions of dollars.
I urge my colleagues to resist efforts to repeal this vital worker
safety rule--and to oppose this resolution that prevents OSHA from
implementing an ergonomic standard.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Speaker, every year, millions of hard-working
Americans are injured on the job, men and women who do not have anyone
looking out for them. They work two jobs, three jobs. Many do not have
health insurance. Many make the minimum wage. They are meat packers,
poultry workers, cashiers, assembly line workers, sewing machine
operators. My mother was a sewing machine operator.
They do the jobs that Members of Congress do not want to do. They are
the face that the Republican leadership today does not want us to see.
They are the ones who will pay with their livelihood when we roll back
these workplace safety rules.
In Connecticut, over 11,000 workers suffered workplace injuries in
1998. They were forced to miss one day of work. The cost to
Connecticut's economy was $1 billion a year.
The President, the Republican leadership have decided that these
workers do not deserve basic protections. The Wall Street Journal told
us why yesterday. They said that the big industries that bankrolled the
Bush campaign have now lined up looking for, and I quote, a return on
their investment. That is what this is all about today. That is why we
are rolling back worker-safety laws.
Stand with the people of America and not with the special interests.
Vote against this bill today.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, it is not often that one gets to go to the
House floor and actually vote on substantive legislation that will roll
back regulation. It is equally a rare opportunity to stand and commend
the Senate for doing the right thing before we get here. Today we get
to do both. I appreciate this opportunity.
I stand in strong support of this legislation. There is never a good
time to saddle business with the costs that this will saddle them with.
Today and this time is a particularly bad time given the soft economy.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, if I might inquire as
to how much time we have remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The gentleman from California
(Mr. George Miller) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Boehner) has 8 minutes remaining.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez).
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, how many more people must be hurt before
this Congress does what is right? Obviously, there are over 600,000
workers a year who get hurt because of ergonomic problems.
If we pass this resolution today, we are effectively saying we know
one might get hurt and have injuries that last a long time, but we do
not care. I am not willing to make that statement today.
This standard will help countless nurses, clerks, laborers, and, yes,
factory workers. Factory workers like Ignacio Sanchez, my father, who
worked for 40 years in the factory because he had to support seven
children. These are the type of people my colleagues hurt today by
passing this resolution.
The problem with the resolution is that it would not only revoke the
current ergonomic standards, but it would prevent the Department of
Labor from issuing future general standards. How can Congress prepare
to debate a tax bill for the rich and yet hurt the working people of
America? I ask my colleagues to vote against this resolution.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Norwood), chairman of the Subcommittee on Workforce
Protections.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it very clear to my
friends on the other side of the aisle, as chairman of the Subcommittee
on Workforce Protections, I care about the health and safety of workers
just as much as they do. But this is a very bad rule coming from OSHA
that could, indeed, hurt those same workers they want to protect.
Let us just take one simple hypothetical. Let us say an employee
hurts themselves playing softball. They know that, under this
regulation, if they claim this musculoskeletal disorder and can blame
it on the work force, then they can take 90 days off with 90 percent of
their pay. The injured patient then gets to the doctor and gets the
doctor to say this softball accident really is work related. The
employers call the doctor and say, wait a minute, this MSD was caused
by playing softball. I know that. Two or three of our employees saw it.
The doctor says, sorry, I cannot talk to you about this. It is against
the law.
The OSHA SWAT team then comes in and says you have one MSD patient,
you have one, therefore, you must make changes in your workplace,
costing thousands of dollars for small businesses and perhaps millions
for big businesses. Plus, you pay them 90 percent of the salary for 90
days.
This can force small businesses to go out of business when their
workman's compensation premiums double with all the other additional
expenses one adds on top of it.
Mr. Speaker, I want to hear OSHA explain to me how they are going to
enforce these new ergonomic rules in the textile plants of Mexico and
China. It seems we have trade agreements that allow these countries
access to our textile market, so it would only be fair that those
Mexican and Chinese mills should have to comply with these rules the
same as American textile mills.
We do not at present require Mexican and Chinese friends to comply
with the minimum wage. So it concerns me that OSHA is planning to let
them off the hook on ergonomics as well.
I also want to see the OSHA plan for enforcement of these new
ergonomic standards for the Canadian lumber industry. Under these new
rules, it looks like it might be illegal for a logger to pick up a
chain saw. I really want to know if our Canadian friends will have to
operate under the same restrictions that we are.
See, my district has lost hundreds of jobs in the past few months to
subsidized Canadian timber prices, while we have all but kicked our
loggers out of the National Forests.
Now, I also have an even trickier question. When Mexican and Canadian
truckers come driving their loads of textiles and logs down our
interstate highways as called for by NAFTA, is OSHA going to enforce
the same ergonomic standards on them as they do our Teamsters?
Mr. Speaker, every Member of this House and every union worker in
America needs to recognize a terrifying reality about the
implementation of these standards. These new rules include a total
labor of compliance for every corporation who will move U.S. jobs
across our northern and southern borders out of this country. Mr.
Speaker, it appears our workers may face more of a danger from new OSHA
regulations than they ever would from repetitive motions.
I urge rejection, I urge us all to disagree with this standard
wholeheartedly. It is as bad as the one this House let the Labor
Department pass 9 or 10 years ago on the blood-borne pathogen standard.
I know how bad that one was because, in my other life, I had to live
under that nonsense.
Please do not allow them to get away with this again. Let us come
back and write real standards.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer),
[[Page H697]]
a member of the Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Labor,
Health and Human Services and Education.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, on whatever side of the issue, we all ought to be
against this legislation on the floor today. To the new Members who
come here, did they come here expecting to have no hearings, no
consideration, no full debate on issues of consequence to hundreds of
thousands and, yes, millions of Americans? Is that how we are going to
run the House of Representatives? Is that the responsibility we owe in
a democracy?
The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) has been rolled on the
Patients' Bill of Rights by his own leadership? Why do we come to the
floor rolling us once again, and when I say ``us,'' not the Democrats
and Republicans in the House of Representatives, but the thousands of
people who might just want to come here and tell us how they believe,
what they think, what their perceptions are.
The gentleman from Georgia (Chairman Norwood) said this, ``No reason
to believe they,'' speaking of Libby Dole and George Bush, ``would be
for this legislation.'' Of course there is no reason to believe,
because we have not asked them. We have not asked any American to come
in and tell us what should we do. That is not the way to legislate.
Reject this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, the final Workplace Safety Standard issued by the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration on November 14, 2000, was
the result of a 10-year public process initiated in 1990 by Secretary
of Labor, Elizabeth Dole.
Use of the Congressional Review Act to repeal the Workplace Safety
Standard is an extreme measure. Not only would it represent the first
vote ever in Congress to take away a public health and safety
protection, but it would also prevent OSHA from ever issuing other
important worker health and safety measures.
Each year, U.S. workers experience 1.8 million work-related
repetitive stress disorders. And every year 600,000 workers in America
lose time from work because of repetitive motion, back and other
disabling injuries.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 34 percent of all lost
workday injuries are related to repetitive stress injuries. These
injuries are often extremely painful and disabling; sometimes they are
permanent.
Last year the Department of Labor estimated that the workplace safety
rule would prevent about 300,000 injuries per year, and save $9 billion
in workers compensation and related costs.
Due to riders and similar block-at-all costs tactics since 1995, the
delay in implementing this rule cost $45 billion in workers'
compensation and related costs, and allowed 1.5 million painful and
disabling injuries that could have been prevented.
The problems are real, but so are the solutions. The time for delay
is past.
The time to act is now. American's workers can't afford to wait.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the joint resolution of
disapproval.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman).
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, these workplace safety standards were not
developed over night. They were discussed under a Republican
administration. It took thousands and thousands of comments, 7,000
written comments. One thousand individuals came to hearings across the
Nation. They were not developed overnight.
As a result, these regulations were promulgated, put forth, only nine
pages to protect American workers. They have not even been put into
effect yet. The Republican majority today, and President George W.
Bush, want to throw out these workplace safety regulations before they
have even been put into effect after 10 years of discussion and work.
Vote no on this rule.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to tell the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Hoyer) I do not look like I have been rolled, and I do not feel
like I have been rolled; and we will get a patients protection bill
out. But it will not do any good if my colleagues allow this standard
to go through that OSHA is trying to put down on us.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, to my friend from Florida, some companies
do help the employees and workers and some do not. That is why we have
Federal legislation.
The young lady sitting to my left, this hard-working young lady, is
relieved every 15 minutes, is replaced. She goes downstairs and
transcribes.
So while someone just said that OSHA does not cover Federal
employees, executive orders cover Federal employees. Know the law. Know
the law right under our noses.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this is a direct attack on the
separation of powers. It certainly is amazing to me that my colleagues
have not taken the time to go and see what it is to be in the poultry
factory, plucking legs and wings day after day and time after time, or
being a high-tech worker. What an irony, it has taken 10 years to do
this; and overnight, in 5 minutes, we are throwing it out.
{time} 1900
But the main point my colleagues have missed is it is the employer
that decides whether or not the worker is injured, not anybody else. My
colleagues are in fact asking America to suffer injury, if this is the
legislative process of this House. If there is any mercy, mercy on the
American people. Mercy on the American people. This is a disgrace. Vote
against it.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition of S.J. Res. 6, Disapproving
Resolution for the OSHA Ergonomics Rule. The resolution being
considered by the House today will adversely affect the American
worker's right to be properly compensated when injured on the job. I
vehemently oppose this action to repeal the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) regulations regarding the ergonomics rule.
Under current law, Congress may repeal an agency's regulation by
enacting a resolution of disapproval within 60 days of the rule being
promulgated. S.J. Res. 6 disapproves the rule issued by OSHA of the
Labor Department regarding repetitive-stress injuries and provides that
the rule, announced in November, shall have no force, effectively
repealing it.
The regulation addressed by this disapproval resolution was issued in
the final days of the Clinton Administration by (OSHA) to prevent
repetitive-stress injuries. Since the appropriations act for FY 2001
was not enacted by last November, the Clinton administration was given
an opportunity to promulgate a final ergonomics rule.
The rule, promulgated last November by OSHA, generally covers all
workers, except those in construction, maritime, railroad or
agriculture, who are covered by other protections. The rule requires
employers to distribute to their employees information about
musculosketal disorders (MDSs) and their symptoms. The OSHA rule that
the resolution disapproves took effect January 16, 2001, but most of
the requirements of the rule are not scheduled to be enforced until
October 15, 2001. Employers must also respond to employees' reports of
MSDs, or symptoms of MSDs, by this date.
The rule requires--and for good reason--to take action to address
MSDs and ergonomic hazards when an employee reports a work-related MSD
and has significant exposure to ergonomics risk factors. Under the
rule, it is the employer who determines if the MSD is work-related; if
it requires days away from work, restricted work, or medical treatment
beyond first aid; and if it involves signs or symptoms that last seven
consecutive days after the employee reports them to the employer.
