[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 19234-19261]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                       WORKPLACE PRESERVATION ACT

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 271 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 271

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 987) to require the Secretary of Labor to wait 
     for completion of a National Academy of Sciences study before 
     promulgating a standard or guideline on ergonomics. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate 
     shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule for a period not to 
     exceed two hours. The bill shall be considered as read. 
     During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman 
     of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in 
     recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an 
     amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the 
     Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 
     of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as 
     read. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) 
     postpone until a time during further consideration in the 
     Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any 
     amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows 
     another electronic vote without intervening business, 
     provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the 
     first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  House Resolution 271 is a modified open rule, providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 987, the Workplace Preservation Act.
  The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that the National 
Academy of Sciences completes and submits to Congress its study of a 
cause-and-effect relationship between repetitive tasks

[[Page 19235]]

in the workplace and physical disorders or repetitive stress injuries 
before issuing standards or guidelines on ergonomics.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce.
  The rule also provides that the bill shall be open for amendment at 
any point and limits the amendment process to 2 hours.
  The rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to 
Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional 
Record.
  Additionally, the rule allows the Chairman of the Committee of the 
Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the bill, and to reduce 
voting time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 
15-minute vote.
  Finally, the rule provides for 1 motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 271 is a modified open and fair rule 
for consideration of H.R. 987. The rule provides for debate and 
amendments on this measure to consume up to 3 full hours. This is an 
extremely fair rule, given the amount of work Congress must complete 
this week.
  The Workforce Preservation Act is a brief and simple measure that 
prohibits OSHA from promulgating an ergonomics standard until the 
National Academy of Sciences completes its study and reports the 
results to Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, this body has long been concerned with the issue of 
sound scientific definitions of these types of workplace injuries. This 
bill merely requires OSHA to base their definitions on sound, 
scientific data.
  Last year, Congress authorized and American taxpayers paid almost $1 
million for the nonpartisan National Academy of Sciences to conduct a 
comprehensive study of all the available scientific literature 
examining the cause-and-effect relationship between repetitive tasks in 
the workplace. The study is currently underway and is expected to be 
completed within a 2-year time frame, and would be ready by mid-2001.
  Mr. Speaker, the study of ergonomics is one of OSHA's top priorities. 
This bill recognizes the importance of this study and requires that the 
most up-to-date scientific information is analyzed and included. This 
bill will in no way prohibit or deny OSHA the opportunity to create 
these standards. Rather, it will make sure that we get the most 
accurate information based on sound science.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the chairman of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Goodling) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the sponsor of 
this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support both this rule and 
the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority spends a lot of time opining 
about how they want to help working men and women in this country. Yet, 
Mr. Speaker, at a time when the Occupational Health and Safety 
Administration is poised to issue a rule which seeks to protect 
American workers from workplace hazards which can lead to serious 
injury, the Republican majority wants to call a time-out.
  H.R. 987 does nothing to help working men and women in this country, 
and the Republican majority should not waste the time of this House by 
saying that it does. This bill is nothing more than another attack by 
the majority on establishing workplace protections that might very well 
save American businesses money in lost productivity, worker 
compensation claims, and disability insurance. If the House is going to 
call time-out, Mr. Speaker, it ought to be on the consideration of this 
bill and not on the health and safety of the American workforce.
  Mr. Speaker, work-related musculoskeletal disorders cost employers 
between $15 and $20 billion a year in workers compensation costs. 
Ergonomic injuries and illnesses are the single largest cause of 
injury-related lost workdays, with nearly 650,000 lost-time injuries 
each year. These injuries are found in every sector of our economy and 
cause real pain and suffering.
  Women workers are particularly victimized by ergonomic injuries and 
illness. They represent 69 percent of workers who lose time due to 
carpal tunnel syndrome, 63 percent of those who suffer repetitive 
motion injuries, and 61 percent who lose work time to tendonitis.

                              {time}  1745

  In fact, Mr. Speaker, nearly half of all injuries and illnesses to 
women workers are due to ergonomic hazards.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 987 proposes for at least another year and a half 
the promulgation of a rule that will provide needed health and safety 
standards for American workers. There is sound scientific evidence that 
shows that workplace factors cause musculoskeletal injuries and that 
show these injuries can be prevented.
  Many employers have seen the benefit in improving workplace 
conditions to prevent these injuries and have, as a result, seen 
injuries fall and productivity rise.
  If the Republican majority really wanted to do something for working 
men and women in this country, they would drop their opposition to 
these workplace protections and withdraw this bill.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 
987 and a ``no'' vote on the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger.)
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this open rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I also rise in strong support of H.R. 982. It is a very 
simple bill. It simply says that the National Academy of Sciences must 
complete its study on ergonomics and report to Congress before OSHA 
promulgates a proposed or final standard.
  Clearly, the will of the House is that an almost million-dollar study 
on ergonomics by the National Academy of Sciences, NAS, should be 
completed before we rush to regulate. Science should precede 
regulation, not the other way around.
  Let me just summarize the following points in support of the bill: 
first, ergonomics regulation would be a substantially mandated cost on 
the American companies and the American economy. OSHA's own estimates 
show that draft regulation could cost an additional $3.5 billion 
annually. I believe that cost is greatly underestimated.
  Before we consider imposing this standard on the American people, let 
us have the scientific and medical proof to back it up.
  Second, there is no question that there is a great deal of scientific 
and medical uncertainty and debate about ergonomics. If OSHA regulates 
before the causes are understood, OSHA may very well regulate the wrong 
thing and impose a lot of unnecessary costs without benefiting workers.
  Third, Congress and the President agree that we need a comprehensive 
study of ergonomics by NAS. The purpose of the study is to inform 
Congress, the Department of Labor, employers and employees about the 
state of scientific information on ergonomics. Only then can we 
determine whether a broad ergonomics regulation is appropriate. To 
issue a regulation before NAS completes its study is an outrage and a 
gross waste of taxpayers' funds.
  Fourth, an appropriations letter does not take precedence over the 
will of Congress in calling for an NAS study.
  Finally, the fact that OSHA has worked on ergonomics for over a 
decade is irrelevant since Congress decided the issue needed further 
study.
  Moreover, the fact that there has been substantial study with no 
conclusions about ergonomics suggests that more study is needed before 
imposing a nationwide standard at a great cost.

[[Page 19236]]

  In conclusion, I urge the Members to vote for the rule and H.R. 987.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Clay).
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.
  H.R. 987 is a measure of how antagonistic the majority of the 
Republican majority is to the interest of working people.
  Despite 7 years of unprecedented prosperity under the Clinton 
administration, there remains much that this House can do to improve 
the well-being of workers. We should be considering legislation to make 
a job pay a decent salary and increase the minimum wage. We should be 
ensuring that all workers have affordable health care. We should be 
expanding pension coverage. We should be ensuring better family leave 
coverage.
  Instead, Mr. Speaker, this rule makes in order a bill that will 
result in hundreds of thousands of workers suffering avoidable serious 
injury in the workplace.
  We should not let special interests downplay the seriousness of 
ergonomic injuries and illnesses.
  Imagine suffering from a workplace injury that prevents one from 
lifting anything over a half a pound. Imagine being disabled, so 
disabled that one cannot hold a book to read to their child. Imagine 
being unable to caress their newborn or to give him or her a shower or 
a bath.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no excuse for further delaying OSHA's ergonomic 
standard.
  The National Academy of Sciences study is a review of existing 
scientific literature. It is not intended and will not produce new 
information. Two previous studies of the existing scientific 
literature, one by NIOSH and one by NAS, have already confirmed that 
ergonomic injuries and illnesses are work related and that they cannot 
be prevented by workplace interventions.
  More importantly, Mr. Speaker, practical experience by thousands of 
companies has proven that ergonomic injuries and illnesses can be 
significantly reduced. Passage of H.R. 987 only ensures that some 
employers will continue to ignore the working welfare of the workers 
for that much longer.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and in 
support of the Workplace Preservation Act.
  During the Easter recess, I embarked on an industry tour in my 
district in North Carolina. The industries of the 8th district are 
primarily agriculture and textile related.
  I visited eight small- and medium-sized manufacturers, including 
Cuddy Farms in Monroe and Clayson Knitting Mill in Star. These 
companies and many others like them represent the backbone of our 
district's economy.
  The number one concern on their minds was the new ergonomics 
regulations being considered by OSHA. They were truly fearful of the 
burdensome regulation that would not only create more paperwork and 
costly, unneeded changes but would also hinder communications between 
employer and employee.
  All too often it appears as if the government is slightly behind the 
times. The current unemployment rate is so low that in many parts of 
the country employers do and in fact must offer the most attractive 
work environment in order to recruit and retain employees.
  As one employer from the district wrote to me, ``My company is 
begging for employees from laborers to drivers to high-tech computer 
operators. We are doing everything we can to attract employees.'' Plant 
managers, human resources managers, and office managers are more than 
willing to work with their own employees on grievances and workplace 
conditions rather than plow through layers of government bureaucracy.
  The number of manufacturing jobs is on the decline. We are seeing 
more and more jobs going to Central America and overseas because, 
frankly, our government is making the cost of doing business in the 
United States too high for too many companies.
  Rural areas in our Nation are being hit hardest by the decline in 
manufacturing jobs. Keeping more unsubstantiated government regulation 
on these industries will only encourage them to continue to flee.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no question that politically powerful forces 
are at work here. Why else would OSHA hastily recognize a casual 
relationship between repetitive tasks and repetitive stress injuries 
without complete scientific documentation?
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and allow the 
National Academy of Sciences to complete its work. With all the facts, 
Congress can step back and prudently evaluate the need for new 
ergonomic guidelines. We must resist another in a long line of attempts 
to impose costly restrictions upon employers and employees with the 
one-size-fits-all Federal approach.
  Please support the rule and this bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, every time I tour a plant in my district I run 
into workers, especially women, who are wearing wrist braces. When I 
ask them about their problem, the answer over and over again is the 
same: carpal tunnel syndrome.
  Where does carpal tunnel syndrome or many of those other injuries 
come from? They come from workers having to do the same thing hundreds 
of times and thousands of times without properly designed equipment and 
work stations. And workers I see are not isolated examples.
  Repetitive motion injuries affect 650,000 workers each year. That is 
more than the number of people who die each year from cancer and 
stroke. Those injuries account for more lost workday injuries than any 
other cause, especially for women workers. Nearly half of all workplace 
injuries for women are due to repetitive motion problems.
  Now, there are those in this body who say there ought to be more 
delay in protecting those workers, but they are virtually alone in the 
world. Every industrialized country has recognized that there is more 
than enough evidence to move forward on a repetitive motion standard.
  Most progressive businesses recognize it is their duty to protect 
workers and to protect their stockholders from the economic impact of 
huge amounts of lost work time.
  But a powerful band of economic royalists in this country and in this 
Congress continue to fight that protection, and it is time to get on 
with it.
  In 1990, that well-known ``radical'' liberal Elizabeth Dole said that 
it was time to move forward on this. In 1995, the Republican majority 
attached a rider blocking the issuance of draft regulations. In 1996, 
they tried to prevent OSHA from even collecting the data on repetitive 
motion injuries.
  In 1997, they tried to block it again but failed. At that time, the 
National Institutes for Occupational Health and Safety conducted a 
detailed review of more than 600 scientific studies on the problem, and 
they found a strong correlation between workplace conditions and worker 
injuries.
  That study was peer reviewed by 27 experts throughout the country. 
But that was not good enough for some of my colleagues. So in 1998, 
they pushed the National Institutes of Health to fund another study at 
the National Academy of Sciences. They convened 65 of the world's 
leading scientists, and again they found evidence that clearly 
demonstrates that specific intervention can reduce injury.
  But that is not good enough for some of my colleagues. They want yet 
another delay. That delay does not hurt anybody in this room. The only 
repetitive motion injury that Members of Congress are likely to get are 
knee injuries from continuous genuflecting to big business special 
interests who want us to put their profit margins ahead of worker 
health.
  Maybe the time has not come for my colleagues. But, by God, it has 
come

[[Page 19237]]

for those workers. We need action and we need it now. No delays. No 
foot dragging. No excuses. We need action and we need action now.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yield me the 
time. I appreciate the opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to address myself to the rule first because that 
is what we are debating. I have heard it said here today that we should 
not wait any longer for the scientific evidence to be evaluated by the 
National Academy of Science, what we should immediately do is proceed 
to pass rules and regulations.
  That is a little bit like going into a waiting room of a sick patient 
and saying, let us just not do any diagnostic testing, let us go ahead 
and operate. It is risky business.
  Secondly, I want to agree completely that this is about the cost to 
American business and the safety of American workers. In a period of 
unprecedented prosperity, in a period of full employment, the last 
thing an employer wants for a moment is to have workers getting hurt on 
the job, because there are not good replacements, because we are fully 
employed.
  They want workplace safety. But the last thing they want, also, is 
conflicting scientific data dictating to a bureaucracy to go ahead and 
establish rules and regulations preceding a final determination.
  In committee on this bill, whether my colleagues agree with the bill 
or not, no one can argue that professionals and physicians from both 
sides of the musculoskeletal disorder syndrome agree that there were 
conflicting data and it was time to have a decision.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe we should move forward with what will be a 
very contested debate. To vote against this rule makes no sense. When 
the debate on the rule is over and the rule passes, I think the 
evidence will come forward that we are doing what is right for workers 
and what is right for the employer and what is right for America, to 
depend on conclusive evidence and not conflict opinions.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Owens).

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, but I 
welcome the opportunity to discuss the platforms of the two parties in 
respect to the lives of working people and what kinds of programs we 
would like to offer for working people.
  One party is clearly against working families and they express it in 
many ways. This particular piece of legislation has a symbolic 
significance far beyond what you see written on the paper. It is one 
part of an overall attack by the majority Republicans on working 
families.
  I think the President has made it clear in his message on this bill 
what we are about here today and it is pretty simple. The 
administration has written that it strongly opposes enactment of H.R. 
987, a bill that would unnecessarily delay the Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration's issuance of a protective standard on ergonomics 
until the National Academy of Sciences has completed a second study of 
the scientific literature regarding musculoskeletal disorders and 
ergonomics.
  I think that it is very clear that what the Republican majority is 
saying is, let the workers suffer, let the working families suffer. Six 
hundred thousand people are affected yearly by these work-related 
musculoskeletal disorders, but it does not matter, let the workers 
suffer. They are only working families. We are Republicans. We care 
only about the upper income and we want to spend our time getting 
benefits out to them in the form of a massive, $794 billion tax cut 
over 10 years.
  I would like to see all of the Members come to the floor and use this 
opportunity. I think we may have about 3 hours to discuss the working 
families of America and which party really represents them and their 
welfare. Let them suffer for another 2 years, that is what the 
immediate concrete message is. So what?
  We have had studies. The studies clearly show that there is a cause 
and effect. The new studies that the NAS will be attempting and 
continuing to undertake relate to intervention strategies. How do you 
intervene to prevent these disorders. How do you intervene to lessen 
the impact of the kinds of unhealthy working conditions in the 
workplace? They want to go on gathering evidence and data which can go 
on forever and that is the way that any scientific gathering of 
evidence should take place. But why make the workers wait before you 
issue standards and you begin the process of intervening to lessen the 
impact of the injuries?
  The Republicans say, let them wait. Small businesses and even big 
businesses are going to suffer because the amount of workmen's 
compensation payments will continue to go up. It is around $20 billion 
a year now, related to these various disorders, and there have been 
many successful attempts by businesses to install ergonomic standards 
and to take steps to deal with the ergonomics of the workplace which 
have benefited the businesses as well as the workers.
  By preventing OSHA from formalizing these procedures and allowing 
DSHA to do what some businesses have done and what the State of 
California has done with their standards; by preventing OSHA from 
moving forward with the number of positive kinds of developments that 
have taken place, we are going to force more workers to suffer 
unnecessarily. We have case histories of workers in every State in the 
union; terrible things have happened in terms of injuries that have 
wrecked whole families. No, people do not bleed a great deal, they do 
not have concussions, it is not the kind of dramatic workplace accident 
situation that you have in the construction industry, but the slow 
death that is taking place more and more as we increase our digital 
world and people are more and more sitting before keyboards, eyestrain, 
all kinds of carpal tunnel syndromes from the actions of the wrists, 
all kinds of disorders are developing rapidly that injure more and more 
workers. More and more women, also, are drawn into this, more and more 
women incidentally who happen to be the wage earners and their families 
have been drawn into this.
  Why let the workers suffer? Let us get it over with. Let us get the 
standards out there and stop the suffering of the workers. The 
Democrats want to stop the suffering.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Bonilla).
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, the American worker makes up the lifeblood 
of our economy and we can all agree in this Chamber that our utmost 
concern is their safety and well-being in the workplace. Every employer 
in America understands that it is to their advantage and the employee's 
advantage to keep workers healthy and happy on the job. In fact, we 
should all be celebrating today here that because of the safety 
measures that have been taken in the private sector. Working with some 
folks in OSHA, we have dropped employee injuries by 17 percent. The 
number of injuries dropped by 17 percent since 1995 because of the 
changes that employers have made in the workplace. There is no crisis 
at hand. Let us be honest about what we are debating here. We are 
debating a power grab by a government agency and by America's big labor 
unions who are trying to get a stranglehold on America's businesses 
both small and large. The debate we have here today is about the rush 
to promulgate and to write a rule dealing with repetitive stress 
injuries, with ergonomics, something that would be far more dangerous 
to the American worker if it is written too fast versus waiting for 
sound science to guide them versus having political science guide them.
  Imagine for 1 second if OSHA rushes to write a rule without sound 
science, a one-size-fits-all rule that would apply to florists as it 
would to people who work in manufacturing plants, to people who work in 
auto parts stores, at restaurants and on farms and ranches