The employer must do a quick check to assess whether the employee is
exposed to ergonomics risk factors, including repetition, force,
awkward postures, contact stress and hand-arm vibration. The rule would
allow workers to finally receive the compensation they deserve.
S.J. Res. 6 would effectively dismantle an effective solution to the
most important safety and health problems that workers face today. The
procedure being used to overturn the rule prevents any kind of reasoned
debate about the merits of the ergonomics rule.
Let's look at the facts. Workplace practices cause millions of
ergonomics injuries each year. OSHA's rule will prevent more than 4.6
[[Page H698]]
million of these injuries in the first ten years and will benefit more
than 100 million workers throughout the nation.
OSHA estimates that the ergonomics standard will cost American
businesses $4.5 billion annually. But it will also save businesses $9.1
billion in worker's compensation costs and lost productivity each year.
This is an economic argument often forgotten.
The current ergonomics standard is the long-awaited result of a 10-
year process begun by former Labor Secretary Elizabeth Dole. This
resolution is being considered under a procedure that prevents reasoned
consideration of the merits of this ergonomics rule and prohibits
amendments to that rule. The resolution was rushed through the Senate
and was abruptly added to the House schedule by the GOP leadership--
without adequate notice usually given to such important measures.
The recent National Academy of Sciences study proves conclusively
that workplace practices cause ergonomics injuries and that ergonomics
programs work to prevent and limit these types of injuries. This study
simply confirms the results of numerous previous studies.
Mr. Speaker, if there are problems with the ergonomics rule, we
should make changes to address those problems. But such changes could
be made administratively--without throwing out the entire rule and,
with it, any debilitating ergonomic injuries. Let us pause for a moment
and remind ourselves of our obligation to provide full compensation of
workers' injuries. I urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I said earlier this evening this was an assault on the
American worker, and it is; but it is also an insult to the American
worker that earlier today, rather than extend the debate so we could
discuss the facts, so we could debate it back and forth, the House
chose to rather stand in recess than have a debate in the people's
House.
When we asked for a hearing in committee, there was no hearing
forthcoming in the committee. When the Committee on Appropriations
asked for a hearing, there was no hearing. Yet for years the
Republicans have stalled this regulation by saying they wanted more
evidence, they wanted additional studies. They stalled it right up
until the last days of the Clinton administration. And then when
President Clinton issued this regulation in the last days of his
administration, they said, How could he do this at the last minute?
Because they had been stalling him for 6 and 7 years to promulgate this
regulation. This is like the people who kill their parents and then ask
mercy from the court because they are orphans.
It is no wonder this regulation has been stalled. And now when it is
finally in place to protect the American workers, they insult the
American workers by overturning it in 1 hour.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, this really is a historic day in the people's House.
This is the first time that the Congressional Review Act of 1996 is
actually working its way through Congress and for the first time in the
10-plus years that I have been a Member of Congress that the Congress
has stood up to the bureaucracy.
Yes, the gentleman from California is right, there are nine pages of
regulations; but it took OSHA 600 pages to try to explain this to
American businesses. And it would take any business owner in America a
lawyer, a lawyer, to read through this to figure out exactly under what
conditions the employer had to live by this regulation.
Now, we have heard a lot of debate today about the fact there is only
1 hour that we are going to have this discussion today. Now, all of the
Members who have been here, more than those who were just here the last
month and a half, know that we have debated this issue for 10 years;
and for the last 6 or 7 years we have voted, the Congress, every year,
to stop this and told OSHA to go back and take a look at it because it
is too broad, it is too complicated, and it is too excessive on
American workers and the people that they work for.
And what happened? The bureaucracy never listened. OSHA continued
down their path of trying to shove this down the throats of the
American people. This Congress today is standing up, finally, to the
bureaucracy and saying, enough is enough; it is time to do something
reasonable or not do it at all.
Now, why do I get a little excited about this? Well, let us go back.
Let us go back to October when Congress voted again to make sure that
this study did not go into effect. Four days after the election, the
Clinton administration and OSHA decided they were going to proceed with
this regardless of what the Congress thought. Why 4 days after the
election? So it could take effect 4 days before the new administration
came to office.
I do not think that is what the American people want. And I am proud
of the fact that my colleagues today will stand up and tell the
bureaucracy, enough is enough; that they are going to do things in a
reasonable, responsible way or they will not do them at all.
Who are the people who are most concerned about their workers in this
country? It is American small businessmen and small businesswomen who
know that their workforce is the heart and soul of their business. The
chances for them to succeed are based on their workers and the
relationship they have with their workers. They are the ones that are
interested in them.
We heard about the FedEx drivers with the bands around their waist,
or the UPS drivers. Why do they wear that? Not because of OSHA. Because
their employer wants to make sure that they keep them healthy and on
the job. How about the Home Depot worker? Same kind of waist band, and
Amazon.com, we see them running around. How about the people at the
Kroeger store who stock the shelves? Those companies are there looking
out for their workers, as all employers are. And for Kroeger, as an
example, when it comes to the checkout person and the height of that
table they operate from and that cash register, that is all designed to
protect those workers.
So I would ask all my colleagues today to stand up on this historic
day and do what is right. Do what is right for American workers and do
what is right for American business, and let us once and for all tell
the bureaucracy here in Washington, enough is enough.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as
she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).
(Ms. BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this first
attack from the Bush administration on the working people after the
coup d'etat that took place in Florida.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution.
Corporate America, President Bush and this Republican controlled
Congress are abandoning the scientifically based worker safety
protections that the Labor Department had finally put in place.
I would also like to point out that without the coup that took place
this past November in Florida, we would not be having this debate. This
is another perfect example of how much it really does matter which
party is in power and which party cares about our nation's workers.
After years of struggle, the newly enacted worker protections are
already under attack, and are about to be stamped out completely. Big
business and their allies in Congress, through an undemocratic
political maneuver, want to throw out 10 years of struggle and research
to kill the standards that require employers to protect workers.
Remember, working men and women are the backbone of this country, and
I cannot believe that this Congress is simply ignoring their safety.
OSHA was finally moving forward to develop a standard to prevent
unnecessary injuries, and this bill would only cause those workers more
pain.
I urge my colleagues to stand up for the workers of America and vote
against this resolution.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of federal
employees, who after ten years of studies, scientific evidence and
millions of injuries, have taken the evidence and acted to protect the
public interest. I rise in support of the findings of the studies
initiated by my Republican Colleagues, which found not once, not twice,
but in three separate studies, that Musculoskeletal Disorders, which
injure nearly 2 million people annually, are caused by ergonomics
hazards in the workplace. I rise in support of the employees in my
state and district who have suffered workplace injuries, and who have
continued to suffer
[[Page H699]]
without the protection of an ergonomics standard which has been found
to prevent those injuries. I rise to applaud the Clinton
Administration's efforts to protect worker safety and the enactment
OSHA's most significant rule to date. Unfortunately, this legislation
is just another attempt by the Republican Party to eliminate the gains
that the Clinton Administration gave to American workers.
If I were to tell you that 1,600 children were being injured at their
schools every day, if 1,600 people were injured every day in car
accidents, if 1,600 people a day were injured in any other fashion, we
would have a national crisis on our hands. But when OSHA, the
Department of Labor, the Centers for Disease Control, and three
separate studies, find that 1,600 workers are injured so severely on
the job every day, that they need time off of work, we not only turn
our back on workers, but we attempt, for the first time ever, to
rescind a rule issued by federal agencies. These 1600 injuries are
preventable, my friends! These injuries are estimated to cost 20
billion dollars annually in workers compensation, while the actual cost
to the economy is nearly 50 billion dollars. These injuries result in
lost wages for working families and lost productivity for struggling
small businesses. And it's preventable!
I also rise today in strong opposition to the method by which this
legislation has come to the House Floor. The Congressional Review Act
has never before been used to review a rule that our agencies have
issued. It's never before been used. Ever. The Congressional Review Act
is an extremist tool, a part of the Contract with America, and it's
being used to tie the hand of our federal agencies, and of future
Congresses, and to end any chance of ever protecting workers from
preventable injuries. The method by which this bill has come to the
House floor today, has left both sides unable to amend the legislation,
bypassing long established House procedures, including review by the
appropriate committee's. It's been rushed through by people long
opposed to OSHA's ergonomics rule, and will result in permanent
debilitating injuries to employees, and in billions of dollars of
damage to our economy.
I encourage all of my colleagues to take a close look at the studies
which opponents to this rule commissioned. They prove conclusively that
ergonomic practices can prevent injuries and help improve the quality
of life of all working Americans. I strongly discourage establishing
this dangerous precedent, and ask that they vote against the
Disapproval Resolution for the Ergonomics Rule.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Senate
Joint Resolution 6 to overturn the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration's flawed ergonomics regulation. OSHA's Ergonomic rules
are unnecessary, too costly to businesses, and may not accomplish the
stated goal of improving worker safety.
The proposed regulation is expected to cost $4.5 billion to the
economy according to OSHA, I believe the cost will far exceed that.
Small, medium, and large businesses would incur billions of dollars in
new costs. If allowed to go into effect the OSHA regulation will be the
biggest, most onerous new government mandate industries have faced in
years, and there is absolutely no concrete evidence that it would
result in a greater reduction in injuries.
The problems with the OSHA ergonomics regulations are numerous.
Musculoskeletal disorders are poorly defined with no differentiation
between job injuries and those, which are pre-existing. It is
impossible to ignore non-work-related factors, yet OSHA requires
employers to do so. Furthermore, there is no medical standard for
confirming injuries or a standard treatment protocol. Employees will
also be left to determine whether to follow a federal OSHA requirement
or state workers' compensation laws when any musculoskeletal disorder
occurs.
Industries have done extensive research of employees and their worker
safety records. The results of their research have shown that voluntary
initiatives such as early intervention, job rotation, worker training,
new equipment, and increased mechanization contribute to improving
worker safety records.
Passing this resolution to rescind OSHA's ergonomics regulation will
be a victory for workers and businesses in Georgia. We must ensure that
workers have safe conditions in which to work while at the same time
allowing businesses to prosper. The Clinton Administration's last
minute, costly ergonomics mandate would have resulted in layoffs and
higher prices for goods and services. I urge all of my colleagues to
join me in supporting this resolution.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to S.J. Res. 6, the
Disapproval Resolution for the OSHA Ergonomics Rule. This proposal will
repeal ergonomic standards that protect millions of working men and
women.
These ergonomics guidelines were issued in the final days of the
Clinton administration by the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) to prevent repetitive-stress injuries.
These guidelines are designed to prevent musculoskeletal disorders,
such as back injuries and carpal tunnel syndrome, which constitute the
biggest safety and health problem in the workplace. Such injuries
account for nearly one-third of all serious job-related injuries.
In 1999, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, more than
600,000 workers suffered injuries caused by repetitive motion, heavy
lifting, and forceful exertion. Ergonomics injuries affect every sector
of the economy, including nurses, cashiers, computer users, truck
drivers, construction workers, and meat cutters.
Women are particularly harmed by such injuries. Employees in data
entry positions, assembly line slots, nursing home staffs and many
other jobs face a heightened risk of workplace injury if implementation
of the new ergonomics standard is halted.
A January 2001 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study concluded
that there is abundant scientific evidence demonstrating that
repetitive workplace motions can cause injuries, and that such injuries
can be prevented through ergonomic interventions.
OSHA developed a set of regulations to prevent extensive worker
injuries. It is estimated that implementation of these regulations will
prevent more than 4.6 million injuries over the next decade and save
employers $9.1 billion a year. If S.J. Res. 6 passes the House, OSHA
will be barred from issuing comparable protections to protect workers.
Our workers need to be protected. The OSHA guidelines will prevent
hundreds of thousands of serious injuries each year and spare workers
the pain, suffering and disability caused by these injuries. If S.J.
Res. 6 passes, our workers will have no safety mechanisms to protect
them from being injured at the workplace.
We cannot gamble with our worker's health and safety. They should not
have to suffer unnecessary injuries. We must move forward and implement
OSHA's important protections that will prevent more workers from being
hurt.
It is unfortunate that the Bush Administration is declaring war on
working families by supporting this proposal. This Administration is
pushing this bill in order to pay off the big businesses that supported
their election.
But what about the working class who will suffer tremendous losses
due to the passage of this bill?
This is the same week that the Republicans want to pass a tax cut to
benefit the wealthy while at the same time abolish workplace safety
standards for the working class! Where are the priorities our President
and Republican leadership?
I strongly urge my colleagues to support our hard-working individuals
by voting ``no'' on passage of this proposal.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to S.J. Res. 6,
the Disapproving Resolution for the ergonomics rule that the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued to prevent
workplace-related repetitive-stress injuries.
Today we stand poised, for the first time, to disapprove an agency
rule under the Congressional Review Act (CRA). The target of this
unprecedented effort is a rule that tries to address musculoskeletal
disorders (MSDs). The rule requires employers to take actions to
address MSDs and ergonomic hazards if and when the employer determines
that an employee, who has significant exposure to ergonomics risk
factors, has reported a work-related MSD injury. This process was
commenced by former Labor Secretary Elizabeth Dole in 1990, during the
first President Bush's administration, who noted at the time that there
was sufficient scientific evidence to require OSHA to proceed to
address ``one of the nation's most debilitating across-the-board worker
safety and health illnesses of the 1990's'' Here we are, over a decade
later, still arguing about whether the OSHA has the authority to
promulgate a workplace ergonomics rule.
It is important to stress two things. First, under the ergonomics
rule, it is the employer, not the employee, who determines if the
reported MSD is work-related. Employers may obtain the assistance of a
health care professional in determining whether the MSD is work-related
or employers may make the determinations themselves. Second, the
ergonomics rule does not apply a ``one-size-fits-all'' approach that
forces employers to establish comprehensive ergonomics program.
Employers are given the flexibility to tailor their response to the
circumstances of their workplace. Employers may use a combination of
engineering, administrative and work-practice controls to reduce
hazards. I suspect if the Agency put out specific requirements, they
would be chided for being to inflexible and placing impractical burdens
on employers.
Opponents of the ergonomics rule argue that the costs of complying
with the OSHA ergonomics standard will be $100 billion. While I
understand these concerns, and believe that the compliance burden of
the
[[Page H700]]
ergonomics standard should be limited, especially on small businesses
struggling to make a profit, I am also concerned that some workers may
suffer undue stress and injuries from repetitive motions which could
result in even greater costs. Studies have found that these disorders
constitute the largest job-related injury and illness problem in the
United States today. Employers pay more than $15-$20 billion in
workers' compensation costs for these disorders every year, and taking
into account other expenses associated with repetitive stress injuries
(RSIs), this total may increase to $45-$54 billion a year. While
thousands of companies have taken steps to address and prevent
musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) or RSIs, half of all American
workplaces address ergonomics. The annual costs of this standard to
employers are estimated to be $4.5 billion, while the annual benefits
it will generate are estimated to be $9.1 billion.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this shortsighted
congressional action has ramifications far beyond treating the rule as
if it had never taken effect. Disapproval prohibits OSHA from reissuing
the same rule or a new rule that is ``substantially the same'' unless
the new rule is specifically authorized by Congress. Given the
political minefield OSHA had to cross the first time, history tells us
that they won't soon be traveling that road again, leaving far too many
American workers in workplaces that do not address a substantial
workplace hazard.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose the resolution pending
before the House, which would disapprove the Department of Labor
workplace safety rules related to ergonomics. In the strongest possible
terms, I urge my colleagues to reject this measure.
There have been ten years of science and study on this issue. Each
year, it is estimated that 1.8 million Americans suffer from workplace
injuries, many of which result from overexertion or repetitive motion.
Musculoskeletal injuries on the job cause 300,000 injuries each year.
Workers in the meatpacking and poultry industries, auto assembly,
nursing homes, transportation, warehousing, construction and data entry
are among those most affected. Due to the demographics of these jobs,
women are particularly at risk. Many of these injuries are serious
enough to require time off from work, and cost businesses billions in
workers compensation.
It speaks volumes that after years of delaying these workplace safety
standards with the argument that more time and study were needed, the
Republican Majority has rushed this resolution of disapproval to the
Floor with little notice, no committee hearings, no possibility of
amendment, and only one hour provided for general debate. It's also
ironic that, should the House adopt the resolution before us today, a
workplace safety rulemaking that began 9 years ago during the first
Bush Administration will be derailed by the signature of George W.
Bush.
If there are problems with the new ergonomics rules, they can be
addressed through the regular process, through hearings, and perfecting
changes. Instead, today we have a sledgehammer.
Republicans should not be putting the special interests ahead of the
public interest. We've studied this and studied this for the last ten
years. The results are in. It's time to protect Americans from these
preventable injuries. In the interest of protecting millions of workers
from debilitating injuries, Congress should reject the resolution of
disapproval.
Mr. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, ergonomics may be a fancy-sounding name
but the impacts on workers from ergonomic hazards, including repetitive
stress injuries (RSIs), carpal tunnel syndrome and tendonitis are down-
to-earth and serious. Working men and women who suffer from ergonomic
injuries have difficulty accomplishing the simple tasks that we take
for granted. They often cannot open a can of soup, cannot comb their
hair, and cannot hug their children. All of us know someone who has
suffered a repetitive stress injury. Many keep working, in pain,
because they cannot afford to stop. Their injuries are serious, they
are obvious, they are often life-long and--most importantly--they are
preventable.
Every year, 600,000 workers suffer serious injuries because of
ergonomic injuries (according to a 1999 BLS study). Many of those
injured workers are women. In fact, while women are 46 percent of the
workforce, they account for 64% of repetitive motion injuries, 69% of
lost-work-time cases due to carpal tunnel syndrome, and 61% of lost-
work-time cases from tendinitis. Ergonomic hazards are the cause of
one-third of all serious job-related injuries, but half of injuries
affecting working women. They cost our nation $45 to $50 billion each
year in medical costs, lost wages and lost productivity.
I, along with my Democratic colleagues in the Illinois delegation,
today released a report prepared by the minority staff of the
Government Reform Committee. It found that, in 1998, 26,734 Illinois
workers suffered injuries so severe that they missed at least one day
of work. Of those injuries, 5,554 workers--more than 1 in 5--missed
more than a month of work. The cost of Illinois' economy is over $2
billion a year.
Last November, after 10 years of study, 9 weeks of hearings, 11 best
practices conferences, 9 months of opportunity for written comment, and
years of legislative delays, ergonomic standards were finally issued to
prevent injuries. The program standard issued last fall outlined the
benefits from this rule: 4.6 million fewer injuries, protections for
102 million workers at 6.1 million worksites, $9.1 billion in average
annual savings, and $27,700 savings in direct costs for each injury
prevented. The cost: $4.5 billion a year. Half of the projected savings
result from preventing 4.6 million injuries.
In January 2001, the National Academy of Sciences issued a
Congressionally-mandated study, giving the latest in a long line of
confirmations that ergonomic injuries are a serious workplace problem
and they can be prevented through standards to reduce ergonomic
hazards.
There is practical evidence as well. At companies like 3M and the big
three auto makers, ergonomic standards have not only helped reduce
worker injuries, they have saved money and made the companies more
productive.
Ten years ago, Labor Secretary Elizabeth Dole called repetive stress
injuries ``one of the nation's most debilitating across the board
worker safety and health illnesses of the 1990's.'' We have delayed
action for 10 years. Over that time, 6 million working men and women
suffered needlessly. It is wrong that we let the 1990's go by without
taking action. It would be unconscionable to allow RSIs to continue to
plaque working families in the new millennium.
The Joint Resolution of Disapproval overturns last November's
standards and prevents the Department of Labor from issuing any similar
standard unless specifically authorized by Congress. The Bush
Administration and its Republican supporters in Congress say that the
rule costs too much. It is too costly in protect 102 million workers?
This same Administration has proposed giving $774 billion to the
richest one-percent of all Americans over the next 10 years.
I believe the November standards make sense in terms of workplace
health and safety and economic productivity. But even if you believe
that the employers need help to make ergonomic changes, why not take
some of that $774 billion and use it to improve workplace safety? I
simply do not believe that protecting workers is beyond our means.
Ergonomic Injuries in Illinois
(Prepared for Representatives Rod R. Blagojevich, Jerry F. Costello,
Danny K. Davis, Lane Evans, Luis Gutierrez, Jesse Jackson, Jr., William
O. Lipinski, David Phelps, Bobby L. Rush, and Janice D. Schakowsky)
Minority Staff, Special Investigations Division, Committee on
Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, March 7, 2001
executive summary
Ergonomic injuries, such as back problems, tendonitis,
sprains and strains, and carpal tunnel syndrome, are a
serious and expensive workplace problem affecting the health
of hundreds of thousands of workers and costing the U.S.
economy billions of dollars annually. In 1998, almost six
hundred thousand workers suffered ergonomic injuries that
were so severe that they were forced to take time off of
work.
Ergonomic injuries account for one-third of all
occupational injuries and illnesses and constitute the single
largest job-related injury and illness problem in the United
States. The National Academy of Sciences has estimated that
the costs of ergonomic injuries to employees, employers, and
society as a whole can be conservatively estimated at $50
billion annually.
The U.S. Department of Labor has worked for a decade to
develop regulations to prevent ergonomic injuries. These
regulations were finalized in November 2000. However,
Congress is now considering repealing these regulations using
the Congressional Review Act, a special legislative maneuver
that has never been used before.