[[Page 19238]]

throughout this country. What a nightmare this would be for the 
American workers. They would suddenly have their bosses having to spend 
gobs of money, money that could go to raises and better benefits and 
instead trying to comply with a one-size-fits-all regulation.
  Let us all remember that the first draft that OSHA had of this rule 
was 600 pages long. Imagine if you are working in a bakery out in the 
heartland in America, you are working in a dentist's office, in a lab, 
in an auto parts store or a restaurant and you suddenly saw this 
regulation show up on your doorstep. That is why the calculation of 
what this would cost the American workers in this country is at about 
$4 billion, because this is the kind of penalty we pay in our American 
society when we have a one-size-fits-all regulation hastily written and 
showing up at the doorstep of America's workplaces.
  All we are asking in this bill and in this rule is to allow us to 
stop the rush. There is no need to rush. We can wait for the sound 
science to take over and have the political science take a back seat so 
that we can do this the right way. There is no guarantee. When this 
National Academy of Science study is ultimately completed, it could in 
fact recommend that an ergonomics regulation move forward. We 
understand that. But let us let the scientists decide, let us let the 
researchers decide. Let us not turn this process over to a power-hungry 
Federal agency and labor unions that are also behind it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Vento).
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and in 
opposition to this measure which is not letting the scientists decide, 
it is not letting the experts at OSHA decide. It is putting it here on 
the floor in a political way and letting all the experts here, the 
political experts, decide.
  This is not something being pushed by labor. If labor is interested 
in it, they are only interested because they are trying to protect the 
safety and health of workers. This is not some arcane problem that 
exists with regards to workers. Almost half the injuries that occur on 
the part of workers are related to repetitive stress type of injuries.
  If we wait another year, another year and a half, we are going to 
have another million people that are injured in this way. For those of 
you that love science, it sounds like you like it just to study. You do 
not want to apply the science. It is time we take the knowledge and 
information we have and put it in place so that we can protect the 
workers that are intended to be protected by the Occupational Safety 
and Health Administration that has been working on this for a decade, 
that depended upon 600 studies to base their decision upon. Over 2,000 
articles and reviews were written of those studies and endless hearings 
to make certain as to the appropriateness of such rule.
  This bill is just an effort to study this into infinity, to frustrate 
the implementation of a legitimate law and rule. What is the cost? The 
cost in the end is a very high cost, because it means that individuals 
that are on the job, that are trying to work, will have to lay down 
their bodies, they will cripple their bodies simply to earn a living. 
That is really what this is about.
  We have to open our eyes up and begin to see what is happening. This 
is like some bad film. ``Eyes Wide Shut'' on the other side, 
disregarding reality is what we really have here with regards to this 
repetitive stress issue. Open them up to the people you shake hands 
with when you are out campaigning and they draw their hand back because 
of the injuries that they have sustained in the world of work. We can 
change it. We can make it better.
  This Congress ought to take its political act and go home with it and 
leave the experts that are supposed to be working on this issue and 
rule do their job. We should defeat this rule and defeat this bill.
  This measure, H.R. 987, seeks to study to infinity worker injuries 
and yet again delay Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) action on 
rules that would govern and prevent such injuries. This is no less than 
a frontal attack on all of OSHA to frustrate, dismantle and renege on 
worker safety embodied in the Occupational Safety Health Act. 
Repetitive work related motion trauma is not some arcane, isolated 
occurrence--nearly half of all workplace illnesses documented are 
caused by such repetitive motion, ergonomics.
  Each year injuries which result from such work-related 
musculoskeletal disorders harm nearly 650,000 workers and are estimated 
to cost businesses $60 billion dollars in worker compensation payments 
and other costs. More than 100 different injuries can result from 
repetitive motions causing painful wear and tear to the bodies of 
working men and women. Women are especially affected by this problem, 
comprising 60 to 70 percent of those injured in many categories.
  This repetitive injury OSHA rule is an all too common case of good 
news, bad news. The good news is that for almost every job that results 
in such injuries, there are alternative methods of performing work 
which can decrease the risk of harm. The bad news is that there isn't a 
focus on such prevention, and in fact some want to frustrate 
implementation. In February 1999, OSHA released a discussion draft for 
an ergonomics standard which would implement the use of ergonomics in 
the workplace. This draft proposal is an important step toward 
protecting workers from musculoskeletal disorders in a way which allows 
employers the flexibility to adopt solutions that fit their workplaces.
  The legislation we are debating today, H.R. 987, is euphemistically 
titled the ``Workplace Preservation Act.'' This bill is an unnecessary 
tactic which could ultimately result in thousands more workers being 
needlessly injured on the job--650,000 in one year more. Proponents of 
H.R. 987, playing a game of delay, mock and question the soundness and 
effectiveness of a well researched ergonomics standard, all the time 
wrapping themselves in ``sound science''. However, both a 1998 National 
Academy of Science study and a 1997 National Institute for Occupational 
Safety and Health study provides scientific evidence linking 
musculoskeletal disorders to the job. A document based on 600 research 
studies of such injuries and 2000 scientific articles build a solid 
foundation upon which to act. Even beyond official studies, there is 
practical proof that ergonomics programs work. The draft standard that 
OSHA is developing is actually based on programs which have been 
implemented and proven successful in various work sites across the 
country. OSHA would be irresponsible and derelict in its duties to not 
act upon such a clear record which pinpoints the cause of one half of 
workplace illnesses.
  We have waited long enough to address this problem, any opposition by 
Congress now will serve to needlessly delay the process even further. 
For every day that we waste on redundant research, life-altering 
impairment which could have been avoided will occur. It is truly a 
travesty that our workforce continues to suffer serious disabling 
injuries while Congress debates whether or not a known solution should 
be set in place. Clearly, this is exactly the kind of issue that OSHA 
was created to address, and attempts to block this organization from 
implementing solution to improve harmful work environments are 
disingenuous, misdirected and counterproductive.
  This Congressional measure to delay sound OSHA action should be 
identified for what it is; ``The Right to Risk Worker's Health Act.'' 
Enough is enough--too many bodies and limbs have been needlessly worn 
to numbness and a life of pain and permanent injury. We owe it to 
elemental common sense and fairness to accord workers the OSHA rule and 
safeguard, to prevent working conditions which force them to sacrifice 
their health and cripple their bodies to earn a living.
  Mr. Speaker, I will oppose this harmful legislation and encourage my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe the rhetoric 
I am hearing today. I listened to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Bonilla). He is absolutely on track. All that is happening is a 
takeover by big government trying to interfere in individuals' lives.
  Last year, the Congress and the President agreed to spend nearly $1 
million on a study, and it is going to be completed in 2001. Why can we 
not wait until then? OSHA instead wants to rush forward and eliminate 
thousands of jobs and cost us billions of dollars while failing to 
assure the prevention of one single injury. Some single industry 
estimates go as high as 18 to $30

[[Page 19239]]

billion of cost. It is going to cost our businesses money. That means 
you, the consumer, the taxpayer, you are not only going to pay taxes, 
you are going to pay higher costs on everything you do.
  Let me just tell my colleagues something. When I was down at 
Homestead Air Force Base as commander, we had a little platform out on 
every level in a three-story barracks that our men lived in. OSHA came 
in and said you have to put a rail around there so when the guys get 
out there to clean the windows, they will not fall off. And 
furthermore, they have to have a hook to hook on that rail to make sure 
that if they do fall off, they will not fall and hurt themselves.
  Now, that is your government at work. Let me tell you what happened. 
A hurricane came through and destroyed that base totally. It does not 
anymore exist. So we got rid of the OSHA requirement in that way.
  Mr. Speaker, we need water here pretty bad. I hope we get a hurricane 
and just push OSHA out to sea.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Klink).
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. It is very plain to me that this rule should not be on the floor 
and this bill should not be on the floor. This is probably the biggest 
health and safety vote that we will see this year if not this Congress. 
The impact that ergonomic injuries have had on workers will touch every 
part of the family of labor. If this is such a big organized labor deal 
as some of the speakers have talked about, then that tool of organized 
labor, Elizabeth Dole, back in 1990 when she was Secretary of Labor, 
and I do not think anyone has ever accused her of being that closely 
aligned with organized labor, but her comment was that these injuries, 
and this is a direct quote, ``one of the Nation's most debilitating 
across-the-board worker safety and health illnesses of the 1990s.'' Ms. 
Dole was right then and she is right today.
  Business has to recognize the need to incorporate a new philosophy. 
We have to be able to adjust the way we manufacture, to adjust our 
equipment rather than asking workers to adjust their bodies to the way 
we manufacture. If we do that, the workers will be healthier and they 
will miss fewer days of work; workers' comp costs are going to go down, 
productivity would be higher, jobs would be secure and, yes, profit 
margins for our companies would go up.
  Let us look at the figures in 1997. There were 620,459 lost workdays 
due to workplace ergonomic injuries. These injuries were overexertion, 
repetitive motion, carpal tunnel syndrome, back injuries. This 
represents 34 percent, over one-third, of all the workdays that were 
lost by injured workers were due to ergonomic injuries.
  There has been some discussion on the other side about what this 
might cost the employers of this Nation. Someone threw out the figure 
of $4 billion. I do not know if that is true, I do not know if it is an 
exaggerated figure, but these ergonomic injuries each year cost 
business and workers between 15 and $20 billion.
  We ought to take a look at what Red Wing Shoes did. Here is an 
example of a company that modified its work stations. This was not an 
inexpensive thing for them to do. It cost them money. But at Red Wing, 
they reduced their workers' comp costs by 75 percent over a 4-year 
period.
  There was also some discussion on the other side about the fact that 
studies have not been done yet. The fact is the studies have been done. 
If you take a look at the NIOSH report it says, and I am quoting here, 
NIOSH director Dr. Linda Rosenstock, it found strong evidence of its 
association between musculoskeletal disorders and work factors such as 
heavy lifting.
  Then we go to this bill, H.R. 987, in the ``Findings'' section, you 
quoted exactly the opposite. You say that there is insufficient 
evidence to assess the level of risk that workers have from repetitive 
motion.

                              {time}  1815

  When the finding section of their own bill is exactly opposite of the 
finding that is actually in the study, no wonder they brought a 
cockeyed bill to the floor, because they do not know how to read the 
findings.
  Whoops, I am sorry.
  What was it Gilda Radner said? Excuse me.
  My colleagues have got to read the finding section. NIOSH has found 
that in fact repetitive motion does cause injuries. We have seen it; we 
have heard the stories. People who injure themselves on the job through 
ergonomic problems, they cannot comb their children's hair, cannot wash 
dishes, cannot sweep the floors at home.
  This bill should go down; the rule should go down. In fact, we should 
not even be here.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume just to make out a simple point that House Resolution 271 is a 
modified and open, fair rule for consideration of H.R. 987. The rule 
provides for the debate and amendments on this measure to consume up to 
three full hours. It is an extremely fair rule, and given the amount of 
work that Congress is needed to do to complete its work this week, 
there will be ample time to have great debate on the merits of the 
legislation.
  But I remind my colleagues my view is we have a fair and open rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that everybody 
understands exactly what we are doing today. No one is saying that we 
are here to say that there will not be any ergonomic regulations in the 
future. In fact, I am sure there will be, but it seems to me, if there 
are going to be, then we should have the best scientific knowledge we 
possibly can so we do it right because we may just do the opposite of 
what we should be doing to try to help the people who we are trying to 
help.
  I would point out very quickly to my colleague from Pennsylvania that 
the NIOSH study also said additional research would be very, very 
valuable, and that is what it is all about. That is what it is all 
about; that is what the discussion is all about.
  We said in legislation, agreed by the President and by the Congress, 
that we would spend up to almost a million dollars of taxpayers' money 
to get the kind of scientific knowledge that we need in order to make 
sure what regulations are promulgated, that they are done properly, 
that they are done to help. That is all this legislation says:
  Get the study, colleagues asked for the study, they are willing to 
pay taxpayers' dollars for the study, get the study, use it, and then 
write the regulations that go with it.
  As my colleagues know, we have had 2 years of hearings where we have 
heard, if nothing else, a lot of inconclusive evidence, a lot of people 
who are not positively sure what the cause is and are not positively 
sure how to solve the problem. That is why we are asking the National 
Academy of Sciences to help us, help us determine what the problem is, 
help us determine what the direction is that we should be going.
  We had one of the finest back surgeons, one of the most prominent 
back surgeons in the country who said after years of his study and 
years of his dealing with the issue he found that in many instances it 
is not physical factors like how often you lift or how often you bend. 
In fact, he said that it is in many instances nonphysical factors, just 
stress in life, not enjoying one's job, and I think we can all relate 
to that. Get down low enough, boy, people can have aches and pains. We 
all go through that process.
  And so here is a back surgeon, a prominent back surgeon who made that 
statement. So again, all the hearings that we have had, there is so 
much indecision as to what is the proper way to go, what do we 
specifically know and how do we handle the issue? And so all we say is, 
wait, get the study. We are paying almost a million bucks for it, and 
then see whether you can promulgate regulations that will truly

[[Page 19240]]

help the men and women that we are trying to help.
  So no one is here trying to prevent forever ergonomic regulations. We 
are here saying let us do it right, let us get the scientific evidence 
first, and then proceed.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, today we vote on legislation to block OSHA from 
protecting America's working men and women from workplace injuries and 
illnesses caused by ergonomic-related issues. My colleagues have the 
figures, but they bear repeating. Each year more than 2 million workers 
suffer these injures, more than 640,000 workers lose time at work, and 
each year this costs the economy $15 to $20 billion in worker 
compensation, an overall $60 billion, all things considered.
  I oppose this legislation and support workplace protection for 
American workers.
  What is ergonomics? What is that word? What does it mean? Ergonomics 
and what are ergonomic-related injuries? Ergonomics is the science of 
adapting the workplace to the physical needs of the workers such as 
giving telephone headsets to telephone operators to avoid cradling the 
phone to reduce neck and shoulder pain, a work place that is poorly 
adapted to workers' causes, ergonomics injuries.
  One type of injury, repetitive motion injuries frequently mentioned 
here, is caused when a worker repeats a specific motion hundreds or 
thousands of times. For example, secretaries and office workers who 
type all day at their computer keyboards often suffer wrist and arm 
injuries.
  Similarly, America's poultry workers who cut up and sliced up the 
chicken parts for our meals repeat the same cutting and slicing motion 
hundreds of time an hour each day as they cut up thousands of chickens 
for our meals. The cumulative stress of these repetitive motions cause 
secretaries, poultry workers, and other workers to suffer health 
problems.
  But I want to get personal about this, Mr. Speaker. I want to talk 
about one particular poultry worker.
  Betty Yvonne Green. Betty worked as a chicken fillet puller for seven 
years. Her job required her to use her thumbs to separate the fillet 
from the bone, cut the tips off the fillet with scissors and then place 
the product in a tub. Betty performed this task 16 to 17 times a minute 
for 2\1/2\ hours straight without a break.
  In 1984, Betty began to feel pain in her right arm and reported it to 
her supervisor, the directors of personnel and the plant manager. They 
all told her there was nothing wrong and she would have to live with 
this problem. Management felt her pain did not warrant medical 
assistance, and nothing was to be done until Betty went to her personal 
physician.
  Betty's doctor found that both her rotator cuffs had been torn and 
required surgery. She went back to work after both surgeries, but was 
unable to continue to do her fillet job. She worked some light duty, 
but to no avail. Betty was terminated by the company for what they said 
was excessive absenteeism. She was denied unemployment and only 
received workers compensation after retaining an attorney.
  On behalf of Betty Yvonne Green and many, many workers throughout 
this country who deserve our respect, in fact deserve our protection, I 
urge our colleagues to vote no on this so-called Workplace Preservation 
Act. Indeed it should be called the Workplace Persecution Act because 
that is exactly what it does to the American worker. We can study this 
thing to death. Of course we are always open to more science, but we 
have to also know when we have enough science to proceed and learn many 
more ways that we can do better in the workplace, but not to deny, not 
to deny what has been fully documented by NIOSH, which has been fully 
documented by the National Academy of Sciences as a relationship 
between repetitive motion and ergonomic disease.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) 
says that the Democrats are for working people, for working men and 
women, but yet every piece of legislation that they had out of here in 
support are against 90 percent of the working people. But if it is for 
the union bosses, they will support it. In 1993, they put the highest 
tax on the American people possible and increased the tax on middle-
income workers, and this year they are trying to stop tax relief for 
those same workers. Salting for the unions where the unions go in and 
just destroy a small business, not even looking to overtake that 
business. That is wrong, but yet our union brothers over here support 
it.
  Davis-Bacon, that increases inflation 15 to 35 percent of 
construction for school buildings, but yet will they waive for the 
children? No, they will support the unions. Now we are asking for a 
scientific study, and I would say that even Republicans, we need to go 
one step further because when colleagues say based on science you need 
to look at who pays for the science. Is it the Republican groups or the 
Democrat groups, and people need an individual peer review to be fair, 
a nonpartisan independent review. Sometimes that does not exist, and I 
will give into that and we need that.
  As my colleagues know, in the office the people that work with 
computers all the times, they have carpel tunnel. There is good 
scientific basis that we need to help those people and provide the pads 
and make sure there is rotation and lights, and we have some pretty 
good science on it. But the problem is our colleagues want to go in 
without a study or agenda instead of science, and we are saying, no, 
let us back it up with the science to show so there will not be a big 
input on it, and I brought up yesterday www.dsa/usa.
  Democrat Socialists of America, progressive caucus, has a 12 point 
agenda: government control of health care, government control of 
education, government control of private property, and guess what? 
Union over small business and cut military by half, by 50 percent, and 
it is to support the union. That is their working men and women, but 
not the 90 percent of the people that have all of the other jobs.
  My colleagues should put their mouth and money where their rhetoric 
is. Support the people, the working men and women.
  Who is for this? The union bosses. Who is against it? Chamber, NFIB, 
every small business group out there because they know that the only 
thing that my colleagues are focusing on is the union bosses who give 
them their campaign finance money. Admit it. Why do they fight against 
90 percent of the small businesses and workers every single bill that 
we have? They do not support the networking men and women in this 
country; they only support the union members.
  As my colleagues know, I take a look at the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Gephardt) who gets up here and says, Oh, the poor lady in the red 
dress, not again, and he talks about the working men and women and the 
class warfare, only the rich versus the poor.
  Well, cut out the rhetoric. Do things based on science; the 
environmentalists, the same thing. We want environmental changes. Do my 
colleagues think we want bad environment, the Republicans over the 
Democrats? We just want it based on good science, and then we want a 
peer review. The same thing with ergonomics. We want a good science and 
peer review so they do not destroy the 90 percent of the jobs that are 
out there in favor of their union bosses.
  And that is what we are asking, Mr. Speaker. We are tired and tired 
and tired of the Democrats' rhetoric trying to make points for the year 
2000 where they get their campaign money, and that is what they 
support.
  If colleagues really support the working men and women, support the 
Republican position on this.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).