In order to estimate the impact of a repeal of the
ergonomics rule on Illinois workers and on the state's
economy, Reps. Rod R. Blagojevich, Jerry F. Costello, Danny
K. Davis, Lane Evans, Luis Gutierrez, Jesse Jackson, Jr.,
William O. Lipinski, David Phelps, Bobby L. Rush, and Janice
D. Schakowsky requested that the Special Investigations
Division of the minority staff of the Committee on Government
Reform conduct a study of ergonomic injuries in the state.
This report, which is based on data obtained from the Bureau
of Labor Statistics (BLS) and cost estimates prepared by the
National Academy of Sciences, presents the results of the
investigation.
The report finds that:
Thousands of Illinois workers suffer from ergonomic
injuries. In 1998, 26,734 Illinois workers suffered ergonomic
injuries that were so severe that they were forced to miss at
least one day of work. Ergonomic injuries accounted for one-
third of all occupational injuries that occurred in Illinois.
[[Page H701]]
Many of these ergonomic injuries are severe, causing
workers to miss significant time away from work. Of the
26,734 ergonomic injuries that caused workers to miss time at
work, 5,554, over 20%, caused workers to miss more than a
month of work. Almost 60% percent of the injuries were so
severe that they caused workers to miss more than one week of
work.
Ergonomic injuries cost Illinois's economy over two billion
dollars each year. The analysis estimates that the total
statewide cost of ergonomic injuries, including lost wages
and lost economic productivity, was approximately $2.3
billion in 1998.
i. introduction
Ergonomic injuries, such as back problems, tendonitis,
sprains and strains, and carpal tunnel syndrome, are a
serious and expensive workplace problem affecting the health
of hundreds of thousands of workers and costing the U.S.
economy billions of dollars annually. In 1998, almost six
hundred thousand workers suffered ergonomic injuries that
were so severe that they were forced to take time off of
work. Ergonomic injuries account for one-third of all
occupational injuries and illnesses and constitute the single
largest job-related injury and illness problem in the United
States. These injuries are painful and debilitating.
Ergonomic injuries can permanently disable workers, not only
reducing their ability to perform their job, but preventing
them from handling even simple tasks like combing their hair,
typing, or picking up a baby.
These injuries are also expensive. Employees lose wages
because of these injuries, while employers are forced to pay
billions in compensation and face high costs because of the
loss of productivity from the injuries. The National Academy
of Sciences has estimated that the costs of ergonomic
injuries to employees, employers, and society as a whole can
be conservatively estimated at $50 billion annually.
Both Republican and Democratic administrations have been
concerned about ergonomic injuries for over a decade. In
1990, Elizabeth Dole, Secretary of Labor for President George
H.W. Bush, found that ergonomic injuries were ``one of the
nation's most debilitating across-the-board worker safety and
health issues'' and announced that the Bush Administration
was ``committed to taking the most effective steps necessary
to address the problem of ergonomic hazards. In June of 1992,
President Bush's Labor Department began work to establish
regulations to solve the problem of ergonomic injuries.
Under President Clinton, the Department of Labor continued
to investigate the causes and potential solutions to
ergonomic injuries. Last year the Department held nine weeks
of hearings with more than one thousand witnesses. It
sponsored 11 best practices conferences and allowed for
nearly nine months of written comment from the public. It
examined extensive scientific research, including a 1998
National Academy of Sciences study that found that ergonomic
injuries can be caused by work and that workplace
interventions can reduce the number and severity of these
injuries. Finally, on the basis of this evidence, the
Department concluded that ergonomic standards would reduce
the number and severity of ergonomic injuries.
On November 14, 2000, the Department issued the final
standards to reduce the occurrence of ergonomic injuries.
Beginning in October of this year, covered employers must
provide their employees with information about ergonomic
injuries, how to recognize and report them, and a brief
description of the new ergonomic standard. The employee is
not required to take any additional steps unless an employee
reports an ergonomic injury or persistent signs of one. If an
employee reports an ergonomic injury or persistent symptoms,
and the employee is exposed to ergonomic hazards, the
employer must then take action to address the problem. This
action could range from a ``quick fix,'' if the injury is
isolated, to implementation of a full ergonomics program.
The standards cover over six million employers and over 100
million workers. OSHA estimates that compliance will cost
$4.5 billion annually, but that the standards will save
approximately $9.1 billion annually and prevent roughly 4.6
million injuries over the next ten years.
Congress is now considering overturning these regulations
using a special legislative maneuver, the Congressional
Review Act (CRA), which has never been used before. The CRA,
enacted in 1996 as part of the Republican Contract with
America, allows Congress to repeal rules promulgated by
executive agencies. The CRA also allows Congress to by-pass
many procedural requirements and repeal rules with very
little debate.
On March 1, 2001, Senator Don Nickles (R-OK) invoked the
CRA and introduced S.J. Res. 6, which disapproves the
recently enacted ergonomics rule. If both the House and the
Senate pass the legislation to overturn the regulation, and
the President does not veto it, the ergonomics rule will be
repealed. The Labor Department would then be permanently
prevented from issuing any ergonomics rule that is
``substantially the same'' as the disapproved rule.
ii objective of the report
This report was requested by Reps. Blagojevich, Costello,
Davis, Evans, Gutierrez, Jackson, Lipinski, Phelps, Rush, and
Schakowsky to estimate the incidence of ergonomic injuries in
Illinois. While there have been analyses of the numbers of
workers affected and the cost of ergonomic injuries at the
national level, there have been few estimates of the extent
of the problem at the state level. This report is the first
congressional study to estimate the number of ergonomic
injuries in Illinois, as well as the first to estimate the
costs of these injuries.
iii. methodology
This analysis presents an estimate of the number of
ergonomic injuries in Illinois, and an estimate of their
cost. The data on the number ergonomic injuries was obtained
upon request from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). BLS
conducts extensive surveys of 220,000 private employees in 41
states, and produces state and national estimates of the
total number of workplace injuries and illnesses based on
these survey results. The data obtained from BLS includes
information on all musculoskeletal disorders--such as sprains
and strains, back injuries, and carpal tunnel syndrome--that
caused employees to miss at least one day of work. In
addition to obtaining information on the total number of
musculoskeletal injuries, the minority staff also requested
and obtained more detailed data on the types and severity of
injuries, the industries in which they occur, and the workers
who are affected.
The report also estimates the cost of ergonomic injuries in
Illinois. In order to estimate these costs in Illinois, the
report relies upon the recent estimate by the National
Academy of Sciences of the nationwide economic costs of
ergonomic injuries. The economic costs estimated by the
National Academy of Sciences include medical costs, lost
wages, and lost productivity. In order to determine a
statewide share of these costs, the report calculates the
proportion of all U.S. ergonomic injuries that occur in
Illinois. The report then uses this proportion to estimate
the total economic costs in Illinois.
The cost figures in this analysis are estimates and are
based upon several assumptions about the cost of treating
ergonomic injuries and the lost wages and productivity due to
these injuries. However, because the BLS data significantly
underestimate the total number of injuries, it is likely that
these estimates are significantly below the true cost of
ergonomic injuries. According to the National Academy of
Sciences, ``there is substantial reason to think that a
significant proportion of musculoskeletal disorders that
might be attributable to work are never reported as such.''
For example, a study in Connecticut found that only 10% of
workers who suffered from work-related ergonomic injuries had
filed workers' compensation claims, suggesting a high level
of underreporting.
iv findings
A. The Number and Severity of Ergonomic Injuries in Illinois
The Bureau of Labor statistics indicate that ergonomic
injuries are a severe problem in the state of Illinois. The
data show that in 1998, 26,734 workers suffered ergonomic
injuries that were so severe that they were forced to miss at
least one day of work. Ergonomic injuries accounted for one-
third of all occupational injuries that occurred in Illinois
in 1998.
Many of these ergonomic injuries are severe, causing
workers to miss significant time away from work. Of the
26,734 ergonomic injuries that caused workers to miss time at
work, 5,554, over 20%, caused workers to miss more than a
month of work. Almost 60% of the injuries were so severe that
they caused workers to miss more than one week of work. These
extended absences cause financial hardship for employees and
increase costs for their employers.
Workers in some industries are at higher risk of ergonomic
injuries than workers in others. Overall, workers in the
manufacturing suffered the most injuries (7,303), followed by
workers in the services sector (6,132 injuries), and workers
in transportation and public utilities (4,731 injuries).
Among industry divisions employing a significant number of
Illinois citizens, the transportation and public utilities
industry had the highest incidence rate of ergonomic
injuries, 148 per 10,000 workers.
B. The Cost of Ergonomic Injuries in Illinois
Ergonomic injuries cost Illinois's economy millions of
dollars each year. In 1998, workers' compensation insurance
paid injured workers in Illinois $1.7 billion. The BLS data
show that ergonomic injuries accounted for 33% of all
workplace injuries in Illinois that year. If workers with
ergonomic injuries received a proportionate share of the
payments from workers' compensation, the cost of workers'
compensation payments for Illinois workers that suffered
ergonomic injuries in 1998 would be approximately $560
million.
Workers' compensation payments are only a part of the total
economic cost of ergonomic injuries, however. Employers and
employees must not only pay for medical treatment, but lose
millions of dollars in lost wages and lost economic
productivity. Overall, the National Academy of Sciences
estimates that the total cost of ergonomic injuries to the
U.S. economy is approximately $50 billion annually. In 1998,
Illinois's private industry workers suffered 26,734 ergonomic
injuries, which is 4.5% of all ergonomic injuries that
occurred in the United States. If the state of Illinois bears
a proportionate share of the nationwide economic costs of
ergonomic injuries, this would mean that total costs due to
ergonomic injuries in Illinois in 1998 were approximately
$2.3 billion.
v. conclusion
This analysis finds that ergonomic injuries present a
severe health problem for Illinois's
[[Page H702]]
workers and a significant economic cost statewide. Over
26,000 Illinois workers suffered ergonomic injuries that
forced them to miss work in 1998. These injuries were often
serious, with almost 60% of the injuries causing workers to
miss more than a week of work. The total cost of ergonomic
injuries to employers and employees in Illinois in 1998 was
approximately $2.3 billion.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the
OSHA Ergonomics Standard by voting no on the CRA resolution.
The importance of maintaining the Ergonomics standard as it relates
to the health and well being of American workers cannot be argued. Each
year, ergonomic workplace hazards cause over 1.8 million Americans to
suffer crippling Musculoskeletal disorders, or MSDs. And of those
injuries, 600,000 result in lost time from work.
Clearly, MSDs are the greatest single safety and workplace hazard
confronting American workers today. But these types of injuries can be
prevent simply by requiring employers to adhere to specific ergonomics
workplace standards--and the OSHA rules do just that.
The long overdue OSHA ergonomics standard is supported by extensive
scientific research and an exhaustive rulemaking record. We have the
testimony of scores of scientific experts and hundreds of workers
presented during numerous hearings on the matter--and they confirm that
MSD injuries ARE serious, and they ARE caused by inadequate workplace
environments, AND, they ARE preventable.
Since 1990, when then-Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Dole first
promised to take action to protect workers from repetitive strain
injuries, more than 6 million workers have suffered serious MSD
injuries.
American workers have waited over ten years for this critical
workplace protection and we must not make them wait any longer.
Every member of Congress has experienced first-hand the enormous
pressure coming from the White House, the Republican leadership and
business groups for us to use the Congressional Review Act to do away
with these critical worker protection standards.
But while the Bush Administration says these rules place an unfair
financial burden on corporations, it says nothing about the long-term
health problems MSD's impose on American workers.
These new safety and health protections will prevent hundreds of
thousands of serious MSD injuries each year and spare American workers
the pain, suffering and disability caused by these debilitating
injuries.
I urge every member of Congress to join with the scientific experts
and safety and health professionals in support OSHA's Ergonomics
standard, so all working people throughout this country can finally
have the workplace protections they so urgently need and so justifiably
deserve. For the sake and health of American workers, vote no on the
CRA resolution.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, As the former Labor Commissioner for the
State of New York, I have a long standing and well known concern for
workers rights and worker protection. I strongly believe that our
workers are companies' best asset. Our workers are some of the best
educated and most productive in the world and they deserve protection
from unhealthy worker environments. For this reason I was pleased to
see the U.S. Department of Labor work to address workplace injuries.
Unfortunately, the rule put forward by the Department of Labor is
unnecessarily broad and overreaching. Rather than being limited to jobs
that involve numerous repetitive motions or excessive lifting, OSHA has
created a rule so enormous in its scope that it regulates every motion
in the workplace. Additionally, specific parts of the proposal have
been identified by small business as costly and troublesome; a charge I
take very seriously. Furthermore, there are charges that many non-work
related factors may increase the likelihood of injury, yet OSHA's
standard holds employers accountable. Lastly, some critics say there is
a lack of consensus in scientific communities as to the causes and
proven remedies for repetitive stress injuries.
Two specific concerns prompt me to cast a vote of no confidence on
the ergonomics rule. Besides the legitimate concerns I have already
discussed, I am skeptical of regulations that are put into effect
during the final days of an Administration that had eight years to
promulgate them. Despite the obvious political aspects of these
regulations, the idea that a rule can use a ``one size fits all''
approach to address the immensely complex ergonomics issue is foolhardy
at best. Washington has tried this approach before and failed, time and
time again. Secondly, the negative impact the 700 pages of regulations
will have on small businesses is predictable. It will cost them time
and money to decipher them, cost them more to implement, and cause many
to simply close up shop. Small businesses are the engine that drives
the economy, and the more difficult we make it for them to succeed
through unnecessarily burdensome regulations, the more difficult it is
for the economy to grow.
My vote of no confidence on the ergonomics regulations does not mean
I oppose an ergonomics standard; I just oppose this one. I plan to work
with Labor Secretary Chao to ensure our workers are protected from
unhealthy work environments. Secretary Chao has made clear in a letter
to Members of Congress, ``Let me assure you that, in the event a Joint
Resolution of Disapproval becomes law, I intend to pursue a
comprehensive approach to ergonomics which may include new rulemaking,
that addresses the concerns levied against the current standard * * *
Repetitive stress injuries in the workplace are an important problem.''
I pledge to work with her to see a quality, common sense, workable
ergonomics standard put in place to protect the valued workers of our
nation.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, the ergonomics rule adopted by the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) ten years after
first being proposed by then-Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Dole will
protect 102 million American workers from injuries in the workplace.
The ergonomics rule is designed to protect workers from
musculoskeletal disorders caused by highly repetitive, heavy and
forceful work. The injuries that result account for nearly a third of
all serious job-related injuries.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 1999 more than
600,000 workers suffered serious workplace injuries caused by
repetitive motion and overexertion. These injuries cost employers and
employees $45 to 54 billion annually in compensation costs, lost wages
and lost productivity.
The National Academy of Sciences, in a January, 2001 report mandated
by Congress, found that in 1999 musculoskeletal disorders accounted for
130 million encounters with physicians, hospitals, emergency rooms and
outpatient facilities.
The study concluded that there is a relationship between back
disorders and manual material handling, heavy physical work, frequent
bending and twisting and whole body vibration. Repetition, force and
vibration are related to hand and arm injuries.
The NAS concluded that ``the weight of the evidence justifies the
introduction of appropriate and selected interventions to reduce the
rise of musculoskeletal disorders of the lower back and upper
extremities. These include, but are not limited to, the application of
ergonomic principles to reduce physical as well psychosocial
stressors.'' Clearly, the $1 million NAS study mandated by Congress
supports the ergonomics rule.
Consider the experience of the automobile industry. In 1994 Chrysler,
Ford and General Motors and the United Auto Workers negotiated
ergonomics programs in auto plants. The results: for workers, fewer and
less severe injuries; for employers, gains in productivity, 1994. The
Bureau of Labor estimates that in just 1 year, 69,000 work-related
injuries were prevented in these companies. Of these, 41,000, or over
two-thirds, were repetitive stress injuries.
OSHA estimates that 102 million workers in 6.1 million workplaces
would be covered by the new ergonomics standard. Over ten years
ergonomic problems in 18 million jobs will be fixed. Direct cost
savings for each of these problem jobs is $27,000, including saving
lost productivity, lost tax payments and the administrative costs
related to workers' compensation claims.
The ergonomics rule is extremely important to women in today's
workforce. Women make up 46 percent of the workforce, but account for
64 percent of repetitive motion injuries. Repeal of the ergonomics rule
will have a disproportionate effect on women in the workplace.
Women account for 64 percent of repetitive motion injuries.
Women account for 69 percent of lost-time cases from carpal tunnel
syndrome.
Women account for 61 percent of lost-time cases from tendinitis.
Annually over 180,000 women are injured due to overexertion.
According to the AFL-CIO, the top five jobs with the highest number
of nonfatal injuries requiring time off are nursing aides, orderlies
and attendants; registered nurses; cashiers, maids and housekeepers and
assemblers.
Disapproving the ergonomics rule through use of the Congressional
Review Act will preclude OSHA from ever again promulgating a rule on
ergonomics. The Administration could amend, revise or even repeal the
rule through the very same rulemaking process that led to the rule.
Congress can effectively suspend the rule by prohibiting OSHA from
spending any money to implement the rule. But by disapproving the
ergonomics rule through use of the Congressional Review Act, OSHA will
not be able to issue any ergonomics rule in the future. OSHA will never
be able to implement any of the recommendations of the National Academy
of Science as a result of the use of the Congressional Review Act.
I urge my colleagues in the interest of worker safety to please vote
``no'' on S.J. Res. 6.
[[Page H703]]
Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, OSHA's final ergonomic rules are flawed and
based on assumptions and speculation. Even a study done by the National
Academy of Sciences on ergonomics, which implied their support of
OSHA's ergonomics regulation, called for more research and better
statistics. We can't run agencies on assumptions, instead, agencies
must govern on sound principles. And sound principles do not include
holding employers responsible for employee injuries that may have
occurred outside the workplace. That's simple unfair and unjust to
small businesses across the country.
What we have here is another federal agency that doesn't trust the
American people. In fact, small businesses, testifying before OSHA
public hearings, suggested non-regulatory, educational and voluntary
approaches to addressing ergonomic issues. However, OSHA ignored small
business concerns despite the fact the American people and small
businesses have voluntarily reduced injuries by 26% between 1992 and
1998.
OSHA estimated the ergonomics standard will cost employers $4.2
billion a year, but a Small Business Administration report estimated
the actual cost of compliance would be as high as $42.3 billion. This
cost will come out of American's wallets just because OSHA wanted to
put this rule in place, even though they did so without listening to
the people through a Congressionally-mandated analysis.
Mr. Speaker, along with the burden of another regulatory program,
OSHA's program will invite a new wave of questionable claims and an
increased number of lawsuits. Let us get back to common sense, leave it
up to people in the workplace to decide, and vote for S.J. Resolution
6--a Measure of Disapproval for OSHA.
Mr. Speaker, I also submit the two letters attached for the Record,
because they too state the case of OSHA's misguided efforts.
Micron Technology, Inc.,
Boise, ID, March 6, 2001.
Rep. C.L. ``Butch'' Otter,
1st Congressional District, House of Representatives,
Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Otter: I am writing on behalf of Micron
Technology, Inc. regarding OSHA's recent rules creating an
ergonomics program standard. As Vice President of Operations
whose responsibilities include the safety of Micron's
employees, providing a safe work environment is an essential
part of my responsibilities. Micron currently has a quality
ergonomics program and knows such a program can enhance
workplace safety. However, the standard adopted by OSHA would
have a negative impact on Micron and would actually inhibit
our ability to provide the safest possible workplace for our
employees. Therefore, we strongly encourage you to vote for
the Joint Resolution of Disapproval of the Standard under the
Congressional Review Act.
While the ergonomics rule may be well intentioned, it is
seriously flawed. These flaws include:
The proposed regulations exceed the authority granted OSHA
under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 which
reads in part, ``Nothing in this Act shall be construed to
supercede or in any manner affect any workmen's compensation
law or to enlarge or diminish or affect in any other manner
the common law or statutory rights, duties, or liabilities of
employers and employees under any law with respect to
injuries, diseases, or death of employees arising out of, or
in the course of, employment.'' By creating a controversial
new government mandated compensation program, OSHA exceeds
its mandate of injury prevention and supercedes and
negatively affects Idaho's worker's compensation law. Work
restriction protection is, in effect, a federal workers
compensation system which conflicts with state administered
workers compensation.
State workers' compensation laws, would be undermined by
OSHA's proposed regulations. The rule provides for
compensation far in excess of that provided under Idaho's
Workers' Compensation statues. The added compensation would
leave such employees with little incentive to return to work
following an accident.
The rule seems to state that the injury need not even be
caused by the workplace in order for a worker to be
compensated under the rule. Also the difficulty in diagnosing
the cause or even confirming the existence of musculoskeletal
disorders is well known. These facts confirm the rule is a
clear invitation to fraud.
We are concerned that the regulation is ahead of the
science and that individual solutions do not always work
generally. We have learned through implementing our own
program that for some employees, isolating workplace causes
is straightforward. For others it is not, depending upon
activities outside the workplace and unique physiology.
Even if the causal link between the injury and the
workplace can be identified, abatement is sometimes not
clear. Yet, the rule now creates potential liability for the
employer with no clear objective way to achieve compliance.
This is not appropriate.
With a single-event trigger and the broad remedies mandated
when such an event occurs, we will be forced to allocate
limited resources to solve problems that may not really
exist, diverting those resources from where they can be best
used to provide the safest possible workplace.
Disputed claims would likely have to work their way through
both the OSHA system and the states' workers' compensation
system, greatly increasing the cost to employers. Since the
OSHA rule does not establish a system for dispute resolution,
it is likely that implementation of the rule would result in
a flood of litigation that would inundate an already
overtaxed federal court system.