[[Page 19241]]


  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
this rule and this bill, and I would hope that we could cut back a 
little bit on the rhetoric.
  First of all, people need to understand this talk about this study. 
There is no study that is going on. All that is happening is it is 
going to be a compilation of a bunch of studies that have already been 
done. So we need to get that clear.
  Second thing I think that people need to understand is that it would 
help if somebody would have talked to the people in the department that 
are actually working on this.

                              {time}  1830

  I have met with Secretary Jeffers more than once and talked to him 
about this proposed rule that they are looking at. They have been 
working on it a long time. There is a lot of science that has gone into 
this. I do not think a lot of people that are talking on this floor 
have actually looked into what this is about.
  This only applies to manufacturing and manual lifting businesses, 
where 60 percent of these injuries take place. If you do not have an 
injury, this is not going to apply to you. It only applies when you 
have an injury where there is ergonomics involved, and at that point, 
you have to come up with a way to deal with it.
  If you have got a situation where it is only one injury and you are a 
small employer, they have something called a quick fix where you can go 
in and work on this without having to put a plan together. So they have 
listened to small business, they have tried to make this workable, and 
if anybody sat down and read this, they would understand that.
  The other thing is that businesses that have gone out and actually 
worked on this have found it to be cost effective. It saves money for 
their company, and it is good for their employees. This afternoon I 
talked to 3M. They have an ergonomist on their staff. That person has 
saved them money. It is better for the company and better for the 
workers. This is something that clearly works. So I hope that people 
will focus on what is really going on here.
  Back in October of 1998, then appropriations Chairman Livingston and 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) sent a letter to Alexis Herman 
saying we are funding this NAS study and it is in no way our intent to 
block or delay issuance by OSHA of a proposed rule on ergonomics.
  Well, it looks to me today like what is going on here is delay, and 
is contrary to what was said. So I urge my colleagues to reject this 
rule and reject this bill.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) the Chairman of the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time, and 
I assure him I will reserve time for my friend from Louisiana and will 
not fill out the entire hour here.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and congratulate my 
friend from Buffalo for his super management.
  We have an expression that we have been trying our doggonedest to 
successfully implement around here in the 106th Congress, and we call 
it regular order. We try to, as much as possible, follow regular order.
  Frankly, that is exactly what the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Chairman Goodling) is trying to do with this legislation. We 
authorized $1 million for the National Academy of Sciences to come up 
with some sort of finding before the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration proceeds with implementation of its regulations on 
ergonomics.
  The fact of the matter is, nothing, as has been said by several of my 
colleagues, nothing prevents them from moving ahead. But what we are 
saying is get every bit of information you possibly can so that you 
come up with good public policy.
  Now, that will be unique for OSHA in the eyes of many, because a 
number of us have been very critical of the fact that regulations that 
they over the years have imposed have been extraordinarily costly to 
the private sector, and, in turn, to the consumers of this country.
  But, obviously we are all wanting to deal with the problems of 
stress-related repetitive actions that people take in their work, so 
all we are saying is let us do it right. This is a very fair and 
balanced rule which allows for a free-flowing debate, while at the same 
time recognizing that most of my colleagues with whom I have spoken 
over the last few days want us to complete our work by the end of this 
week so we can go home for August. This rule allows us to have a debate 
and do it in a fair way, and also get this, and I hope the rest of our 
work, done. So I urge support of the rule.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding 
me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. I listened intently to 
my friend from New York, a member of the Committee on Rules who spoke 
about this rule a few minutes ago, and I wanted to make several points 
about the rule.
  We are operating here under the facade that this will give, as the 
chairman of the Committee on Rules just said, a free-flowing and open 
debate about worker safety.
  I want to point something out: There are many of us who believe that 
OSHA is understaffed, that OSHA does not have enough inspectors to go 
find workplace violations and do something about them. But, if I am not 
mistaken, and my friend from the Committee on Rules can correct me, an 
amendment that would add inspectors to OSHA's inspection force would be 
ruled out of order because it is not germane.
  There are many of us who are concerned about sick building syndrome, 
about people going to work, day after day, in buildings where the 
heating and air conditioning systems do not work properly and they 
cannot breathe properly and their asthma is aggravated or their other 
breathing related disabilities are aggravated, and many of us believe 
OSHA should do something about that. An amendment that would address 
that problem would be out of order because it would not be germane.
  In fact, it is almost impossible to think of any amendment that could 
be offered under this bill that would do anything other than kill this 
regulation or delay this regulation that would be germane.
  So let us get the record straight here. There are dozens of important 
worker safety issues that confront this country. None of them, none of 
them, are in order for debate under this rule on the floor. The only 
thing we can do is either accept or reject this attempt to delay, and I 
think ultimately defeat, the new ergonomic standard by OSHA.
  So let us be very clear about this, that this is an open rule in form 
only. Every other consideration in worker safety is not in order. That 
is why the rule should be defeated.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York, Mr. Crowley.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to my 
good friend from Buffalo, New York, a fellow New Yorker, to this rule 
and to, even more importantly, to H.R. 987, the Workforce Preservation 
Act.
  Injuries resulting from workplace stress and strain have long been 
studied. We cannot continue to needlessly put off a standard by the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. There is overwhelming 
scientific evidence supporting the belief that ergonomically unsafe 
conditions result in repetitive strain injuries, also called RSIs.
  Approximately 700,000 serious workplace injuries result from 
ergonomically unsafe working conditions. This accounts for 31 percent 
of all injuries and illnesses involving lost workdays. The cost of 
these lost workdays has been estimated to be between $15 and 20 
billion.
  Now, these are not made-up injuries, they are not fantasies in 
workers'

[[Page 19242]]

minds. These are real injuries, not only costing billions of dollars, 
but destroying people's everyday lives, people who can no longer work 
in their chosen professions, no longer cook at home, no longer play the 
guitar, no longer ride their bicycles even, and even no longer picking 
up their little children. That is what we are talking about here.
  I cannot understand how my colleagues could want to delay the 
implementation of a standard that would not only reduce pain and 
suffering but save the business community of this country billions of 
dollars each year. I applaud last year's appropriation funding of the 
National Academy of Sciences study of ergonomic injuries. However, that 
is no reason to delay the implementation of a highly researched and 
needed OSHA standard. Stand up for working Americans, stand up for 
healthy workplaces. Vote against this rule, H.R. 987, to help prevent 
thousands of injuries and save employers up to $20 billion a year.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and 
to the bill. Like many of my colleagues, I feel as if I am in a time 
warp. Last year when the latest NAS scientific review was funded, there 
was an agreement that this study should not and would not block or 
delay a proposed rule on ergonomics. Yet here we are again.
  The bill is not about the need for more research. Both NAS and NIOSH 
have conducted exhaustive reviews of the scientific literature and 
concluded that this is a compelling workplace safety and health issue.
  This is about delaying the implementation of sensible regulations 
that OSHA has crafted after consulting with and taking advice from 
employers around the country on the actions those employers have taken 
to prevent workplace injuries.
  There is simply no need to further delay OSHA from issuing a standard 
or guideline. In fact, there is an urgent need to let them move ahead 
to prevent these workplace problems.
  Each year more than three-quarters of a million serious and chronic 
disorders related to repetitive motion, heavy lifting, or awkward 
postures occur in our workplaces. These ergonomic injuries cost 
billions annually.
  Let me remind colleagues this is a women's health issue. Women are 
five times more likely to develop carpal tunnel syndrome than men, one 
of the most painful ergonomic problems. Women are disproportionately 
represented in the jobs and workplaces where ergonomic hazards are the 
most common.
  We know that many ergonomic problems are preventable. OSHA's draft 
proposal provides clear guidance to employers and employees on how to 
prevent ergonomic injuries, relieve the suffering, and save billions in 
healthcare and productivity costs.
  Let us stop delaying. Let us give OSHA the authority they need to 
work with employers to prevent these serious health problems. I urge a 
``no'' vote.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am often asked when I am at home, when is 
the government going to live by the same rules and by the same 
procedures that it asks other Americans to live by? For example, if I 
wanted to get a permit from the government in an area that might be 
considered a wetland, I have got to go through all the procedures of 
finding out whether or not an EPA assessment is required, and we have 
to file all those reports before we can get a permit.
  If I have a drug I want to sell in this country, I cannot say to the 
FDA, let me sell it first; we will do the scientific work later on, 
whether or not it works or whether or not it is going to hurt anybody.
  Americans are subjected to a simple rule when it comes to many of 
those agencies; get the science done, and then we will tell you whether 
you can do something or not.
  What the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) is doing, 
what this rule proposes, is a simple proposition, that this agency, 
OSHA, ought to get its good science done before it issues a regulation. 
It ought to have in front of it the best science possible to make the 
best rule that is the most efficient in our society. Not that it should 
not regulate, not that this is not a problem in the workplace, we know 
it is, but it ought to do it right, it ought to do it efficiently, and, 
most importantly, it ought to do it according to the best science.
  Now, this Congress funded that good science. This Congress put out 
nearly $900,000 to get that work done. All the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) is asking is that that work be completed so 
that we can have the best rule, the most efficient rule, one that 
works, without causing undue cost or burden on the rest of the citizens 
of this country who pay their taxes and go to work every day and expect 
to be treated decently in our society.
  They are asking, is this government agency going to live by the rules 
we have to live by? Is this government agency going to do the good 
science first before it imposes a regulation on us, the same way we are 
required to do the good science first before we can get a permit from 
this government? It is that simple.
  Please support this rule, and please support the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) in the bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I urge the rule be defeated, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, as an up-through-the-ranks legislator of 
town, county and State before getting elected to Congress, and as a 
small businessman, I have watched small businesses, I have watched 
farmers, I have watched local volunteer fire companies, and I have 
watched local municipalities hindered by OSHA when they were asked to 
enforce regulations that were sometimes hastily written and created by 
Federal bureaucrats. ]

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. Speaker, this body has long been concerned about the issue of 
sound scientific definitions of these types of workplace injuries. The 
bill merely requires OSHA to base their definitions on sound scientific 
data.
  Last year the Congress authorized and American taxpayers paid almost 
$1 million for the nonpartisan National Academy of Sciences to conduct 
a comprehensive study of all the available scientific literature, 
examining the cause and effect relationship between repetitive tasks in 
the workplace. The study is currently under way. It is expected to be 
completed within a 2-year time frame, and would be ready by 2001.
  As my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) said, we 
should make sure that OSHA bases its regulations on sound science, not 
political science.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this fair rule and the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Pursuant to House Resolution 
271 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 987.


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 987) to require the Secretary of Labor to wait for completion of 
a National Academy of Sciences study before promulgating a study or 
guideline on ergonomics, with Mr. Shimkus in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).

[[Page 19243]]


  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 987 is a very simple bill. It ensures that the 
National Academy of Sciences completes the congressionally mandated 
study of ergonomics and reports its findings to Congress before OSHA 
promulgates a proposed or final standard.
  As I said during the debate on the rule, everyone knows that 
eventually there probably will be standards and regulations, but 
certainly we should make sure that science precedes regulation, not the 
other way around. We get in real trouble when we reverse that.
  There is a great deal of scientific and medical uncertainty in this 
debate about ergonomics. Our Subcommittee on WorkForce Protections, as 
I indicated also during the discussion of the rule, has had many 
hearings during the last 2 years. The only thing that was certain was 
that there was a great deal of uncertainty.
  I indicated that even a very well known back surgeon indicated that, 
with all of the work that he has done, he realizes that in many 
instances, it is distress in life and job dissatisfaction. Well, I sure 
hope that OSHA does not start writing regulations in relationship to 
distress in life and job dissatisfaction, or we will be in real 
trouble. So we really need to wait, because that is what the Congress 
said.
  Who said that in the Congress? Three hundred thirty-three Members, 
333 Members said that there should be an in-depth scientific study, and 
we will put up almost $1 million for that purpose, agreed to by the 
President, agreed to by the Congress. Three hundred thirty-three voted 
for that legislation that contained that.
  Now all of a sudden we hear, oh, but two people said that they do not 
have to pay any attention to what the Congress said and what the law 
said. That is a pretty interesting turn of events. Two people said? 
That probably was the best kept secret. Probably 331 others who voted 
for it did not know that. They thought that as a matter of fact, they 
were saying let us get the facts before we write regulations.
  So again, I would hope that we remind ourselves that it was we, the 
Congress, 333 Members, who said it is very necessary to get this 
additional information by a nonpartisan group, by people who do this 
for a living, people who are scientists, before we delve into 
regulating something that we are not sure will help or hurt the very 
people we are trying to help.
  Any time a broad government regulation like this proposal goes into 
effect, livelihoods of our constituents are in jeopardy, so we want to 
make very, very sure that we have the facts, the scientific facts, so 
that we can write regulations that as a matter of fact will help, not 
hurt. One-size-fits-all could really do great damage to the very people 
we are trying to help.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. Mr. Chairman, there 
is such a thing as political speech, and courts have sanctioned it 
under the first amendment. In reality, it allows politicians to 
exaggerate incidents, to embellish facts, and still maintain protection 
under that first amendment.
  What we just heard is a perfect example of political speech. Members 
will probably hear it over and over from that side today. President 
Clinton never agreed to delaying the issuance of ergonomic rules while 
the study is being conducted.
  Of course, they are entitled to political speech, according to the 
Federal courts. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 987 prohibits the Secretary of Labor 
from promulgating any standard or guidelines on ergonomics until the 
National Academy of Sciences completes a study. This bill is simply one 
more attempt to delay and ultimately block the issuance of critical 
ergonomic workplace guidelines which are needed to reduce an epidemic 
of work-related stress and strain injuries.
  Ergonomic injuries and illnesses remain the most common, the most 
serious health risk workers face, and ergonomic illnesses and injuries 
remain the single largest cause of injury-related lost work days. In 
1997, there were more than 600,000 lost workday injuries and illnesses 
due to overexertion, repetitive motion, and other bodily reactions 
related to ergonomic hazards. This represents 34 percent of all lost 
workday illnesses and injuries.
  Work-related musculoskeletal disorders cost employers between $15 and 
$20 billion in workers compensation costs each year. Women workers are 
particularly victimized by ergonomic injuries and illnesses. For 
example, women are 69 percent of those who lose work time due to carpal 
tunnel syndrome.
  The contention that we do not know enough to regulate in this area is 
disputed by the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion, and has 
been disproved by the real world experiences of thousands of employers 
who have taken steps to address ergonomic hazards and have 
substantially reduced injuries as a result.
  This bill is opposed by the AFL-CIO and all the major labor 
organizations that represent working people. It is contrary to the 
recommendations of the major occupational associations, the National 
Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, and the clear conclusions 
of the National Academy of Sciences.
  Additionally, President Clinton will veto this bill if it reaches his 
desk.
  Mr. Chairman, how odd, how unfortunate, that the first significant 
labor bill to come to the floor of this Congress attempts to strip 
working people of their rights, instead of enhancing them. We should be 
taking action on behalf of working families to pass a comprehensive 
Patients' Bill of Rights, to pass an increase in the minimum wage, and 
to address inadequate family leave and retirement savings of workers.
  This bill says a good deal about the misguided priorities of the 
majority and the failure of this Congress to take action on behalf of 
working families.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to oppose this anti-worker legislation, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the author of the legislation.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, where I am from, and where my friend, the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Clay) is from, the State of Missouri, $1 million is 
still a lot of money. It may not be a lot of money here in Washington, 
but it is a lot of money where I am from.
  I keep asking myself as I hear this debate, as I have looked at this 
issue over the last several months, why are we spending this money? Why 
did the administration agree to this study? Why did the Congress 
appropriate the money? Why are we spending the money?
  We are spending the money because the one weekend study that NAS has 
already done is not adequate. We are spending the money because there 
is a tremendous lack of clarity and agreement on these issues. In fact, 
if Members read the draft standard, I think it is clear why we are 
spending the money. The draft standard is not clear. The draft standard 
is ambiguous.
  The reviews on the draft standard, from the SBREFA panel, the Small 
Business Review Panel, to all kinds of journals that have reviewed 
this, have talked about the problems the draft standard would create. 
We need to be sure, when we talk about people's jobs, that we are 
talking about specific and certain facts.
  One of the facts we hear here tonight is the groups that are 
disproportionately affected by these kinds of injuries. I am sure later 
we will eventually hear what the source for that is, but I would tell 
the Members that the whole work force is ill affected by standards that 
are not based on sound science.
  My concern is that as we look at these standards, as we look at the 
liability, as we look at the vagueness if those did become the 
standards, that people who are in the business of creating jobs, people 
who are in the business of sustaining jobs, would have to look at these 
standards, and their push

[[Page 19244]]

would be not to hire more people but their push would be to make a 
greater capital investment instead of a people investment, because of 
the way the standards are written.
  In our country, a person's job has a degree of sanctity to it that I 
think we have to be careful about here in Washington if we treat that 
casually. If we decide that, based on the instincts of some bureaucrat 
over at OSHA who had not lifted anything that day heavier than a 
pencil, that that is the person who is going to decide what is hard to 
do at the workplace and somebody's job winds up eliminated because of 
that, I think that is a serious concern. I think that is a serious 
problem.
  I think there is much evidence as to why we need this standard. The 
SBREFA group said that the draft standard was a problem. One of the 
reasons was the vagueness. One of the reasons was the vagueness of the 
terms. Well, this study will solve problems like that. This study will 
create the sound science. This study will create an atmosphere where 
people are encouraged to show up at a safe workplace every day, but 
that their jobs are still there.
  This is about people's jobs. This is not about some political play 
here in Washington, this is about people's jobs. It is about a $1 
million study, and it is about seeing that study before the final 
regulation is drafted.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the bill.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, back in the seventies, I was the human 
resources manager at an electronic manufacturing company. At one point 
we started to see a large number of repeated stress injuries. It was 
not hard for us to figure out why the problems were occurring, because 
our printed circuit board assemblers were using the same motions 
repeatedly to insert electronic components into their printed circuit 
boards. But it was difficult to figure out why it was happening and 
what was the solution.
  So I did something that most of those who speak so negatively about 
OSHA on the other side probably would think very odd. I asked CAL OSHA 
to come to our company and help us work through our problems. With 
their help, we changed some of our assembly processes and the symptoms 
stopped.
  Mr. Chairman, we knew that it was important to protect our workers 
from injuries because if we did not, our company was not going to be 
able to become a Fortune 300 company, which, by the way, it did.

                              {time}  1900

  But it would not have without a healthy workforce.
  Mr. Chairman, all businesses and all employers and all employees will 
benefit from ergonomic standards. We already have sound science 
regarding the problems caused by repetitive motion. The problem appears 
that, when the Republican majority disagrees with science, they insist 
on more studies. They hope that science will eventually support what 
they want it to say.
  H.R. 987 is an inexcusable delay tactic. It is a tactic that benefits 
no one, not business, and certainly not workers. I urge my colleagues 
to oppose it. A vote against H.R. 987 is a vote for workers.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Boehner), chairman of the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee 
Relations.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce, for yielding me this time, and I appreciate his efforts and 
my colleagues' efforts for bringing this bill before us.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in favor of H.R. 987, the Workplace 
Preservation Act. I am sure that if we went out and explained this bill 
to most Americans, they would wonder why we are even here tonight 
having to debate this.
  First, let us be very clear about this. We are not prohibiting OSHA 
from regulating ergonomics. We are simply saying that before OSHA 
issues a set of sweeping new regulations that impact millions of 
employees and employers, we ought to at least look at the science that 
we paid for just a year ago and what the American people paid for when 
Congress appropriated $980,000 to the National Academy of Sciences to 
take a comprehensive look at this issue. We are simply saying let us 
let good science precede regulation, not the other way around.
  If OSHA meets its current timetable, the final ergonomics regulations 
will be in place before the National Academy of Science's studies are 
even finished. Not only will the efforts of the National Academy be 
wasted, but the money that the taxpayers put up last year for the study 
will be wasted as well.
  Mr. Chairman, that is just not acceptable. That is why we are here to 
pass H.R. 987 tonight. OSHA's decision to disregard the need for sound 
science, not to mention the will of this Congress, is an example of the 
kind of bureaucratic arrogance that is making Americans cynical about 
their government today.
  Many questions remain about the nature of the relationship between 
workplace activities and these types of injuries. But OSHA has 
concluded that it does not need to wait for medical and scientific 
communities to answer these questions. OSHA has decided it already has 
the answers, and it is going ahead with its new regulation as it sees 
fit.
  I think we can all agree that this kind of bureaucratic free-wheeling 
is wrong. Mr. Chairman, the debate today is not about whether we need 
to assure the safety in the workplace for the American workers. There 
can be no debate about that. The debate today is about whether we 
expect regulatory agencies to base their rules on medical evidence and 
sound science. I do not think there can be any debate about that 
either, Mr. Chairman.
  So I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the 
bill of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), H.R. 987, and allow 
the taxpayers to get their money's worth for the science and the study 
that we paid for last year before proceeding down this very dangerous 
path.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the distinguished minority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, recently I traveled to the Eastern Shore of 
Maryland and the district of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Gilchrest) to learn about the poultry industry and to talk with some of 
the people who have been suffering injuries in the Nation's chicken 
processing plants.
  Chickens are processed on something akin to an assembly line. Most of 
the actual cutting up is done hand by hand, chicken by chicken, day 
after day, hour after hour.
  One of the cutters that we talked to was a woman named Sharon 
Mitchell. She made her living as a cutter on the line, standing on a 
wet concrete floor, in a factory as cold as a refrigerator, with a 
knife in her hand, deboning breasts and thighs.
  Earlier today, as I was in my office, I had the sound off, I had it 
on mute, and I was watching the screen and this debate, and the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) was making this motion.
  Sharon Mitchell makes that motion. She told us as we were sitting 
there, ``You try to do this.'' I invite everybody who is watching me 
today to do this. Because she does this 50 times a minute, 8 hours a 
day, at least 5 days a week. I want my colleagues to feel the 
repetitiveness of what this is about.
  That means that Sharon Mitchell performs the same cutting motion 
3,000 times an hour, 24,000 times a day, 120,000 times per week, and 
more than 6 million times a year. It is no wonder that the poultry 
industry has a hard time keeping healthy workers.
  Ergonomic industries are the leading cause of turnover, 100 percent 
in some of the plants. Do my colleagues know what the wage is, the 
average wage for people who do this 6 million times a year, 3,000 times 
an hour? Five dollars and sixty-one cents.
  Ergonomic injuries affect virtually every economic sector in the 
country, truckers, nurses, cashiers, computer

[[Page 19245]]

operators, construction workers, meat cutters, assembly line workers. 
600,000 Americans are hurt every year from these injuries.
  Workers compensation costs related to these injuries top $20 billion 
a year. Study after study have documented the problems, beginning with 
studies under the Bush administration a decade ago.
  So ignoring Sharon Mitchell's concern and that of the literally 
thousands of people that work with her will not make this go away.
  Now, several companies like Ford and 3M and AT&T, for example, have 
adopted a low-cost measure to prevent these injuries from happening. It 
is time that we follow their lead.
  I will never forget that woman standing there with tears in her eyes 
doing this and suggesting to us that we can do better. Think about it. 
One hundred percent of the workers in some of these plants turn over 
every year because of these injuries.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer).
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, my first job out of college was in a salmon cannery in 
Alaska. The opportunities for injury associated with repetitive motions 
were ones our employers new an awful lot about and upon which they 
spent a lot of time ensuring safety came first. They understood it to 
be an economic issue, as well as one that, in the context of humane 
treatment of employees and compassion of workers, was an integral part 
of business.
  I have often said that standing boot deep in fish heads, gut, and 
entrails was probably the best training that I ever received for 
serving in Congress. But I also point out that OSHA's decision to move 
forward on regulations without benefit of thorough study is a classic 
example of the phrase often used in business ``ready, fire, aim.''
  Our goal here in proposing this bill's passage is to arrive at a set 
of goals, rules, and regulations that actually hit the mark, that 
actually are useful goals and regulations that actually can, with some 
confidence, be attributed to a safer workplace.
  Now, it is rare for the current President and the current Congress to 
agree so completely on such a topic, but in October of 1998 both the 
executive branch and the Congress did agree that a comprehensive study 
by the National Academy of Sciences of the medical and scientific 
evidence regarding musculoskeletal disorders be initiated. That study 
was and is to become the basis for future OSHA regulations. That study 
is not yet completed. This is the one fact that we need to keep in 
mind.
  It is often argued that the fact Congress requested and funded the 
study by the National Academy of Sciences does not matter because there 
was some kind of letter signed by the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations and the ranking member telling OSHA it was not barred 
from going forward with its intended regulations. But the fact of the 
matter is, while everyone knew about the study, no one, with the 
exception of a few Members of Congress, was aware of the letter. It 
certainly would not stand up in any court as the basis for expression 
of legislative intent.
  Second, the opponents argue that OSHA has worked on ergonomics for 
almost a decade and that fact somehow makes the NAS study irrelevant. 
Well, again, Congress and the President agreed to fund the 
comprehensive study by the National Academy of Sciences just in 
October, not 10 years ago. We, Congress, decided the issue needed more 
study, and we were willing to spend nearly a million taxpayer dollars 
to finally get the comprehensive and impartial look at the scientific 
and medical evidence before OSHA should regulate.
  Looking back, 10 years is instructive in one regard. Ten years ago, 
the Department of Labor claimed that ergonomics-related injuries 
accounted for about 3 percent of all workplace injuries and illnesses. 
OSHA now claims that ergonomic-related injuries account for 34 percent 
of workplace injuries.
  Now, that huge difference is not just because of an increase in 
injuries. In fact, workplace injuries have been declining in recent 
years. The difference between the 3 percent in 1990 and the 34 percent 
that OSHA refers to today is simply due to the Department of Labor's 
changing definition.
  There has not even been a consistent, uniform definition of what 
injuries would be addressed by an ergonomics regulation. Now that in 
itself is a good indication of the scientific and medical uncertainty 
itself surrounding this issue and why we need the NAS study that OSHA 
wants to ignore.
  A vote in favor of H.R. 987 is an exercise in prudent judgment and a 
responsible step towards sound workplace safety regulation. To reject 
this bill is to advance the misguided philosophy of ``ready, fire, 
aim.''
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Owens).
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, it would be good to have a few facts on the 
record. I think it is important to take another section from the 
President's veto message where he states that the administration agreed 
to the inclusion of funding for this study based on a clear 
understanding that the study would not be used as a reason to delay 
OSHA's proposed ergonomic standards.
  H.R. 987 would reverse this agreement by forcing OSHA to wait up to 2 
years before issuing a standard in expectation that the conclusions of 
a new NAS study were different from those reached by NAS just last year 
and already reached by the National Institute for Occupational Safety 
and Health which completed an exhaustive study in 1997.
  Both of these studies concluded that musculoskeletal disorders are 
caused by physical forces in the workplace and that ergonomic solutions 
can reduce those forces and the incidence of MSDs. These two studies do 
exist. They keep saying they do not exist. This NAS study was completed 
in 1998, published in 1999.
  The conclusion reached here in the study is that: ``better 
understanding of the course of these disorders would provide 
information that would assist in formulating strategies for tertiary 
intervention.''
  So the new studies, the continuing studies will seek ways to 
intervene. There is certainly room in this complex area for studies for 
a long time to come. I hope that we do not stop after we complete 2 
more years of study. But there will be an ongoing set of gathering of 
evidence and development of intervention strategies that will make it 
safer for the people in the workplace. That is no reason to delay.
  What we really hear today is a clear statement of the Republican 
platform on the workplace. The workplace is not a place that they want 
to make safe for the workers. They are indicating their great contempt 
for workers, as they have indicated repeatedly. OSHA, of course, is a 
major target.
  They have several bills which attack OSHA, and they always give them 
strange names or names that camouflage the real intent. There is the 
``Science Integrity Act,'' which is actually a bill to allow businesses 
with financial interest in particular regulations to place their own 
experts on the peer review panels. That is a majority Republican bill 
for OSHA.
  There is a ``Safety Advancement For Employees Act,'' and that is a 
bill to exempt penalties to employers who violate the OSHA standards.
  There is the ``OSHA Reform Act of 1999'' which would totally 
eliminate OSHA's enforcement of standards in its protection of whistle 
blowers. Then there is the ``Fair Access to Indemnity and Reimbursement 
Act'' which would chill OSHA enforcement by awarding attorney fees to 
businesses whenever OSHA lost a case.
  They are consistent. They have been plugging away at OSHA for a long 
time. They are consistently hostile to working families. That is what 
we are hearing today. It is good that we are having this debate to have 
the destructive Republican platform for working families clearly stated 
on this floor.

[[Page 19246]]