The paperwork created by the standard is extremely
burdensome and does not necessarily lead to increased safety.
As you can see OSHA's ergonomics program standard is flawed
in virtually all aspects and will negatively impact jobs,
safety, employee benefits, costs to consumers and
profitability. It is incumbent on Congress to disapprove the
rules and to consider more appropriate approach to reducing
injuries in the workplace. If you have any questions
regarding the ergonomics rule and its impact on my company,
please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Jay Hawkins,
V.P. Operations.
____
Idaho Farm Bureau Federation,
Pocatello, ID, March 6, 2001.
Hon. Butch Otter,
Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Attn: Todd Urgerecht, Legislative Affairs Director.
Dear Representative Otter: The Senate is scheduled to begin
debate on Joint Resolution of Disapproval (JRD) on the
ergonomic protection standard on Tuesday, March 6, and vote
on the resolution on Wednesday, March 7. The House may vote
on the Senate-passed resolution on March 8, or March 9.
The Idaho Farm Bureau Federation urges you to support the
Joint Resolution of Disapproval on the ergonomic protection
standard.
Passage of the JRD would invalidate the ergonomic
protection standard promulgated by the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration in November 2000. OSHA would still
be free to offer guidelines and enforce other OSHA
requirements for workplaces to be free of recognized hazards.
OSHA would be prohibited from re-introducing substantially
the same regulation later.
Common Arguments Against a Congressional Review Act JRD and
appropriate responses:
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study that employers
supported and obtained funding for confirms the need for an
ergonomics regulation.
False: The NAS study clearly shows the contradictory nature
of the research on ergonomic injury and work-relatedness. NAS
even acknowledges that ``psycho-social factors'' (like
personal stress, whether one likes one's job or employer) are
major contributors to workplace ergonomic injuries.
Employers are desperately seeking ways to overturn the
regulation even though ``all the scientific evidence''
indicates it is needed.
False: OSHA rushed the ergonomic standard through at the
11th hour of the Clinton administration despite the equivocal
NAS evaluation of the science. The American College of
Occupational and Environmental Medicine was so concerned
about the science supporting the ergonomic regulation that it
withdrew its earlier support of an ergonomics standard once
OSHA published it.
Passing a Joint Resolution of Disapproval will prevent OSHA
from ever addressing the issue of workplace ergonomic
injuries.
False: If Congress passes a JRD, the Congressional Review
Act forbids OSHA from again promulgating a regulation that is
``substantially'' the same. OSHA would retain the right to
issue guidance to employers to prevent ergonomic injuries, to
promulgate best management practices, and even promulgate a
future rule that is substantially different from the November
2000 regulation.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely yours,
Rick D. Keller,
Executive Vice President, CEO.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution to
repeal the ergonomics rule on repetitive motion syndrome issued by the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). OSHA has been
working on the new regulations for the last 10 years and that work has
produced a rule that will protect our nation's workforce from what then
Secretary of Labor, Elizabeth Dole, called ``one of the nation's most
debilitating across-the-board worker safety and health illnesses in the
1990's.''
The plain truth is that America's workers suffer thousands of
injuries every day and millions of injuries every year. While not all
injuries are unavoidable, we in Congress have a duty to protect our
workers from unnecessary injury. The ergonomics rule will prevent
thousands of injuries due to repetitive motion syndrome. It has been
estimated that the new protections will prevent over four and a half
million injuries over the next ten years and save employers and workers
$9 billion each year. We cannot let this opportunity pass us by. The
fact that the resolution would prevent similar regulations from being
implemented in the future is unconscionable. Repetitive motion
[[Page H704]]
syndrome is a real problem that will not go away with the passage of
this resolution.
Our workforce is suffering and we can ill afford to repeal this much
needed rule and leave workers without any of the protections deemed
necessary by OSHA. It is amazing to me that the republicans have
resorted to dusting off the rule book to use a technicality as a means
of blocking this provision. What are we to say to the thousands of
workers that will suffer from repetitive motion syndrome in the years
to come if this rule is repealed. I don't think that those suffering
will be heartened by the notion that this is political posturing at its
best.
We cannot let this resolution pass. We must let the ergonomics rule
take affect so that our workers will enjoy the safety and protection
due to them. I urge all my colleagues to vote no on the resolution.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the
Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution to repeal the ergonomics
workplace safety standards.
Each year, one million workers in this country miss work as a result
of the stress and strain of injury inflicted by hazardous work
conditions. These individuals suffer from a variety of disorders, such
as carpal tunnel syndrome, tendonitis and back injuries among others.
After ten years of public process initiated by former Labor Secretary
Elizabeth Dole, the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and
Health Administration issued an ergonomic standard, which went into
effect earlier this year.
During the entire time that the ergonomic standard was being
considered, the Republican leadership of this body stalled any
implementation of a standard. They claimed that the Department of Labor
lacked any sound and scientific basis for its proposed ergonomic
standard.
They continually demanded that we wait until a report by the National
Academy of Sciences was issued before we promulgated any rule.
Well, the Academy of Sciences conducted an exhaustive two-year study
focused upon the causation, diagnosis and prevention of musculoskeletal
disorders and concluded that there is a direct causal relationship
between the workplace and ergonomic injuries. In addition, they also
concluded that ergonomic injury could significantly be reduced through
workplace interventions.
This is good science. Just like the Republicans demanded! I feel good
to support my GOP friends in demanding good science and now we have it!
But instead science is not the issues. This is just another attempt
by the Republican Party to ignore the needs of the hard working
Americans that make our country run each day.
Repealing the OSHA ergonomic ruling would impose a substantial
economic burden in compensation cost, lost wages and productivity,
totaling an annual loss of nearly 50 billion dollars.
American workers have been the driving force behind our economy for
so many years. These men and women, people like the individuals I
represent in Queens and the Bronx, New York deserve the right to work
in safe ergonomically correct work environments where their health is
not in danger.
Let's give the American people something that they will really see
and reap the benefits from each day--safe-working environments.
This is not only good science, but good policy.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong
opposition to S.J. Res. 6. This resolution would effectively overturn
ten years of scientific study, public debate and agency efforts, which
have resulted in a comprehensive and historic rule to protect the
health and safety of America's workers.
In 1990, when this process was initiated, Labor Secretary Elizabeth
Dole expressed her concern that repetitive stress injuries constituted
one of the most serious worker safety issues of the decade. Now it is a
new decade, and we finally have a standard in place to prevent millions
of injuries and create a safer environment in workplaces across the
country. It would be a tragedy to dismantle all the progress that has
been made and deny our workers the protections they deserve.
I understand the concerns of many business owners that compliance
with the ergonomics rule will impose an economic and administrative
burden, and I am particularly sensitive to the potential impact of the
rule on small businesses, which drive the economy of Rhode Island and
many other states. However, OSHA estimates have shown that, while the
new standard will cost business approximately $4.5 billion annually, it
will likely save twice that much in worker's compensation and lost
productivity each year.
I am committed to ensuring that the Department of Labor stands ready
to offer any technical assistance businesses need in implementing the
new standard in individual workplaces, and I would be willing to
revisit this issue as we begin to develop a clearer picture of the
actual costs and benefits of the rule. However, I am not prepared to
reverse this landmark standard, which stands to benefit so many
millions of hard-working Americans, before we have even given it a
chance to work. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will vote against this ill-
advised resolution, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to S.J. Res. 6 to repeal the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration's ergonomics standard.
Using the Congressional Review Act to overturn the OSHA ergonomics
standard would be an extraordinary action, the first of its kind. It
would be the first time in 30 years Congress reversed a legally
established worker safety measure. It would be the first time CRA has
been used to overturn any federal rule or regulation, much less one
that was issued through ten years of public process.
The regulations, scheduled to go into effect this October, draw from
the businesses that have successfully prevented ergonomic injuries or
reduced their severity in the workplace. Repetitive injuries are one of
the leading causes of work-related illness. More that 647,000 American
workers suffer serious injuries and illnesses due to musculoskeletal
disorders, costing businesses $15 to $20 billion annually in workers'
compensation costs.
The standard--ten years in the making--could be overturned without
any meaningful consideration of the facts and without workers having a
chance to be heard. One hour of debate time is insufficient when it
comes to the health and safety of the American worker. Don't be misled.
Use of the CRA would not send the standard back to the drawing board.
Rather, it would effectively prohibit OSHA from issuing a protective
standard to address the nation's largest job safety program. This
effort should be seen for what it is--an effort to kill any ergonomics
standard once and for all.
Unfortunately, the ergonomics regulations are opposed by the majority
party for the cost they would impose upon employers without regard for
the value they would provide to the workforce and the long-term
benefits to our economy. Basic safety in the workforce should be given,
not some benefit that can be dropped at an employer's whim. I oppose
efforts to delay or overturn regulations that would enhance safety in
the workplace.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the resolution before us
today.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S.J. Res. 6,
The Ergonomics Rule Disapproval Resolution. I am pleased that this
resolution has moved so quickly to the House floor, and I hope that it
will soon be on its way to the White House to be signed by President
Bush.
I have very grave concerns about the ergonomics regulations
promulgated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
under the Clinton Administration. As a Member of the Labor, Health and
Human Services Subcommittee, I have worked for years to prevent OSHA
from issuing these rules.
I support workplace safety, and I think that it is difficult to make
the case that by supporting this resolution, I am an advocate of unsafe
work environments. In fact, America's workplaces are safer than ever.
Workplace injuries, sicknesses, and deaths have been declining for one
hundred years because America's employers have market-based incentives
to keep workplaces safe. Hazardous workplaces mean more lost workdays,
and high workers' compensation insurance premiums. Both of these
factors translate to lost profits. There is no doubt that it is in
every business owner's interest to promote a safe workplace. In
addition to market incentives, I am also supportive of programs like
the successful Voluntary Protection Program, which promote safety
through cooperative means and education.
OSHA's risky ergonomics scheme is another effort to gore small
business that must be stopped. This hastily enacted regulation consumes
over 300 pages of fine print in the Federal Register, is accompanied by
over 50,000 pages of supporting information in the docket, and has an
800-page index. OSHA gave American businesses just two months to
comment (then added on an additional 30 days) on a regulation which is
anticipated to cost billions of dollars to implement. I would argue
that 90 days is barely enough time to read and digest the regulation,
let alone provide comment. I am further concerned that the rules are so
broad, confusing, and subjective that employers could never know if
they are in compliance.
Beyond my basic concerns regarding the substance of the regulations
themselves, I am outraged by the flawed process that was used to
implement the regulation. With my support, language was included in the
FY01 Labor HHS Appropriations bill barring OSHA from implementing the
rule. An effort to strip this language from the bill failed on the
House floor last June by a vote of 201-220. The
[[Page H705]]
same language barring the ergonomics rule was added to the Senate bill
in an amendment on the Senate floor. Congress overwhelmingly supported
delay of this rule. While we in Congress knew that President Clinton
would not support our position, we were confident that President
Clinton would have to negotiate with us.