                              {time}  1915

  Mr. GOODLING. What is the division of time at the present time, Mr. 
Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) has 17 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) has 18\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McKeon), our erstwhile subcommittee chair.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 987, the Workplace 
Preservation Act.
  For years, the issue of ergonomics has been fiercely debated. 
Unfortunately, many would like to make this a partisan debate, when, in 
fact, we all want what is best for the American worker. Therefore, in 
order to best address the issue, last year Congress and the President 
agreed to fund a comprehensive 2-year study to look at the scientific 
evidence surrounding repetitive tasks and workplace injuries.
  I supported this provision when it was included in last year's 
omnibus bill because it provided a commonsense solution to a very 
difficult issue. As such, I was alarmed when I heard that OSHA was 
moving forward earlier this year on a proposed ergonomics standard 
barely before the study had begun. Consequently, I cosponsored H.R. 987 
and voted for it when it was considered by the Committee on Education 
and the Workforce.
  To me, this bill is very basic. It simply says that the Labor 
Department must wait to move forward until the fundamental medical and 
scientific questions surrounding ergonomics are answered. We owe that 
to the Members of this body who supported the provision. We owe that to 
the taxpayers, who funded this million dollar study. We owe it to the 
thousands of businesses who would be accountable to the new standards. 
And most importantly, we owe it to the American workers who deserve a 
safe and healthy workplace.
  Again, I urge all my colleagues to vote for H.R. 987.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member 
for yielding me this time and for his leadership on this issue, as well 
as the ranking member on the subcommittee of jurisdiction, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is quite ironic that many people have said 
in the course of this year that this century began with violence in the 
Balkans and it is ending with violence in the Balkans. So too with this 
issue. This century began with the muckrakers, with Ida Tarbell and 
Upton Sinclair pointing out dangers in the workplace for American 
workers. They showed the exploitation of the worker. And here we are at 
the end of the century, much enlightened, much improved, but not 
completely.
  And ironically, the new information technology age has presented new 
and additional challenges. As more people work on keyboards and look at 
screens, it presents more possibilities for ergonomic disease. So let 
us not ignore the history of it. We look with great embarrassment at 
what happened at the beginning of the century. We know so much more 
now. We owe it to the American worker to do better.
  But I do not ask my colleagues to take my word for it. In saying 
this, I am joining the major national occupational and safety health 
groups, which believe that existing science supports the need for an 
ergonomics standard and oppose H.R. 987. The American Public Health 
Association, the American Nurses Association, the American Association 
of Occupational Health Nurses, the American College of Occupational and 
Environmental Medicine, representing over 2.7 million safety and health 
professionals, have documented the need for and support an ergonomics 
safety standard to protect workers from workplace injuries.
  The American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine is 
America's largest occupational medicine society concerned with 
workforce health, and they have said and I quote, ``There is adequate 
scientific foundation for OSHA to proceed with a proposal and, 
therefore, no reason for OSHA to delay the rulemaking process.''
  The American Public Health Association's national women's groups, 
according to Women Work, the National Network for Women's Employment, 
all urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution. I urge my colleagues to join 
them.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) from the committee.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I am very sympathetic to the problems of ergonomics. That may not 
be a statement that my colleagues have heard too much from this side of 
the aisle, but I am sympathetic for reasons relating to the ailments I 
have encountered, and I will amplify on that during debate later on.
  At the same time, I still support this bill, because I have learned 
that the issues revolving around some of the things I have had, 
including a herniated disk in my back, and surgery for that; carpal 
tunnel syndrome, with surgery on both hands for that; and chronic 
asthma, I have learned that all of these issues are extremely complex 
as related to the workplace.
  These issues are so complex that it is important that we do the 
National Academy study. I want to make certain that we do it not 
because we are trying to delay the issue or somehow avoid the issue, I 
think it is important to wait until the National Academy study is 
finished simply because we should have the result of the National 
Academy study before any final decisions are made on precisely what we 
should do, and what the best approach is regarding ergonomics.
  So I support the bill. I think it is very important that we do take 
the time to deal with the complexities of the issue, make certain that 
whatever we decide in this body or through the regulatory agencies is 
the appropriate approach, the right way to deal with the problem, so 
that we actually come up with good solutions rather than just have 
individuals sitting at desks saying, well, this makes sense, let us do 
this, let us do that, let us try this.
  We have to make certain we do it right. So I urge you to vote for 
this bill, demonstrate our ability to be patient and study the 
complexities of the issue before taking action.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Workplace 
Preservation Act, which bars OSHA from issuing vital ergonomics 
standards until the National Academy of Sciences has completed its 
study on this issue.
  This legislation is unnecessary. The NAS study duplicates work that 
has already been completed by the National Association for Occupational 
Safety and Health. OSHA could have published regulations this year if 
it could move forward on this issue. This is another scheme to prohibit 
OSHA from carrying out its mandate, which is to protect employees 
across the country from hazards of the workplace.
  Ergonomic injuries are the most common serious workplace health 
problems that face workers. Each delay means another 620,000 employees 
involved in everything from heavy lifting to data entry will suffer 
injuries associated with repeated trauma such as carpal tunnel 
syndrome. One of three workers' compensation dollars goes to repetitive 
stress injuries. The number continues to rise.
  Let me just mention that, in fact, ergonomic guidelines are good for 
employees and are good for business. Let me give my colleagues two 
examples from the State of Connecticut. In New Haven, at the Ives 
Company, which is a hardware manufacturer, they reduced employee 
injuries by 90 percent by cutting out manual lifting. Aetna Life 
redesigned its workstations and productivity increased by 64 percent. 
Businesses can win. Ives cut its injury costs from $88,400 to $8,700. 
Aetna calculated its productivity increase and brought it to $621,000 
annually.

[[Page 19247]]

  Ergonomic guidelines are good for hard-working men and women. They 
are good for businesses, large and small. We need to end this delay, 
and we need to support progress. We need to support and protect hard-
working men and women and save money in health care costs and lost 
wages.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, may I have the division of time again?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) has 
13\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) 
has 14\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Isakson), a member of the committee.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in support of H.R. 987, as introduced by the 
distinguished gentleman from Missouri.
  I rise to make really two points. The first is based on experience. 
In the State of Georgia, for years, where I worked in the legislature 
on workers compensation legislation, without question, the 
preponderance of the cases that went to final court were cases over 
musculoskeletal disorders. I believe if we were to check the other 50 
States in the United States of America, we would find also the 
preponderance of those cases that had to go to court were over 
musculoskeletal disorders. And we would also find that in every case a 
physician of renown, a physician with experience, testified on behalf 
of the injured party and on behalf of the business. And decisions fell 
on both sides. And why? For a very simple reason. It is a very 
difficult task to determine exactly what the cause was.
  To wait for scientific data to be conclusive is important, and to 
wait for this study that has been funded to come back before those 
regulations is also very important.
  But I also want to address what the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Owens) said. This is not a battle of us against workers and someone 
else for them. This is not a battle against the lady that the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) mentioned, who over and over repeated those 
motions. But it is a battle over looking at all the interest of 
regulation.
  So let me personalize the story. Let me talk about James Abney, a 
doctor in Marietta, Georgia, who employs his wife and two dental 
assistants. A few years ago, when a major problem in our country arose 
over the possible spread of AIDS in the use of dentistry, and many will 
remember that case, immediate regulations came down which caused the 
acquisition of almost $40,000 in additional equipment, additional 
techniques, additional coverings in treatment and additional policies.
  None of us would argue that was not the appropriate response, but 
they were so quick, and in the absence of data, that over half of those 
within a year were repealed as being unnecessary. But the $40,000 was 
not paid back to Dr. Abney.
  Businesses deserve the right to have scientific data before business 
does what it will do, and that is take care of the best interest of its 
workers.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Earlier, one of our colleagues said this was ready, fire, aim. I 
think what we really have here is ready, aim, delay, delay some more, 
delay forever, if we can.
  They talked about this being an effort not to prohibit, but it is in 
fact an effort to delay this for up to 2 years.
  They talked about wanting to make sure they have all the studies 
before there are some sweeping regulations. The irony is that their 
proposed study would merely review existing information in literature.
  This is the same group standing up saying delay, we want to await the 
National Academy of Sciences report that rejected the National Academy 
of Sciences report saying that there should be statistical sampling in 
the census. They threw that out. But now, because it is to their 
benefit to wait and delay, they want to wait for the National Academy 
of Sciences report.
  There are reports out there, Mr. Chairman. Let me say that the 
National Institute of Safety and Health has already had the most 
comprehensive compilation of review research on this issue to date. And 
the relationship between those types of injuries and the exposure to 
the workplace risk factors was shown. They have identified over 2,000 
studies of work-related injuries and hazards, two thousand.
  They selected 600 of the studies for detailed review based on well-
accepted criteria, that included strength of association, consistency, 
temporality, and coherence of evidence. Twenty-seven peer reviewers 
examined that document, including epidemiologists and other scientists, 
physicians, ergonomists, engineers, industrial hygienists, employers 
and employee representatives. Based on that review of the scientific 
evidence, they had a substantial body of credible research that showed 
strong evidence of association between those types of injuries and 
work-related physical factors.
  The NAS study in 1998, Mr. Chairman, reviewed the same body of 
evidence, but it supplemented that evidence by including reviews of 
biomechanical and other control intervention studies. They then had 
scientists review it and had panel discussions. They had a 10-member 
steering committee prepare the report. They had a peer review by an 
additional 10 scientists.
  Mr. Chairman, I think my colleagues get the point. This is ready, 
aim, delay, delay, delay.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to again remind everyone that NIOSH said that an in-depth study would 
be very, very beneficial.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Terry).
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 987. Prior to my 
service here in the House, I was a trial lawyer in Omaha, Nebraska. 
Now, I know that is not necessarily a term of endearment on this side 
of the aisle; but it does give me certain experiences and insight into 
issues such as this because as much as 50 percent of my practice was 
representing people with injuries, worker compensation claims.
  I represented many clients who suffered from repetitive motion 
injuries, the most common of which is to the wrists, known as carpal 
tunnel syndrome, and I sympathize with these folks. I have seen it 
affect people minimally, and I have seen it affect them seriously, some 
enough to lose their jobs.

                              {time}  1930

  I have learned from speaking to many medical experts and reading a 
great many medical studies on this subject that there is much 
controversy on the cause of these injuries, including how much 
repetitive motion versus trauma is necessary to cause the onset of 
symptoms.
  Until we know more facts about the various causes of repetitive 
motion injuries, how do we know the best method to avoid reducing these 
injuries? We are only guessing at the best way to protect workers.
  I am concerned that without the National Academy of Sciences study, 
we may allow regulations that have the unintended consequences of one 
extreme doing nothing and the other exacerbating injuries or causing 
different types of injuries. And I am not willing to accept that risk.
  Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 987; and I urge my colleagues to join me 
in voting for it.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 987, the so-
called ``Workplace Preservation Act.'' Perhaps it ought to be called 
``Woman Out of the Workplace Act.'' Because this legislation is against 
working women.
  This bill is about our aunts. It is about our mothers, our sisters. 
It is

[[Page 19248]]

about women who have many responsibilities not only in the workplace 
but at home that when they have a repetitive motion problem it 
compounds their life.
  H.R. 987 would stop the writing of regulations that protects workers, 
primarily women, who suffer the crippling and painful injuries caused 
by repetitive motion.
  Each year, according to the AFL-CIO, 400,000 women workers suffer 
injuries from ergonomic hazards. Sixty-nine percent of all workers who 
suffer from carpal tunnel syndrome are women.
  Now, everyone has their personal stories. A dear aunt of mine who 
worked as a secretary required surgery in both wrists to deal with 
carpal tunnel. I have a sister who worked as a meat cutter who because 
of repetitive motion injury could not do her job anymore; and then when 
she tried to file a workers comp claim, the company fought her.
  That is typical, also. It is not just the people get injured; it is 
that they often cannot get help, so they are victimized further.
  Besides the physical and emotional costs caused by these workplace 
injuries, there is a huge economic cost. workers compensation costs of 
repetitive motion injuries is $20 billion each year. So this, of 
course, hurts families, but it also hurts businesses in reduced 
productivity. It cuts business profits. It increases claims. It 
increases litigation.
  This is time for new thinking. We are entering a new millennium. Let 
us have new thinking and let us start by voting ``no'' on H.R. 987.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Hilleary), another member of the committee.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to stand before this House 
today as a cosponsor and strong supporter of H.R. 987, the Workplace 
Preservation Act.
  Do not let some of the opponents of this legislation fool us. They 
say that if this legislation passes, workers will be subject to an 
endless amount of illnesses and workplace injuries.
  However, they seem to forget that passage of this bill maintains the 
status quo and simply allows the National Academy of Sciences to 
complete a study on ergonomics to ensure the safety of American 
workers.
  In last year's omnibus appropriations bill, Congress gave the Clinton 
administration almost $1 million to complete this study. That is the 
law. The President signed the bill. He agreed to do this study as a 
prudent first step.
  What I do not understand is why we should not wait until the National 
Academy of Sciences study comes back with that study paid for by Mr. 
and Mrs. American taxpayer before we make a decision on the issue. It 
is silly to throw the American taxpayers' money down the drain in order 
to prematurely enact a regulation that has been referred to as 
counterproductive.
  While the administration continues to threaten to enact a regulation 
on ergonomics before a study is completed, I find their actions akin to 
a doctor delivering a treatment before diagnosis. There is no 
scientific certainty in the causes, the diagnosis, prevention, and 
correction of workplace injuries, and we should not hastily make rules 
without having proper scientific evidence.
  Meanwhile, the potential impact of the administration's regulatory 
scheme could reach into the billions of dollars. OSHA estimated the 
compliance cost within the trucking industry alone at $257 million and 
$3.5 billion for all industries. Private studies have estimated that it 
might cost as much as $6.5 billion.
  Now, who is going to pay for this additional cost? Consumers? 
Businesses, of course, will pass on this new cost to those who purchase 
products. So not only are we throwing away the $1 million the taxpayers 
give us, but we are also telling them that they would have to pay more 
in order to provide food and other items for their families.
  Another claim my colleagues may hear is that ergonomics regulations 
will help the American worker. Yet, these regulations also alarm many 
of the people that they are designed to help. Several workers who would 
be covered under an ergonomics standard make their money based on the 
number of items they deliver. If we restrict the amount they can 
officially deliver, the workers themselves lose money.
  So let us see, where does this leave us?
  The American taxpayers. They lose under any new regulation because we 
are throwing $1 million of their money away and forcing them to pay 
higher prices.
  American business? They lose because it will likely cost billions for 
them to comply with these prospective regulations.
  Does the American worker win? No. Many of them will lose because they 
will receive less in salary and commissions thanks to the new 
regulations. And some of them will lose their jobs altogether to off-
shore labor.
  Let us protect hard-working Americans and not establish uncertain 
ergonomic standards.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 987.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains on 
both sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) has 10\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) has 7 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding to me 
the time.
  There has been a lot of reference this evening in regards to the 
money appropriated last fall in the omnibus appropriations bill for the 
2-year NAS study. While that may be true, the legislative history 
behind that was also perfectly clear. At least it was on this side, and 
it was with the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on 
Appropriations when they wrote to Secretary Herman a letter in which 
they stated, ``We are writing to make clear that by funding the NAS 
study, it is no way our intent to block or delay issuance by OSHA of a 
proposed rule on ergonomics.''
  Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce, I rise in opposition to H.R. 987. And let us also be clear 
that if H.R. 987 does pass tonight, it will be the fourth time in 5 
years in which this Congress was able to effectively block any 
movement, any progress, on issuing ergonomics rules from the Department 
of Labor and OSHA.
  Proponents of the legislation claim that there is not enough science 
to justify moving forward. This, however, is an issue that has been 
studied to death, over 2,000 studies exist examining ergonomics.
  As my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) already indicated, in 
1997 the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health evaluated 
over 600 of those 2,000 studies; and they concluded that there is a 
substantial body of credible evidence showing the cause and effects of 
repetitive motion and injuries in the workplace.
  I am concerned that Members are using the 2-year NAS study as an 
excuse to go into a four-corner offense and just delay, delay, and 
delay and hope that no rule is every promulgated.
  Quite frankly, I do not understand why. There are a lot of companies 
in western Wisconsin that are already implementing their only ergonomic 
standards in the workplace, one of which is 3M, one of the largest 
manufacturing companies in the Nation, three fairly large significant 
plants are located in my district. And they are doing it for two 
reasons: first, because they recognize the need for it and, second, 
because it makes good business sense.
  In fact, the chief ergonomics officer for 3M, Tom Alban stated, ``Our 
experience has shown that incorporating good ergonomics into our 
manufacturing and administrative process can be effective in reducing 
the number of and the severity of work-related MSDS, which not only 
benefits our employees but also makes good business sense.''
  3M's evolving ergonomics process has been effective at reducing the 
impacts of these disorders on their employees and their business.

[[Page 19249]]

  From 1993 to 1997, 3M has experienced a 50-percent reduction in 
ergonomics-related OSHA recordables and a 70-percent reduction in 
ergonomics-related lost time. I think that is another good reason to 
vote against this legislation tonight.
  I would encourage my colleagues tonight to stand up for working 
families. Do what a lot of good businesses are already doing. Allow 
OSHA to move forward on implementing rules on ergonomics standards. It 
makes sense. It makes good business sense. And in the long run it is 
going to help the working people in this country.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Granger).
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bipartisan 
Workplace Preservation Act.
  I do so because of a very simple premise: we cannot prescribe a 
solution until we diagnose the problem. Doctors know this. In fact, 
every day they examine patients' symptoms hoping to discover the 
underlying disease. But no doctor will ever order a specific medication 
until he or she is satisfied the actual sickness has been discovered.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe it would serve us well to remember this 
analogy as we consider this issue. Workplace injuries is a serious 
matter. There is no question this issue is an important concern to 
millions of Americans. But there are a great many questions as to the 
cause and effect of ergonomics.
  In fact, over the last few years, many of the country's leading 
physicians and researchers on injuries of hand, back, and upper 
extremities have testified before Congress that the causes and impact 
of these disorders are not easy to discern.
  Are they caused by too much typing on a computer or too many hours in 
front of a scanner? We do not know. But we need to know, and we are 
trying to find out.
  That is why last year Congress appropriated $890,000 for the National 
Academy of Sciences to conduct a study of all the available scientific 
literature examining the cause-and-effect relationship between 
repetitive task and physical pain. The study is scheduled to be 
concluded by the middle of the year 2001.
  Yet, amazingly, in a March hearing before the Subcommittee on 
Workforce Protections, the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Health 
and Safety Administration vowed that issuing an ergonomic standard was 
the agency's top priority for this year.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues not to confuse motion with action. 
I am afraid that is exactly what the Office of Health and Safety 
Administration is about to do.
  Congress had it right last fall. Let us take our time and let us do 
it right. Let us put science before politics, and let us determine 
exactly what the problem is before we prescribe the solution.
  I hope all of my colleagues will support this common sense bill, 
which simply requires the Secretary of Labor to wait for the National 
Academy of Sciences to complete their study before it issues any new 
regulations.
  Is this too much to ask? After all, is this not what we expect when 
we do see our doctors? Why should we expect our Congress to do anything 
less?
  Mr. Chairman, let us get our facts straight before we legislate. Let 
us pause before we determine a cause. I urge my colleagues to support 
this bipartisan bill.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the passage of H.R. 987, 
the Workplace Preservation Act. It is merely another delaying tactic. 
We have seen this every year when this matter comes up.
  H.R. 987 requires the Secretary of Labor to wait for the completion 
of another National Academy of Science study. We have had many studies. 
This delay is simply not supportable by the evidence. Scientific 
literature supported by safety experts already shows that the workplace 
factors cause musculoskeletal disorders.
  The National Academy of Sciences and National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Environmental Medicine have clearly 
demonstrated the relationship between ergonomic problems and the onset 
of these disorders.
  The American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine has 
confirmed that there is adequate scientific foundation for the OSHA to 
proceed.
  Since 1995, we have seen one request after another for a delay. The 
Department of Labor is prepared to issue these standards. We need the 
standards to prevent injuries.
  It is incomprehensible why an industry that is suffering from $20 
billion of losses because of these injuries is still seeking to block 
the issuance of standards which could save these injuries and in fact 
keep the workers at the workplace producing the goods, producing the 
values that these industries fully need.

                              {time}  1945

  I hope that this bill will be defeated and that the workers' safety 
will come first.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), a member of the committee.
  Mr. NORWOOD. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 987, the 
Workplace Preservation Act, and I commend the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Blunt) for pushing this bill.
  The purpose of this bill is pretty clear and I think very compelling. 
It requires the Secretary of Labor to hold off before issuing standards 
or regulations on ergonomics until the National Academy of Sciences 
completes a study on the actual cause of ergonomic injuries.
  This Congress has spent nearly $1 million to determine with some 
degree of accuracy just what is the status of medical science with 
respect to the diagnosis and the classification of ergonomics problems. 
Why in the world OSHA would want to proceed before we have a good 
understanding of this is frankly beyond me. I do not know how many 
hearings over the last 3 years I have sat through where scientists and 
doctors have come before us and testified they do not know or 
understand the cause-and-effect relationship between work activities 
and musculoskeletal disorders.
  Now, what is ergonomics? It is simply a repetitive motion syndrome. 
If you take two people and both of them work and in their work they 
move their hand like this all day in doing their job, that is in fact 
repetitive motion. The question may be, will one of them have a carpal 
tunnel, will one of them have a musculoskeletal pain? If that is the 
case, why does one have it and not the other? We do not understand 
that. Medicine does not understand why one does and one does not. In 
addition to that, one of those two people may go home at night and knit 
and they use that motion over and over again. If they have 
musculoskeletal pain, the question then would be, what caused it? Is 
there a direct correlation between that motion and the pain? Is that 
pain being caused by knitting every night or is that pain being caused 
by working every day?
  Never fear, OSHA is here. OSHA is an agency that is incompetent in 
writing these standards. OSHA cops are incompetent in regulating people 
on this subject. The business community, it is true, is working very, 
very hard to try to make the workplace an easier place, in lifting, in 
turning, in twisting, in doing the same repetitive motion all day. They 
frankly are doing a pretty good job. Why is OSHA wanting to regulate 
that? Well, it is an agency that likes to regulate. They are trying 
their best to give themselves something else to do. We all know 
agencies up here spend a lot of the taxpayers' money getting studies to 
say exactly what they want to say. What the doctors and scientists tell 
us is that they do not know for sure. There is not a direct 
correlation. OSHA, of course, tells us it is very sure, that it knows, 
and it is sure they know what to do.

[[Page 19250]]

  Mr. Chairman, we should absolutely wait until this study is complete. 
Use good science.
  Mr. CLAY, Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Sanchez).
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member for 
yielding me this time.
  American workers should not have to wait for OSHA to proceed with its 
ergonomic standards. In fact, 16 years ago while an MBA student, we as 
future employees and employers were studying ergonomic standards and 
what to do in the work area. This is not new.
  Scientists and researchers have documented over and over again that 
musculoskeletal disorders, or MSDs, are related to workplace risk 
factors. These disorders affect people of all types of occupations, 
laborers, nurses, accountants, and many of us here know about the 
injuries personally.
  For example, my first job in high school was scooping ice cream 20 
hours a week, 6 years. That job involved the same motion over and over 
and over again 20 hours a week. I still have problems with one of my 
wrists today.
  It is estimated that every year, over 600,000 workers suffer from 
work-related MSDs. For many workers, these injuries are debilitating, 
causing constant and intense pain. It is estimated that these work-
related injuries cost employers between $15 and $20 billion a year in 
workers' compensation.
  We need to allow OSHA to proceed with its ergonomic standards. I ask 
that my colleagues vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, we all know in Congress and throughout the 
country that smoking is bad for you and that cigarettes can do great 
harm to your health and possibly kill you. We also know that repetitive 
stress disorders and ergonomics hurt, harm, put people out of work to 
the number of 600,000 people a year.
  Now, we did not wait with cigarettes to identify every carcinogenic 
agent before we finally said, ``We are going to do something about 
cigarettes.'' We have had 2,000 studies on ergonomics and what they do 
to people to harm them doing the same thing over and over in the 
workplace. We need to now act. That is why people in our home States 
send us here.
  Now, who supports this kind of action? I have a press release here 
from the Secretary of Labor:
  ``These painful and sometimes crippling illnesses now make up 48 
percent of all recordable industrial workplace illnesses. We must do 
our utmost to protect workers from these hazards not only in the red 
meat industry but all U.S. industries.'' Secretary Reich? No. Secretary 
Herman? No. That is dated August 30, 1990. That is Secretary Elizabeth 
Dole. Secretary Elizabeth Dole.
  Now, who else supports this on science that we need to act and act 
now? Well, the list goes on and on. The American College of 
Occupational and Environmental Medicine, a pretty reputable 
organization. The National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety 
and Health. I would go with them. The National Academy of Sciences. 
Those are pretty good organizations, Mr. Chairman.
  When you have businesses like Intel and Chrysler and 3M and Ford 
Motor Company out there doing this in the workplace, we need to act 
now.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I rise in strong opposition to this bill.
  There is something attractive about the argument that we should just 
wait and listen for more science. But that was the argument that was 
made prior to 1990 when Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Dole said, ``It's 
time to do this.'' And that was the argument that was made prior to 
1992 and Secretary of Labor Lynn Martin said, ``No, it's time to do 
this.''
  Mr. Chairman, this is not about more science or when we do this 
because, I assure you, there will be another attempt later on to stop 
this regulation. This debate is about the merits of this regulation. I 
would ask my Republican friends, Mr. Chairman, to think about doing 
what comes naturally to them and, that is, trusting the marketplace.
  This regulation reminds me of the furor that took place in the late 
1960s and early 1970s about unleaded gasoline. There was a proposal to 
have a Federal law that would eventually bar the use of leaded gasoline 
by making us make cars that could not use it. We were told at that time 
it would be the end of the auto industry, the end of the gasoline 
industry, it would cripple domestic producers of automobiles. It would 
raise costs. It would be a disaster. But we went forward and did it, 
anyway.
  What happened? The marketplace responded. People throughout American 
industry built a better mousetrap. The amount of ambient lead in our 
air dropped dramatically and so did the price of gasoline, in real 
terms.
  I believe here as well, if we set a clear standard that says you 
shall protect your workers from repetitive stress syndrome, it will say 
to a whole class of inventors and entrepreneurs and good 
businesspeople, there is profit in finding ways to do that. Different 
kind of chairs, different kind of screens, different kind of keyboards 
on computers. The market will respond. Trust the market. Let 
entrepreneurs get to work in finding safer working conditions to help 
workers stay safer.
  Mr. Chairman, this is going to be a very close vote. I would urge 
Members to consider the merits and reject this bill.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 1\1/
2\ minutes.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, two quick observations: One, OPEC has a 
lot to say about the price of gasoline. Secondly, they always say if 
you are going to get a campaign, you have to get to be known. Elizabeth 
could not have paid for any more attention than she got this evening. 
She certainly is known all over the country, if she was not before, 
after this debate and I am sure she thanks all of you for giving her 
that great opportunity this evening.
  Let me again say that so many times we rush into things, so many 
times we do legislation, so many times we promulgate regulation without 
any scientific knowledge as to will this help the people we are trying 
to help or will it not?
  Last October, 333 Members of this House of Representatives, the 
Senate, the President said, ``We believe that the National Academy of 
Sciences should do an in-depth study so that when we regulate, we 
regulate to help, not regulate to harm.'' They also said at that time, 
we should pay $800,000 of taxpayers' money to do it. All we say now is, 
``Let's see what they say,'' so that we do it. Let us not regulate and 
then see that we have caused more problems than we have cured. Let us 
regulate with the scientific knowledge before the regulations are 
written.
  Again, I would ask all to vote in favor of the legislation and try to 
help those that we want to protect in the workplace. Vote ``yes'' on 
this legislation.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, the implication of the so-called ``Workplace 
Preservation Act'' is clear--passage of this bill will do nothing more 
than unnecessarily delay the adoption of a standard for ergonomics in 
the workplace. As a matter of fact, the only thing preserved by H.R. 
987 is the employers' ability to further exploit the hard-working 
American laborer.
  Since 1990 the number of workers that have suffered from MSDs totals 
over 5 million people. Adoption of this bill won't do anything to help 
our workforce, rather it would only ensure that another 1 million 
workers will suffer the same fate. And as if these 5 million injured 
workers isn't enough evidence that something has to be done, we have 
studies from the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health 
and the National Academy of Sciences that conclude that musculoskeletal 
disorders can be reduced and prevented through ergonomic intervention 
in the workplace.
  The evidence is comprehensive and clear this request for more 
research is a weak attempt to stall the adoption of safe ergonomic 
conditions for our hard-working laborers. We already know what must be 
done to provide

[[Page 19251]]

our workforce with safe working conditions and we therefore owe it to 
every American worker to vote against this bill, H.R. 987.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I oppose H.R. 987, the Workplace Preservation 
Act.
  The human body is a complicated machine. There is a lot we are still 
learning about the body, how it works, and how to protect it. Far be it 
for me as a scientist to say that we should avoid studies to get the 
facts. I expect, in fact, that we will learn a lot about the human body 
and how to take care of it in the workplace for decades to come.
  But several of my colleagues here have talked about the 
unpredictability of workplace injuries. They may not be sure why they 
have back problems or other injuries. Well, in fact that is the point. 
Because the human body is so complicated, in many cases, it is 
difficult to determine the cause of an individual musculoskeletal 
disorder.
  If we could identify the cause of injury in each case, we could rely 
on the employer's altruism or self-interest or worker's comp findings 
or even the threat of a lawsuit to see that each individual threatening 
situation was taken care of. But it is in just such circumstances where 
we have statistical evidence about this complicated machine that we 
need the kind of general regulations and protections that OSHA 
provides. We want to continue the effort to obtain the best evidence, 
but that is not a reason to delay providing guidelines.
  There is now concrete evidence. There are clear relationships between 
occupational assignments and musculoskeletal injuries. See the National 
Research Council, National Academy report and the NIOSH report. There 
are clear techniques and equipment for reducing injury or, as the 
National Academy says, specific interventions.
  Ergonomic guidelines are not antibusiness. There are hundreds of 
outstanding businesses around the country that are working on ergonomic 
solutions and applying ergonomic remedies. There is an industry total 
of something like $20 billion a year lost due to ergonomic injuries. 
And we have to remember there are hundreds of thousands of people who 
are not able to pick up and hug their children due to ergonomic 
injuries.
  So what we need, of course, are good studies and good facts, and I 
hope we will continue to get them. But we have now enough knowledge 
about specific interventions in the workplace that will help reduce 
this cost to our economy and, more important, will reduce this harm and 
pain and suffering to individuals. We don't need political delay.
  Congress should vote against H.R. 987.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my opposition to 
the passage of H.R. 987, the Workplace Preservation Act.
  H.R. 987 requires the Secretary of Labor to wait for completion of a 
National Academy of Sciences study before issuing regulations creating 
standards or guidelines for ergonomics in the workplace.
  This delay is unnecessary. Scientific literature supported by safety 
and health experts already shows that workplace factors cause 
musculoskeletal disorders. The National Academy of Sciences and 
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Environmental Medicine 
have clearly demonstrated a relationship between ergonomic problems and 
the onset of musculoskeletal disorders.
  The American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine has 
confirmed that ``there is an adequate scientific foundation for OSHA to 
proceed . . . and no reason for OSHA to delay the rulemaking process 
while the National Academy of Science panel conducts its review.''
  Duplicative studies are doing nothing to prevent injuries already 
being suffered by millions of workers in all sectors of society: 
nurses, meatpackers, cashiers, computer users, and construction 
workers. Since 1995 the implementation of ergonomic guidelines have 
been repeatedly blocked, and this opposition has resulted in over 6 
million workers suffering preventable injuries. Workers' compensation 
costs have totaled $20 billion annually.
  Further delay will be even more costly to industries as well as to 
workers. Clearly, we cannot afford to wait any longer for the issuance 
of workplace standards on ergonomics.
  For the health and safety of America's workers, I urge my colleagues 
to vote against the passage of H.R. 987.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my support for 
H.R. 987, The Workplace Preservation Act. This legislation will block 
proposed OSHA rules regarding ergonomic injuries until a scientific 
study comparing work place conditions and repetitive stress injuries is 
complete.
  It is estimated that if the OSHA rules are put into effect, it could 
cost American businesses an extra $3.5 billion per year. H.R. 987 
simply allows for the completion of the study by the National Academy 
of Sciences, which is expected in the next year, to discover if in fact 
there is a link between repetitive stress injuries and work conditions. 
Completing this study before implementing this costly regulation is 
simply common sense.
  The fact is, these regulations could cost our country billions of 
dollars without guaranteeing the prevention of a single injury. Small 
business is the engine which drives our economy. We owe more to small 
business owners than to blindly allow implementation of these 
potentially devastating regulations. We must correct this proposed 
federal rule.
  Mr. Chairman, I agree American workers should have the best working 
conditions. However, I do not believe we are moving forward to prevent 
work place injuries by initiating rules that may not even address the 
problem. I urge my colleagues to support the further examination of 
these regulations by voting in favor of H.R. 987.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I oppose H.R. 987, the Workplace 
Preservation Act.
  This legislation would prevent the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA) from promulgating a desperately needed rule on 
ergonomics. H.R. 987 will needlessly subject hundreds of thousands of 
workers to occupational injuries while yet another study is completed.
  Repetitive injuries are one of the leading causes of work-related 
illness. More than 647,000 Americans suffer serious injuries and 
illnesses due to musculoskeletal disorders, costing businesses $15 to 
$20 billion annually in workers' compensation costs. Total costs of 
these injuries are estimated at $60 billion a year.
  Ergonomics is the science of fitting the job physically to a worker--
for example, by altering chairs, adjusting the speed of an assembly 
line, or using special braces to ease back strain from lifting heavy 
loads. A federal ergonomics standard is needed to protect American 
workers from those organizations who refuse to protect their employees. 
Unfortunately, the majority leadership would rather kowtow to industry 
and delay promulgation of an inevitable standard.
  For the past several years, OSHA has been working toward the 
implementation of a regulation designed to reduce workplace injuries 
attributable to ergonomic factors in the workplace. OSHA has advanced a 
draft proposal that would provide an urgently needed health and safety 
standard for working Americans. The proposal draws from the businesses 
that have successfully prevented ergonomic injuries or reduced their 
severity in the workplace.
  The issue of ergonomics and its impact on workplace injuries has been 
studied. It has been documented that ergonomics prevent workplace 
injuries. For example, in 1997, the National Institute of Occupational 
Safety and Health produced a study demonstrating the validity of the 
science underlying an ergonomics standard. A 1998 review by the 
National Academy of Sciences also found that musculoskeletal disorders 
in workers are caused by ergonomic hazards in the workplace.
  A nursing home in Maine implemented ergonomics changes in the 
workplace. The nursing home cut their number of lost workdays from 573 
in 1991 to 12 in 1996 by investing $60,000 on patient lifting devices 
and instituting a policy banning the lifting of patients unless there 
was more than one worker present to assist. This saved the employer 
more than $730,000 annually in workers' compensation premiums as a 
result of this policy. This nursing home provides a clear example of 
the potential benefits of a uniform ergonomics standard.
  Despite the multiple studies already completed, the FY 1999 Labor, 
Health and Human Services Appropriations Act provided $890,000 for the 
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to review the scientific literature 
on the issue of work-related musculoskeletal disorders. The study was 
expected to take at least 24 months to complete. However, on October 
19, 19998, Appropriations Chairman Bob Livingston and Ranking Democrat 
David Obey assured Labor Secretary Alexis Herman in a letter that ``by 
funding the NAS study, it is in no way our intent to block or delay 
issuance by OSHA of a proposed rule on ergonomics.''
  Unfortunately, nine months later, the Republicans have broken their 
promise. This bill requires OSHA to delay its work until yet another 
government study is concluded. The facts are clear--providing guidance 
to employers and employees on ergonomics will prevent tens of thousands 
of injuries, alleviate considerable human suffering, and save billions 
of dollars.
  We should not have to wait for completion of yet another study to 
tell us what we already know. We must defeat H.R. 987. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 987.