Ultimately, Congress and the White House reached an agreement that no
action would be taken on the ergonomics regulations, and that the issue
would be left for the next Administration--be it a Bush Administration
or a Gore Administration--to resolve. On November 14, 2000, while the
Congress was in recess, President Clinton took matters into his own
hands and moved ahead with the regulations, openly defying the will of
Congress. This rush to implement the regulation showed the Congress
that President Clinton had not negotiated in good faith. Furthermore,
these rules were implemented to go into effect in January, just days
before a new President would take office. The process made the new
President unable to repeal the regulations. The process that President
Clinton chose to put forth this regulation left this Congress with no
option but to utilize the Congressional Review Act.
And so I stand here today, Mr. Speaker, because flawed regulations
were put forth by a lame-duck President, against the will of Congress.
These regulations were not based on sound science. They will cost
businesses countless dollars, and unnecessarily destroy jobs. These
regulations do not protect workers from injury. Instead, the cost to
implement these rules puts workers at risk of being unemployed.
I am confident that no American workers will be injured as a result
of the legislation that I hope will pass this House today. Congress has
already received assurances from Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao that
she will place a high priority on assuring worker safety and
protection. I applaud her for her efforts, and I applaud the small
businesses in my congressional district and across the country who have
voluntarily made their workplaces safe, without the intrusion of the
long arm of the federal government. I rise in support of S.J. Res. 6,
and urge my colleagues to join me.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to S.J.
Res. 6, a resolution disapproving and overturning the OSHA ergonomics
standards that took effect earlier this year.
I oppose this resolution because I believe these standards provide
businesses of all sizes with the flexibility to comply in an
efficacious manner and will not only protect worker health but will
also save American businesses billions of dollars in the long-term.
Moreover, I am deeply troubled by this unprecedented use of the
Congressional Review Act to undo a rule that goes to the heart of the
Federal Government's mission to protect worker safety and health; a
rule that is the product of 10 years of study by the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), 11 ``best practices''
conferences, and a nearly 9-month public comment period; and a rule
that is supported by thousands of scientific studies, including, most
recently one mandated by Congress by the National Academy of Sciences.
Each year, there are 1.8 million workers who suffer from
musculoskeletal disorders, and 600,000 men and women have injuries so
severe they are forced to take off work. The Bureau of Labor Statistics
in my home state of New York reported that more than 48,000 private
sector workers had serious injuries from ergonomic hazards in the
workplace, and an additional 18,444 public sector workers had injuries
serious enough for them to lose time from work. Obviously, there is a
serious problem here.
I urge Members to think beyond the workplace as well. Think of the
mother suffering from carpal tunnel syndrome who is unable to open a
jar of baby food for her son, or the father suffering lower back pain
who can no longer play a game of catch with his daughter; the life-long
friend who cannot take that annual fishing trip or golf outing with you
anymore because of an on-the-job injury; or the neighbors who after a
career on the assembly line need your help to do yard work because they
are no longer able to hold a rake to clean-up leaves or to bend over to
plant flowers and pull weeds from the garden. These are the victims--
family, friends, neighbors, and these are the everyday, pernicious
consequences of repetitive stress injuries that not only affect a
person's ability to work, but also their ability to live a normal life.
In January, when the Clinton administration issued regulations
crafted by OSHA over the last decade to prevent work-related
musculoskeletal injuries, such as carpal tunnel syndrome and other
repetitive-stress injuries, working families across America cheered.
Finally, protections would be in place to address what is easily one of
the costliest and the most frequent workplace health threats.
Yet the business community, from small firms to large manufacturers,
oppose this ergonomics rule with near unanimity. In my view, their
decision is a mistake, a position arrived at due to disinformation and
misunderstandings. Business owners should view the creation of an
ergonomically friendly workplace like any other business investment,
such as upgrading computer hardware and software or replacing outdated
factory equipment with new, technologically sophisticated machines.
Compliance with this OSHA rule is a short-term cost that will enhance
both the safety and the productivity of America's workforce and lead to
long-term benefits and profits for America's businesses.
I certainly understand how frustrating onerous and rigid federal
regulations can be to businesses--large, medium, and small--but that is
not the case here. These workplace safety regulations are neither
unnecessary nor rigid. Worker compensation costs related to repetitive-
motion injuries, and the costs related to these injuries in terms of
worker health and quality of life, are reason enough to keep in place
this effective regulatory solution to the most important safety and
health problem workers face everyday. Moreover, reasonable flexibility
for employers and protections against abuse by employees are built-in
to the rules by OSHA--particularly the provisions allowing employers to
determine whether an injury is work-related, and allowing employers to
determine how best to reduce hazards and deal with ergonomic problems
in their workforces.
I am also deeply concerned about the use of the Congressional Review
Act in this instance and its ramifications on any and all ergonomics
standards in the future. First, we will debate just for one hour a
resolution that, if passed, would overturn a decade of research,
studies, and hearings initiated by Republican Secretary of Labor
Elizabeth Dole. This is no way to legislate. Second, the Congressional
Review Act not only blocks the OSHA rule under consideration, but also
blocks any subsequent ergonomics rule that is ``substantially''
similar. I can appreciate the desire by some to make changes to the
ergonomics standard, but these changes should be made administratively.
Most importantly, they should be based on sound science and on the
legitimate concerns of both workers and businesses.
In closing, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in opposition to
this outrageous, antiworker resolution.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support S.J. Res.
6, the Ergonomics Rule Disapproval Resolution.
Small business is the engine that drives our national and local
economies. I am deeply concerned about the impact that this ergonomics
rule would have for these reasons. Since the Department of Labor
submitted the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) rule
on ergonomics on November 14, 2000, I have heard from many small
businesses in my district concerned about the consequences of this rule
on their places of business.
While many American businesses are committed to providing a safe
workplace for their employees by improving safety standards and
protecting their employees' health, they are particularly troubled by
the ambiguous procedures and vague definitions that OSHA promulgated
through the ergonomics rulemaking. The rule holds employers responsible
for paying 80 percent of an employee's pay for 90 days should his or
her job contribute to a musculoskeletal disorder (MSD). In addition,
the OSHA rule is unprecedented in scope and is based on uncertain
science, both in its treatment of alleged MSD and in their relationship
to the workplace.
Presently, MSDs are poorly defined with no differentiation between on
the job injuries and those which are pre-existing. It is impossible to
ignore non-work-related factors, yet OSHA requires employers to do so.
Furthermore, there is no medical standard for confirming injuries or a
standard treatment protocol. The lack of scientific or medical
standards will only add to the confusion.
Additionally, the OSHA ergonomics regulation may conflict with state
workers' compensation laws. Employers will be left to determine whether
to follow a federal OSHA requirement or state workers' compensation
laws when any MSD occurs. The OSHA ergonomics rule overrides well-
established state standards that set compensation levels for injured
workers and determine whether or not a condition is work-related.
The National Academy of Science report concluded that ``None of the
common musculoskeletal disorders is uniquely caused by work exposures''
and that further ``research is needed to clarify such relationships.''
By OSHA's own estimates, this ergonomic rule will cover over 102
million employees, 18 million jobs, and 6.1 million businesses and cost
almost $100 billion a year to implement. And there are no guarantees or
certainties that this rule will protect workers or have a positive and
lasting impact on workplace safety. Furthermore, OSHA's rush to
judgment in issuing this regulation to meet artificial deadlines
exemplifies irresponsible governmental action.
[[Page H706]]
I will continue to support common-sense protections for all workers.
In addition, I will continue to support legislation to ensure that
there are adequate workplace safety standards and rules for all
workers. However, I do not believe that the OSHA ergonomics rule is the
solution. For these reasons, I urge all my colleagues to support S.J.
Res. 6.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, we are being forced to vote today on
this resolution of disapproval for OSHA's ergonomic standard. This is
an all or nothing approach.
Our effort to bring about improved ergonomics for our nation's
workers was started by Elizabeth Dole when she was George Bush, Sr.'s
Secretary of Labor ten years ago. What we are attempting to address is
the single largest workplace safety and health problem in the United
States: the work-related stress and strain injury and disorders that
cost the economy over $50 billion every year. Employers pay between $15
and $18 billion in worker's compensation costs alone for these
injuries. We can do something about it.
The National Academy of Science backs the scientific basis for OSHA
ergonomic standards. An exhaustive 2-year study conducted by 19 experts
in the field found that there is a direct relationship between the
workplace and ergonomic injuries, and ergonomic injuries can be
significantly reduced through workplace interventions. Now the
Republican leadership wants to ignore the very study it mandated. It is
the wrong step to just overturn this rule. We need to take action to
protect the health and safety of working families.
The OSHA standard is only 9 pages long, and it is written in plain
English. To serve the needs of our workers as well as to prudently
address costs and benefits, I urge a no vote on the resolution of
disapproval for the ergonomics rule.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, it is with great disappointment that I stand
here today to voice my objection to Senate Joint Resolution 6,
Disapproving Resolution for the OSHA Workplace Safety Rule. This
resolution is short-sighted and against the public policy Congress has
been espousing over the last 20 years.
There is no question that workplace injuries exist and are prevalent.
Workplace injuries account for one-third of all occupational injuries
and illnesses and constitute the single largest job-related injury and
illness problem in the United States. In my home state of Illinois, in
1998, 26,734 Illinois workers suffered workplace injuries that were so
severe that they were forced to miss at least 1 day of work.
Also, workplace injuries currently cost businesses billions. The
National Academy of Sciences has estimated that the costs of workplace
injuries to employees and employers, and society as a whole can be
conservatively estimated at $50 billion annually. Again, in my home
state of Illinois, the total statewide cost of workplace injuries,
including lost wages and lost economic productivity, was approximately
$2.3 billion in 1998.
OSHA's workplace standards would simply establish preventive measures
in the workforce to decrease workplace injuries, injuries which
employers pay for in workman's compensation payments.
For the last 20 years, under both Republican and Democratic
majorities and Presidents we have preached the virtues of prevention
and preventive care. We pay for pap smears, nutrition programs, glucose
testing, all in the hope of catching medical conditions at an early
stage before they become more costly chronic conditions.
The repeal of the workplaces standard is a 180-degree turn from that
history of preventive services. It is estimated that the standard could
save employers approximately $4.5 billion a year by helping keep
workers healthy and productive.
Businesses and employees will pay for workplaces injuries in the
future, they will pay through lost productivity and higher workman's
compensation payments. By abandoning prevention, we are accepting a
future of further injuries and greater cost.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong
opposition to the repeal of valuable and beneficial workplace safety
standards. We now stand on the edge of turning back a measure that
would have significantly improved the lives of hundreds of thousands of
working people, without even maintaining the pretense of a working
together in a bipartisan manner. There are substantive and, perhaps
most importantly, procedural grounds why I must oppose this.