[[Page 19252]]

  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule for 2 hours and is considered read.
  The text of H.R. 987 is as follows:

                                H.R. 987

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Workplace Preservation 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       (a) Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health 
     Administration (OSHA) has announced that it plans to propose 
     regulations during 1999 to regulate ``ergonomics'' in the 
     workplace. A draft of OSHA's ergonomics regulation became 
     available in January 1999.
       (2) A July, 1997, report by the National Institute for 
     Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) reviewing 
     epidemiological studies that have been conducted of ``work 
     related musculoskeletal disorders of the neck, upper 
     extremity, and low back'' showed that there is insufficient 
     evidence to assess the level of risk to workers from 
     repetitive motions. Such characterization would be necessary 
     to write an efficient and effective regulation.
       (3) An August 1998, workshop on ``work related 
     musculoskeletal injuries'' held by the National Academy of 
     Sciences also reviewed existing research on musculoskeletal 
     disorders. It also showed that there is insufficient evidence 
     to assess the level of risk to workers from repetitive 
     motions.
       (4) The risk of OSHA imposing a ``solution'' to ailments 
     and disorders that are grouped as ``repetitive stress 
     injuries'' and ``musculoskeletal disorders'' before 
     sufficient information about the diagnosis, causes, and 
     prevention of such injuries and disorders is shown by the 
     fact that such disorders have often increased in workplaces 
     and industries in which OSHA has focused ergonomics-related 
     enforcement actions under the General Duty Clause of the 
     Occupational Safety and Health Act, while such disorders have 
     been decreasing in workplaces generally.
       (5) In October, 1998, Congress and the President agreed 
     upon a comprehensive study by the National Academy of Science 
     of the medical and scientific evidence regarding 
     musculoskeletal disorders. The study is intended to evaluate 
     the basic questions about diagnosis and causes of such 
     disorders. Given the level of uncertainty and dispute about 
     these basic questions, and Congress' intention that they be 
     addressed in a comprehensive study by the National Academy of 
     Science, it is premature for OSHA to decide that a regulation 
     on ergonomics is necessary or appropriate to improving 
     workers' health and safety before such study is completed.
       (6) The estimated costs of OSHA's proposed ergonomics 
     regulation range from OSHA's low national estimate of 
     $20,000,000,000 to some single industry costs of 
     $18,000,000,000 to $30,000,000,000. Any regulation with this 
     potential impact on the Nation's economy merits a sound 
     scientific and medical foundation.

     SEC. 3. DELAY OF STANDARD OR GUIDELINE.

       The Secretary of Labor, acting through the Occupational 
     Safety and Health Administration, may not promulgate or issue 
     any standard or guideline on ergonomics until the National 
     Academy of Sciences--
       (1) completes a peer-reviewed scientific study of the 
     available evidence examining a cause and effect relationship 
     between repetitive tasks in the workplace and musculoskeletal 
     disorders or repetitive stress injuries; and
       (2) submits to Congress a report setting forth the findings 
     resulting from such study.

  The CHAIRMAN. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the 
Chair may accord priority in recognition to a Member offering an 
amendment that he has printed in the designated place in the 
Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  Are there any amendments to the bill?
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in strong opposition against the 
Workplace Preservation Act. I do that with recognition that what we did 
in the appropriation bill last time when we indeed funded $890,000 for 
a study to be completed by the National Academy of Sciences was the 
right thing to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the question is, why is this bill needed? Why 
is this act needed? Assuming the very best intention, the sponsors of 
this bill say this act is needed because we have a study that is in 
progress, a study that indeed would give us additional scientific 
information as to how best to respond to the illness caused by 
repetitive motion. I support that study. I think we ought to go forward 
and complete that study.
  But that reason is so faulty on its premise. Why delay the issuing of 
higher standards before you get that? You do not do that with cancer, 
you do not do that with AIDS, you do not do that with any other 
illness. You work with the scientific knowledge you have, because you 
want to alleviate the illness there may be.

                              {time}  2000

  In fact, if this study is completed, and I hope it is, and I think it 
will give us valuable information, it would supplement what is already 
there.
  By the way, in 1998 I think the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) 
put it poignantly. In 1996 there was a study. Again in 1998, the year 
we passed this bill, there was a study that showed a direct 
relationship, a cause factor, between the illness suffered and the 
repetitive motion.
  So there is not any question that indeed there is evidence, 
scientific evidence.
  Now do we need more studies? Of course we do. Even after the next 
study is completed, if we are true to trying to relieve this illness, 
we will always have to do diligent, frugal and always doing the kind of 
research that will allow us to gain the best scientific method.
  I say we should really be about protecting our workers with the 
current science we have now as we seek additional science. They are not 
in contradiction with each other. This is only a stalling tactic, to 
use it as a reason to do nothing. We should not see this as a reason to 
stall; we should see this as a reason to look forward for additional 
information that gives us additional ways in which we can respond to 
the workers.
  So I urge our colleagues to understand that this study completion 
does not deny and should not prevent us from having enough scientific 
data to go into the workplace and say we need to raise these standards, 
and if we get additional information, as I hope we will, we will have 
the courage again to say that we need to refine that.
  Consider also there are already companies not waiting for these 
studies. They are doing it on their own. Why? Because they want to 
protect their workers. They also want to have a more productive 
workforce.
  In my district alone, I know many of the workers compensation claims 
I get from workers are related to repeated motion, and those people are 
suffering severely. They are not producing for their workers, and they 
are certainly not producing for themselves.
  So this bill needs to be defeated. It is flawed in its logic, and it 
is only a stalling tactic that should be recognized for what it is. We 
should be protecting the workers with the clear, scientific data we 
have in hand, and there is sufficient scientific data to know.
  In fact, I heard one of my colleagues say that there have been 
thousands of studies, and this is not something new. This is something 
that will be evolving as we go forward, and to use this as a tactic to 
not do anything clearly is seen by the workers as a way of not 
respecting their rights, and I think we do a dishonor.
  We indeed support this. I urge a defeat of the Workplace Preservation 
Act.
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, tonight, as we consider this bill, I think it is 
important that we consider the consequences that the bill will have. I 
think it is interesting that the bill is called the Workplace 
Protection Act, and I would just like to point out that maybe what we 
are really doing by passing this bill is protecting the jobs that we 
have in the workplace today.
  The truth is that we all know that we are in an international 
competition in that we are working hard to make sure that our jobs stay 
here in the United States, and so every time we consider

[[Page 19253]]

the costs that are involved in jobs, we have to consider that what 
government does may create such high costs that we drive additional 
good jobs, good jobs for working men and women, overseas.
  As we look at workers compensation, it is a very delicate balance 
that we have designed the workers compensation program for. We are 
trying to balance the very important aspect of protecting workers who 
are injured on the job, to provide for their medical expenses, to pay 
them a portion of their missed wages and to help them get back to work 
as quickly as they possibly can.
  At the same time we are eager not to just write a blank check because 
the Congress does not write the blank check; the workplace writes the 
check for paying for these workers' costs, and so if we drive workers 
compensation costs higher and higher, if we begin to incur a super 
amount of costs that have not been paid for in the past, what we really 
do is encourage our companies to finally realize that, if they are 
going to compete internationally, that they are going to have to move 
these workplaces overseas in order to avoid an absolutely unassumable 
cost.
  Mr. Chairman, we know that the human body wears out. All of us that 
have moms and dads know today that they are getting hip replacements; 
they are getting knee replacement operations. As my colleagues know, I 
myself after fixing dinner for years for a family of 6 children find 
that slicing up food has caused my thumb joint to wear out. The fact is 
who can say whether it is that or the fact that I sit at a desk now and 
write that has caused that thumb joint to wear out.
  So, Mr. Chairman, before we enact huge new costs on the workplace, a 
workplace that might steal away our best jobs, we ought to have the 
science to figure out whether or not these are work induced, what we 
can do to prevent them and make sure that we do not create an enormous 
cost that take away our good jobs.
  As my colleagues know, the truth is today that Congress could pass 
workers compensation laws that would cover everything. We could cover 
employees that get sick and miss a day because they caught a cold or 
caught a virus or the flu at work. We could cover everything for our 
workers, and all of us who care about workers would like to do that. 
But if in doing that we caused some of our best jobs to leave this 
country so that they could continue to be competitive, we would create 
the worst for our workers.
  Secondly, the effect we have is that we supersede all State laws 
here. What we do is we not only say this is a new standard, not only do 
we say this has to be prevented, but we say all workers who have an 
injury and suffer an injury get super benefits over and above any other 
benefits that are established in State laws today.
  We would say they get a hundred percent of their weekly pay; we say 
that this has to continue for 6 months, and so all the State programs 
right now that are designed in a way to help the worker and the 
employer have the incentive to get the worker back to work so that they 
can have the best resolution of this and they can have the opportunity 
to get back to work, all of that is lost.
  It creates an incentive for every worker, no matter what the 
particular cause is, to see to it that their injury would fall under 
the repetitive motion scheme so that they would get more than anybody 
else in their workplace that would have an injury under any other 
scheme. We take away all of the ways that workers compensation has been 
designed to fairly meet workers' needs and workers' compensations for 
injuries and instead drive everybody into this new super-sized scheme 
for paying for injuries.
  I am sorry tonight that this debate has been framed as a debate about 
pro workers or against workers because I believe that everybody here in 
this Congress wants workers to have the best. They want our American 
workers to have their good jobs, and they want them to stay in this 
country, and they want the workers compensation to be affordable.
  Let us vote yes on this bill and continue this.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
last word.
  I rise in opposition to this legislation. I appreciate the speech 
just given by the gentlewoman, except this is a little different than 
the problem she outlined. This is about preventing the injuries to 
those workers. This is about the fact that if we do this right, those 
workers will not have to go on workers comp, their employers will not 
have to pay their health costs, they will not have to pay their 
compensation costs, and people can stay on the job, and they can feed 
their families and provide the wherewithal for their children. That is 
what this legislation is about.
  To suggest somehow that what we need is one more study, we need good 
science. The opposition to this legislation is not about good science; 
it is not about one more study. It is about a flat out opposition to 
the imposition of these rules and regulations to try to protect workers 
from musculoskeletal syndrome, and the purpose of that is this, that we 
can keep people on the job where they can remain productive.
  Now to listen to the Republican argument here simply we must suspend 
reality, we must suspend the reality of what every Member of Congress 
experiences when they fly back to their districts, and that is the 
number of flight attendants and others who are working on the airplane, 
delivering meals, taking care of us while we are there, who are wearing 
wrist braces, elbow braces, tendon braces, all the rest of it because 
of repetitive motion. The redesign of the carts on the airplanes 
because of repetitive motion, the baggage handlers and others because 
of repetitive motion who are wearing belts and back supports and all 
those kinds of activities because of repetitive motion because they 
understand that if they do not do that, they are going to end up 
disabled, they are going to end up with health care costs, and they are 
going to end up out of work, and their employer understands that.
  Suspend reality when going into the Home Depot, suspend reality when 
going into the Price Club or into Costco where we see people engaged in 
repetitive motion, who are wearing the kinds of preventive apparatus on 
their backs, on their arms and the rest of it so that they will not 
lose the working hours; they will not lose that kind of income. Again, 
their employers understand that, their insurers understand that, and 
they require that to be part of the workplace.
  Mr. Chairman, that is what this legislation is really about. It is 
about the recognition of the reality of the workplace and what we can 
now do, what we have the ability to do, and what we know from a 
medical/scientific standpoint will help prevent these kinds of 
injuries, injuries that plague hundreds of thousands of workers a year 
who are disabled and lose income, employers who lose the productivity 
of those workers, who have to train and retrain new people, who have to 
go out and find replacements for those individuals. That is what this 
legislation is about. It is not about one more study. We have peer 
reviewed the evidence here until we are blue in the face. We have 
provided the studies, and it has been going on and on and on.
  As somebody mentioned earlier, it was originally Elizabeth Dole who 
said the time has come now to deal with this problem because of the 
injuries that were occurring in the workplace. We see this being 
responded to where we redesign keyboards or structuring for the 
keyboard that will not induce the kind of pain for people who have to 
work at it all the time at the checkout counters in the supermarket. We 
are redesigning the checkout counter so that people, the clerks there, 
will not suffer these kinds of injuries to their arms and to their 
elbows as they do their job.
  So that is the kind of recognition that we are looking for; that is 
the kind of remedial activities that can be dealt with that can reduce 
the cost to the employer, can reduce the cost in the workplace and 
reduce health care costs.
  That is why it is so urgent that we not pass this legislation which 
is an attempt to obstruct the imposition of

[[Page 19254]]

this rule, because this is a rule that workers deserve. This is a rule 
that workers need, that their families need if they are going to be 
able to continue to be gainfully employed.
  The evidence is clear, the science is clear, the health is clear on 
this measure, and the time has come, the time has come to implement 
this rule.
  We have had statements before from the Committee on Appropriations, 
as I was saying, that the effort was not to delay this. We now see that 
this is an effort to delay this because the Republicans believe somehow 
that if they win the election, they can cut a better deal 18 months 
from now. Well, the better deal is not for the American workers. It may 
be for the Republican Party, but it is not for the workers.
  This rule ought to be implemented, it ought to go into force and 
effect, and we ought to start protecting. We ought to start protecting 
working men and women in this country who exhibit to us every day in 
the crafts and the trades and in the occupations in which they are 
employed at, the need for this rule because of the damage that is done 
to them. This damage is evident on its face, and that is why we ought 
to deal with this rule.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. I think OSHA should not 
be trying to tie down American businesses and the American worker with 
regulations based on potentially unsound science.

                              {time}  2015

  The gentleman from California said we should be doing what is right. 
Well, Mr. Chairman, how does he know what is right, because what we are 
wanting is a study, a pure scientific study, not some conjecture, not 
something that has been cooked up by some politico sitting over in OSHA 
or the Department of Labor, real science.
  The gentleman listed all kinds of wonderful things that are happening 
for the workers out there. Most of what is happening, in order to work 
with repetitive action, is happening within the marketplace without 
regulations.
  I am not saying we should not regulate, but we should know what we 
are doing and have a study and rely on these studies in order to know 
what we are doing, because if we do not, we end up costing these same 
workers their jobs.
  Last fall, President Clinton agreed with this Congress to authorize a 
study by the National Academy of Sciences to determine whether there is 
a need for some ergonomic regulation. I guess to the President and his 
OSHA, that agreement with this Congress is no good anymore, that his 
word is no good anymore.
  This study will be done in a year or so. Despite this sincere effort 
to guarantee that regulations are at least based on sound science, OSHA 
has decided that it does not want to wait for the scientific findings. 
Why, do you ask, do they not want to wait? It is amazing to me that the 
workers or the unions would be against this bill because it is to the 
benefit of the workers to do what is right and what science dictates.
  No, this is a political move by Washington union bosses in order to 
control the marketplace. That is all this is about. It has nothing to 
do with protecting the workers, because if they truly wanted to protect 
the workers, they would want to do it based on sound science.
  OSHA wants to regulate as much as it can as soon as possible, and 
they are planning to do so, in direct contradiction to the will of this 
body.
  Mr. Chairman, burdensome regulations already hinder American 
businesses and American workers. Too many of these regulations are 
outdated, they have been unnecessarily oppressive or they are just 
simply based on trendy but unproven scientific theories of the moment.
  It is amazing, when the bureaucrats have taken this approach, and 
many times are proven to be embarrassed by the approach that they take 
because in actual practice, the regulations are undermined and proven 
to be onerous and unproductive.
  Irresponsible regulation of this kind hurts American companies and 
the workers that they employ. Despite the excessive regulatory zeal of 
OSHA, it should be the policy of the United States to research before 
we regulate, and this is all that this legislation does, it mandates 
that OSHA must wait until the ergonomic research is completed by NAS 
before it starts sticking its fingers deeper into American business.
  It is age-old advice, Mr. Chairman, to look before you leap. 
Likewise, government must research before it regulates.
  So, Mr. Chairman, there is simply no consensus in the scientific 
community regarding the need to implement widespread, oppressive 
ergonomic policies. No new OSHA regulation should be enforced until 
conclusive research shows actions should be taken. But that time has 
not yet come, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, ergonomic standards have been delayed 
enough. I have been here long enough myself to be able to get the 
pattern and the rhythm of what goes on on the other side of the aisle 
when they do not agree with scientific studies. When we get scientific 
answers to studies and that science does not say what they wanted to 
hear, then they demand more studies, and that is exactly what is 
happening right now. We know it, they know it, and it is not going to 
work. We can only delay this so long.
  Mr. Chairman, before I came to Congress I was a human resources 
professional in the electronics manufacturing industry. That was back 
in the seventies when I first went into that business. And at that 
time, we understood the problems that were caused by related stress 
injuries. In fact, it was trendy to take care of our employees and find 
solutions when we had carpal tunnel syndrome on our assembly floor.
  In fact, the company I worked for began to see a large number of 
repeated stress injuries. And when we figured out that the problems 
were occurring with one group of workers, we realized that our printed 
circuit board assemblers were using the same motions repeatedly in 
order to do their job as efficiently as possible but in inserting 
electronic components into printed circuit boards, they were causing 
themselves carpal tunnel syndrome. The company was causing it without 
knowing it.
  In fact, what happened was in hand-inserting components into printed 
circuit boards, one of the components was just not going in smoothly, 
and it was the same component over and over, and workers had to use 
their thumb to push that component into the board.
  Well, little by little, you can imagine what started happening to 
their arm. Now, today, to prevent such injury to employees, most 
electronic companies have automatic insertion machines. Employees do 
not even use those same processes, but back then the repeated push with 
the thumb did result in carpal tunnel syndrome over time.
  Well, what I did as the human resources manager for this company was 
something that I am sure everybody over there would think is pretty 
darn odd. I called CAL-OSHA and brought them into the company, and they 
came. They observed the workers carrying out their task. We worked with 
them as partners and came up with the appropriate solution for our 
workers, and their symptoms disappeared.
  You see, it was important for us, because we were a company that was 
growing rapidly. And we knew that our workers' injuries would certainly 
inhibit our growth and we probably would not become what had been our 
goal, to become a Fortune 300 company, which we did, but it would not 
have happened without a healthy work force.
  The point is that business knew about repetitive stress injuries 
years and years and years ago. Many employers have stepped up to the 
challenge to prevent repetitive stress injuries. They worked with OSHA, 
they worked with their workers comp carriers, because they know that 
their workers comp costs go up when they have injured workers. So we do 
not need further