This worker safety rule was not simply created over night. This vote
today will in fact erase a process that was 10 years in the making. It
was also based on a 2-year study by the nonpartisan National Academy of
Sciences which concluded that there is a great deal of scientific
evidence showing repetitive workplace motions cause injuries that can
be prevented through ergonomic intervention.
I have serious problems with the way this issue was brought before us
in the House. In this situation, the resolution was rushed to the floor
with little or no warning, and this vote will completely eliminate the
worker safety rule, using a little known, never before used procedure,
the Congressional Review Act. This resolution also prohibits the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration from issuing a similar
rule to protect the safety of workers, which clouds the issue further.
Eliminating the rule under these circumstances rolls back years of
investigation and review, and will force the effort to improve worker
safety to start over from scratch, where it began more than 10 years
ago. A more proper course of action would be to allow the rule to be
adjusted, rather than wipe it away all together.
For all the positive talk about bipartisanship that has been heard in
recent weeks, we have seen remarkably little on this matter. Debate has
been stifled, and instead of forging a compromise between both sides
that allowed the rule to be adjusted, this vote was taken to completely
eliminate the rule.
I believe that this repeal will be a serious blow to working people
in the United States. These ergonomic standards were designed to curb
repetitive motion injuries for American workers in a wide-range of
professions, including nurses, cashiers, truck drivers, construction
workers, meat cutters, and those who operate computers. These are all
people who are especially susceptible to injuries--which are often
times crippling--caused by repetitive motion, heavy lifting, and
forceful exertion.
In 1999, it was estimated that more than 600,000 people suffered from
such injuries, and they account for one-third of all serious job-
related injuries a year, making them the leading safety and health
problem in today's workplaces.
I believe these standards would have resulted in savings to the
companies that have opposed them. This issue concerns people who,
because of their injuries, are unable to work and provide for their
families and for themselves, and that causes lost productivity, which
results in economic loss for business and the country. In 1999, the
Bureau of Labor Standards estimated that the cost of these injuries is
$45-50 billion each year. These injuries account for perhaps a third of
employers' costs under state worker compensation laws.
So despite abundant evidence pointing in the direction of needed
ergonomic standards for workplaces, this rule has been repealed, and
the safety of working people has been ignored.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise in opposition
of this resolution.
Coming from Oregon, I represent an area of the country where small
businesses and family farms are the backbone of our local economy. As
such, I'm extremely sympathetic to the concerns of the men and women
who own these businesses, many of whom have contacted me in the last
couple of weeks. After all, you can't have jobs without businesses.
I know that the OSHA regulation which we're about to kill is going to
have unintended consequences. Any time a business is faced with further
government regulations you're looking at increased paperwork and having
to deal with federal employees who, lets be honest, sometimes can be
difficult to work with.
For example, just last week I talked with a friend who owns a small
hotel. Anyone who's been to Oregon knows it's one of the most beautiful
places in the world, and we're heavily dependent on tourism. This
person was overwhelmed by the proposed standard and rightly worried
that he'd wind up being fined or lose his business because Washington
had implemented a better mousetrap for Oregon. He didn't know if his
employees would be limited in the number of bags they could pick up or
how many stairs they'd be limited in climbing and hadn't had any luck
in finding out the answers to his questions from OSHA.
Now when you're in my position and you're trying to do what's best
for your district and for everyone who lives and works there, it's
impossible not to be affected by legitimate concerns about the cost and
application of the ergonomics standard.
That said, even with the potential problems that are posed by this
regulation, I can't in good conscience vote for this resolution.
That's because ergonomic injuries and the pain they inflict on
hundreds of thousands of workers and retirees are not a feat of the
imagination, and if we don't act, they're not going to go away.
In the past 4 years, there have been three comprehensive reviews of
the science identifying the cause of these injuries. Their conclusions
have been consistent: exposure to ergonomic hazards in the workplace
causes injuries, and these injuries can be prevented through
interventions in the workplace.
In fact, no less an authority than the National Academy of Sciences
was ordered by Congress to report on ergonomics and whether the related
injuries actually existed, and if so, if these injuries were
preventable. For those of you who don't know, the Academy was created
by Congress nearly 140 years ago to provide scientific and technical
advice to our government. Since its inception, the Academy has made
recommendations to our government that vary from using long-lasting
[[Page H707]]
metal for the name markers on fallen soldiers' tombstones to creating
the U.S. Geological Service and the National Forest Service--both of
which play an important role in Oregon.
Well, in its congressionally mandated report, the Academy of Sciences
found there is ``clear and compelling evidence'' that musculoskeletal
disorders (MSD's) are caused by certain types of work--and that those
injuries can be reduced and prevented through workplace interventions.
Add that report to the past 10 years in which the Department of Labor--
in consultation with business, labor, and Congress--has worked to enact
a fair, enforceable rule to protect America's workers from the real
harm caused by ergonomic injuries.
But now, in the face of unrelenting pressure, we're not only about to
cast aside 10 years of hard work, but Congress is about to prohibit
OSHA from issuing a similar ergonomics rule in the future. And it's not
just the 600,000 workers who every year are injured by repetitive
motion that would suffer, but their families and their communities as
well.
Thanks to carpal tunnel syndrome she acquired at her job at city
hall, Mom might not be able to pick up her infant when he is sick or
his older sister if she gets scared of the dark or correct homework
because she can't hold a pencil. Dad might not be able to play catch
with the kids or help them finish that science project because of the
repetitive injuries he's suffered to his back after years of working
the same saw at the local mill.
And because maybe Mom or Dad can no longer work the hours they used
to or even stay in the same jobs, they can't buy as many groceries or
another car or give their kids spending money to go see a movie with
their friends or buy a comic book at the local mall.
So there's more to this issue that whether or not the OSHA regulation
is confusing or that it will cost money to implement--in the long run,
we know that employers will recoup the costs by providing a safe
workplace and that consumers will have more money to spend.
While I certainly sympathize with the business owners and
entrepreneurs who feel this rule infringes on their rights, the
evidence is clear that by doing nothing we're not only harming millions
of Americans, but harming our economy as well.
This is the biggest occupational health crisis affecting American
workers today, and I urge my colleagues to allow OSHA to protect them
from ergonomics injuries and to oppose this resolution.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, according to the National Science
Foundation, over 1 million people suffer musculoskeletal disorders
which cost the nation between $45 billion and $54 billion in
compensation expenditures, lost wages, and decreased productivity. The
National Science Foundation and other research institutions studied
this issue and they came to the conclusion that these injuries can be
reduced substantially with well-designed workplaces.
It was the Administration of President George H. W. Bush that
established the relationship of ergonomically designed jobs and work-
related illnesses in 1989. The results of a Labor Department study
investigation found that flawed workplace designs is one of the leading
causes of work-related illnesses and employers' costs under state
workers' compensation laws. In response to these findings, the Labor
Department--under a different administration, the Clinton
administration--issued a proposed ergonomic standard for public comment
in 1994.
But Congress intervened in the rulemaking process. Congress adopted
language in the fiscal year 1995 Labor Department spending bill that
prohibited the Department from issuing a final standard. Subsequent
prohibitions were congressionally imposed in fiscal years 1996 and
1998.
In October 1998, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report
that identified a significant statistical link between workplace
exposures and musculoskeletal disorders. OSHA issued a draft rule in
1999 and published a final rule by November 2000.
In the course of this issue's 10-year history, distinguished Members
on the other side of the aisle have sought to kill this effort to
promote workplace safety. We find ourselves here again debating an
issue that threatens to expose millions of hard working Americans to
workplace hazards due to jobs that require repetitive movements and
muscular stress.
Supporters of this joint resolution advance the argument that if this
resolution of disapproval is enacted, the Bush administration will
pursue a comprehensive approach to ergonomics. It's hard to take that
argument seriously when the other side has consistently and
persistently opposed every effort by the Labor Department to issue an
ergonomic standard.
Moreover, the interests that oppose the current ergonomic rule cite
that the costs of complying with the standard are likely to be $90 or
$100 billion. But they do not cite the cost savings to businesses in
workers' compensation costs and lost productivity. According to OSHA,
the estimates are that the standard will cost American businesses $4.5
billion annually, but it will also save businesses $9.1 billion in
workers' compensation costs and lost productivity.
The special interests who support this resolution of disapproval are
the same interests who argued that the Family and Medical Leave Act of
1993 would impose too much of a cost and administrative burden on
employers. They were wrong then and they are wrong now.
The special interests who support this resolution of disapproval are
the same interests who argued that increasing the minimum wage in 1996
would weaken the economy and reduce job growth. They were wrong then
and they are wrong now.
The special interests that support this resolution of disapproval
argue that the ergonomic standard is too burdensome and costly for
employers to implement. They are wrong now and they will be proven
wrong in the future.
How can an ergonomic standard be burdensome to an employer when the
employer is vested with the responsibility of determining whether an
employee injury is work related? It's not the federal government
determining if the employee's injury is work related. It's the
employer! How can the opponents of this standard honestly suggest that
bureaucrats are imposing a one-size-fits-all approach to workplace
safety when it is the employer who determines how best to deal with
ergonomic problems in their workforce?
One can only conclude that supporters of the resolution of
disapproval are the same forces who have little regard for workplace
safety and are long-time opponents of the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration.
If you support workplace justice, if you support the right of people
to work in a healthy environment, if you support basic human decency,
then I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose S.J. Res. 6, a
resolution to disapprove the ergonomics regulation promulgated by the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration in January. I will vote
to uphold this regulation because I believe that worker safety must be
our first priority. This process was originated a decade ago during the
first Bush administration, and there is more than sufficient evidence
to show the devastating impact of these injuries on the workforce. In
1998 alone, ergonomic injuries caused 26,734 employees in Illinois to
miss at least one day of work, and cost employees and employers in the
State an estimated $2.3 billion.
However, I also understand the concern that the regulation may
overreach in some areas. The best way to address this concern is to let
the rule stand, and then work to modify it. The approach we are taking
today threatens any future action on this issue, by not allowing a
similar rule to be enacted at a later date. It is my hope that if this
resolution passes Secretary of labor Chao will, as she has previously
stated, continue to pursue a comprehensive approach to ergonomics and
that a regulation with wide support will be enacted in the near future
to protect working men and women in Illinois and across the nation.
Mr. Speaker, the success of this resolution must not become a
tremendous loss for workers across the country. I hope this body will
continue to give this topic the attention that it deserves.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 79, the Senate joint resolution is
considered as having been read for amendment, and the previous question
is ordered.
The question is on the third reading of the Senate joint resolution.
The Senate joint resolution was ordered to be read a third time, and
was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the Senate
joint resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. 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 223,
nays 206, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 33]
YEAS--223
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
[[Page H708]]
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Simmons
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--206
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Clay
Clayton
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grucci
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
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)
Petri
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--4
Becerra
Oxley
Shows
Stupak
{time} 1926
Mr. HORN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. SANDLIN changed his vote from ``present'' to ``nay.''
So the Senate joint resolution was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________