[[Page 19255]]

studies. Employers and employees will not benefit from further studies, 
but they will benefit from ergonomic standards.
  We already have sound science regarding the problems caused by 
repetitive motion. The problem, I said it before and I will say it 
again, the problem appears to be when the Republican majority disagrees 
with science, they insist on more studies. The problem really should be 
to put together ergonomic standards to prevent injury in the workplace, 
to make the workplace safe for our employees, and this bill, H.R. 987, 
is an inexcusable delay tactic.
  This delay tactic benefits no one. It does not benefit business, and 
it certainly does not benefit workers. I would urge my colleagues to 
oppose H.R. 987, because a vote against H.R. 987 is a vote for workers.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation. First, I 
want to commend the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and the 
Committee on Education and Workforce, the proper committee of 
jurisdiction on this issue, for advancing through the normal process 
this legislation to address ergonomics.
  This is an issue that we have examined in Appropriations Committee 
hearings in recent years, and it is an issue of major concern to both 
employers and employees. Indeed, through fiscal year 1998, we carried a 
provision in appropriations law to bar any ergonomics regulation before 
agreeing in that year that such a bar was better left to consideration 
by the authorizers.
  Mr. Chairman, there are situations where poor workplace ergonomics 
cause serious injuries that can and should be avoided. Clearly, in 
modern times, insurers demand risk management of employers, and 
employers are concerned not only with the health and safety of their 
workers, but also with the minimizing of the cost burden of injuries 
and illnesses of their employees on the bottom line. As Director 
Jeffries of OSHA has testified before our subcommittee on other 
occasions, such cases are already actionable in many circumstances 
under the general duty clause.
  The issue today is whether the present state of science justifies 
imposing a prophylactic regulation of broad scope. I think that it does 
not. And make no mistake about it, the draft proposed regulation is a 
very broad one. It would apply to any general industry whose employees 
engage in manufacture or manual handling, and such workplaces would be 
required to implement a full ergonomics program upon the reporting of a 
work-related musculoskeletal disorder, notwithstanding the difficulties 
in determining whether such disorders are in fact work-related.
  My own exploration of this issue has left me convinced that such a 
broad regulatory approach cannot be justified at this time in light of 
the state of science, and should not be advanced without further study.
  In 1996, after OSHA had already moved forward with stakeholder 
discussions on a draft ergonomic standard, I asked Dr. Katz, the 
director of the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and 
Skin Diseases at the National Institutes of Health if we knew enough 
scientifically for the Federal Government to be promulgating ergonomic 
standards.
  His response was not yet. He went on to explain that despite 
extensive study, we are a long way from knowing the best medical 
management of repetitive motion disorders.
  I do not believe the science has moved enough in the intervening 
years, that is, 2 years, to justify OSHA's draft proposed regulation. I 
note that the Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons supports this conclusion 
as well.
  At a minimum, the burden of proof should be upon the proponents of 
broad ergonomics regulation to show that there has been such a dramatic 
change in the state of science in the past 2 years that a sweeping 
regulation can be justified. It seems to me that the NAS study provides 
such a needed check.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a major regulatory change and one that should 
not be undertaken lightly. I think the gentleman from Missouri's 
legislation adopts a wise approach to the issue, and I urge all Members 
to support passage of this bill.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am rising really in opposition strongly to H.R. 987. 
This is a needless delay to give American workers the protection that 
they need and deserve. Since 1995, this is the fourth delay in 5 years. 
And each year the standard is delayed, another 650,000 workers will 
suffer disabling injuries.
  In the interest of time, because many of my colleagues want to speak 
on this subject, I would like to put in the record case studies of 
constituents who have suffered from this disease and really the success 
stories of several businesses that have implemented their own ergonomic 
programs and greatly reduced the repetitive motion injury claims in 
their companies.
  We need to go forward with these OSHA rules. It truly helps 
businesses too, because these disorders cost employers between $15 
billion and $20 billion each year in workers compensation costs.

                              {time}  2030

  I would also like to point out that it is very much of a woman's 
issue. Sixty percent of the claims are women that are in these 
repetitive typing jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record information on ergonomics from 
articles and studies.
  The material referred to is as follows:

                        Success With Ergonomics

       State: New York, 14th.
       Company: The New York Times, New York, NY.
       Industry: Newspaper.
       Employees: 5,000.
       Success Brief: Reduced the number of workers' compensation 
     cases by 84%, cut lost-time cases by 75% and reduced the 
     total days lost by 91%.


                              the problem

       In 1991, The New York Times began addressing work-related 
     musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) informally. By 1992 the 
     company realized it needed to take a more structured approach 
     to reduce the increasing number of MSDs. Many of the 
     newspaper's hardest working and most creative employees were 
     getting hurt.


                              the solution

       The newspaper implemented an ergonomics program that 
     included worksite and work-process evaluations, workplace 
     redesign and renovation, training, on-site medical 
     management, ergonomic equipment, a computerized tracking 
     system and an in-house hot line telephone number to address 
     ergonomic concerns and requests. Workstations were redesigned 
     to fit the variety of jobs (graphic designers, reporters, 
     editors) at the newspaper. Management support and employee 
     involvement were key factors to the success of the 
     newspaper's program.


                               the impact

       Over the four-year period (1992-1996), the company's 
     efforts resulted in an 84% drop in the number of MSD workers' 
     compensation cases, a 75% drop in lost-time case and a 91% 
     decrease in total days lost.
       Source: CTD News, January 1998.
                                  ____


       Angela Diaz (ILGWU)--New York, NY, Ladies' Garment Workers

       Angela Diaz has been a seamstress for 25 years.
       Now 48, Diaz has suffered with a severe case of carpal 
     tunnel syndrome for seven years.
       With help from the ILGWU, she finally has gotten some 
     relief through treatment at the union's Occupational Health 
     Clinic and surgery. The ILGWU also guided Diaz through the 
     maze of applying for workers' compensation; a two-year wait 
     is normal for victims of carpal tunnel syndrome. During that 
     period, most workers lose their health benefits and some must 
     apply for welfare benefits to support their families.
       Diaz says her life has been turned upside down. She cannot 
     physically do the work necessary to maintain her home and 
     family, much less the activities she once enjoyed.
                                  ____


                        Success With Ergonomics

       State: New York, 8th.
       Company: Banker's Trust Co., New York, N.Y.
       Industry: Banking and Finance.
       Employees: Not available.
       Success Brief: Claims tied to ergonomic issues dropped by 
     almost 50% in one year.


                              the problem

       With one employee facing her second surgery for carpal 
     tunnel syndrome, Banker's Trust recognized a potential 
     problem early on and decided to implement an ergonomics 
     program. In 1995, the company received more

[[Page 19256]]

     than 100 workers' compensation claims tied to ergonomic 
     issues.


                              the solution

       Banker's Trust initiated an ergonomics program in 1993. The 
     company's program focuses on two main issues: acquiring the 
     right equipment and making sure it is used properly. An 
     ergonomics committee, comprised of representatives from all 
     departments, was formed to design new work stations, and a 
     video was created to train staff on proper postures and the 
     correct way to set up one's workstation. Banker's Trust also 
     distributes a workstation safety handout to employees.


                               the impact

       In one year, Banker's Trust significantly reduced 
     repetitive motion injury claims. In 1995, the bank faced more 
     than 100 claims tied to ergonomic issues, while in 1996 there 
     were only 60 claims. Employee morale has increased, and the 
     company has seen an improvement in its lost workday injury 
     rate.
       Source: ``Ergonomics project exemplifies Opferkuch's 
     ambition,'' Business Insurance, April 1997.


                     ergonomics is a woman's issue

  Women are Affected Disproportionately. In 1997 women made up 46% of 
the American workforce and accounted for 33% of all workplace injuries. 
Yet, in certain jobs such as typing or key entry, they suffered 91% of 
all repetitive motion injuries. Overall, women experienced 70% of all 
lost-time cases caused by carpal tunnel syndrome and close to two-
thirds of all lost work-time cases caused by tendinitis. A study from 
Washington State reported that while women submit less than \1/3\ of 
all workers compensation claims in the state, 61% of all claims for 
Carpal Tunnel Syndrome are submitted by women.
  Many Occupations with a Majority of Women Employees are 
Disproportionately Impacted by Musculoskeletal Disorders (MSDs). For 
example, women in the health care profession are hard hit by 
musculoskeletal disorders. Just one profession--Registered nurses, 
Licensed Practical Nurses, Nurses Aides, and Healthcare Aides--
accounted for 12% of all MSDS reported in 1997 according to BLS. A 
significant number of textile sewing machine operators, data key 
operators, and secretaries suffer numerous cases of MSDs.
  Carpal Tunnel Syndrome is More Prevalent in Female--Dominated 
Industries. Ninety-one percent of cashiers who suffer from carpal 
tunnel syndrome are women. Women make up 85% of packagers who 
experience carpal tunnel syndrome. Female assemblers experience 70% of 
all cases. Virtually all cases of carpal tunnel syndrome among data-
entry keyers, textile sewing machine operators, general office clerks, 
telephone operators, bank tellers, and typists are experienced by 
women.
  Top Jobs in which women are at risk for MSDs. (1) Nursing Aids and 
Orderlies; (2) Registered nurses; (3) Assemblers; (4) Cashiers; (5) 
Miscellaneous Machine Operators; (6) Maid.
  Top Jobs in which women are at risk for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. (1) 
Assemblers; (2) Secretaries; (3) Miscellaneous machine operators; (4) 
Data-Entry Keyers; (5) Textile Sewing Machines; (6) Cashier.
  Ergonomic-Related Injuries are crippling. According to BLS, workers 
with Carpal Tunnel Syndrome average more days away from work than 
workers who suffer amputations, falls, and fractures. Carpal Tunnel 
Syndrome cases average 25 days away from work; amputations average 18 
days. Workers who suffer MSDs may never return to the job or may never 
be able to handle simple, everyday task such as combing their hair or 
picking up a baby.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Tierney).
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, what we are talking about here is whether or not OSHA 
should be allowed to go forward with the rules they have established. 
Proponents of this bill say no, kill it, delay it, do whatever you can, 
but do not implement it. They use the same excuse or tactic that they 
have used before, simply to propose yet another study.
  The irony here is that the delay would be for 24 months, 2 years. The 
irony in particular is that the proposed study would merely review 
existing literature. Even more ironic is the study that they seek to be 
done, they seek it by the National Academy of Sciences, a group whose 
studies they rejected when it came time for the Census, because this 
particular group said the Census should be done with statistical 
sampling.
  Our friends on the other side did not like it then, but now, because 
they want a delay, they do not want to see the standards go into 
effect, they cannot wait to put this off and have the National Academy 
of Sciences do yet another study.
  The harm is not just to working men and women, although that harm is 
severe. The harm is also to businesses. We do not hear that from the 
other side, but $15 billion to $20 billion a year is going to be spent 
on workers compensation costs because of workers' injuries.
  My small businesses want to know that they can rely on reasonable 
regulations to help them stop that kind of expenditures. Up to $60 
billion is spent every year on these kinds of injuries. The harm to 
workers, Mr. Chairman, each year more than 600,000 American workers 
suffer work-related musculoskeletal disorders.
  No one champions excessive regulation, but no one can seriously argue 
that there should be a total absence of oversight, or that that is 
appropriate. If it is the government's appropriate function to strike a 
balance for business, for workers, and for consumers, it is especially 
so, Mr. Chairman, in this particular instance, when good regulation can 
save business money, can enhance efficiency, as well as save 
individuals from painful and debilitating injuries.
  Mr. Chairman, the standards in this particular instance are limited 
in scope. They are based on science. There have been, in fact, some 
2,000 studies done, and they have been reviewed and reviewed again by 
peer groups and scientists from all walks. These proposals provide 
flexibility for each employer to tailor the program to their particular 
workplace. It covers manufacturing and manual handling operations, 
which account for about 60 percent of these types of injuries.
  Mr. Chairman, the science shows that this is warranted. There is no 
need to delay it again for yet another study when that in fact has been 
done. Workers say they need it, and businesses clearly say they see the 
merits and need these standards.
  Mr. Chairman, we have to just listen to what some of these businesses 
say. 3M said they estimate that because of these efforts since 1993, 
over 1,000 employees did not develop work-related musculoskeletal 
disorders, and it resulted in approximately 16,000 fewer lost work 
days. 3M's experience is that implementing an ergonomics program is 
effective for reducing the number of work-related musculoskeletal 
disorders, and additionally, is good business, Mr. Chairman.
  Peter Meyer, the human resources director for Sequins International 
Quality in New York, Mr. Chairman, agrees, as does the General 
Accounting Office, this is good for business, as well as good for 
workers.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate 
on the bill and amendments thereto be limited to 20 minutes, divided 
equally between myself and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennyslvania?
  Mr. CLAY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman 
said 20 minutes, 10 on each side?
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GOODLING. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. CLAY. I have no objection, Mr. Chairman, and I withdraw my 
reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned earlier, I am somewhat sympathetic to 
this because of my experience with a serious back problem, a lumbar 
laminectomy and carpal tunnel surgery.
  At the same time, when I asked where these came from, did they come 
from the workplace, I am not engaged in heavy lifting, unless I am 
dealing with heavy issues on the floor; or did it

[[Page 19257]]

come from my history of driving a 30-foot semi trailer truck when I was 
younger? Again, the answers are not clear.
  My carpal tunnel injury, did it come from repetitive motion? No. I 
rarely engage in repetitive motion with my hands.
  My point simply is that these are very, very complex issues. That is 
why Congress asked for and provided funding for the National Academy of 
Sciences study, because of the continuing controversy of the medical 
and scientific questions relating to ergonomics.
  There are other issues here, other than separating out what happens 
at home, such as what are the effective treatments? For example, I wore 
wrist splints for my carpal tunnel surgery. Did it help? It turned out 
to be more important to wear them at night than during the day when I 
was at work.
  I think one of the key factors that we need is education on this 
issue. As my wife commented to me after I had back surgery, and I 
studied the problems involved with backs, if we had known all this 
beforehand, we could have prevented it, and that is exactly true. 
Preventative medicine is the answer, in many cases. That involves 
education, it involves accommodation to the problems that individuals 
have.
  Something else I have heard commonly during this debate is the need 
for sound science. As a scientist, I find this amusing. Sometimes 
people saying that really means they want science that supports their 
opinion, rather than really what people mean by sound science.
  Nevertheless, we do need that in this case, but also we need a good 
dose of plain, ordinary common sense in designing regulations and 
meeting the needs of the workplace, and particularly ensuring that our 
workers do not suffer. I support the bill, but I also want to make 
clear, I support efforts to provide proper ergonomic controls in the 
workplace.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Baird).
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
irresponsible legislation, which threatens the health and safety of our 
Nation's work force.
  Each year, Mr. Chairman, more than 650,000 American workers suffer 
from work-related musculoskeletal disorders, 650,000. That is not just 
a number. That is working people, our constituents throughout our 
districts. It is nurses injured while they try to transfer patients 
from a bed to a wheelchair. It is machinists injured on the job. It is 
workers throughout our districts.
  I can tell my colleagues that 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 $20 billion a year.
  Mr. Chairman, those costs are not just economic. When a mother has 
carpal tunnel syndrome and cannot lift her child as a result, when a 
father injures his back on the workplace and cannot play ball with his 
daughter or son, those are also real impacts. We need to stop those 
impacts. This legislation would limit our ability to stop those 
impacts.
  People do not just lose time with their families, they lose their 
jobs. They sometimes become permanently unemployed or are forced to 
take severe pay cuts. I want to emphasize that as a scientist myself, 
as a teacher of the scientific method and as a practicing clinician, I 
am dogged in demanding a strong peer reviewed science in making 
important public health decisions.
  But my colleagues should know by now that the American Public Health 
Association, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Institute 
for Occupational Safety and Health, and the American College of 
Occupational and Environmental Medicine, have all indicated the strong 
need for a standard. We have that draft standard. We need to implement 
it.
  This bill is not really about requiring science, because if it were, 
the people who have introduced it would have supported funding for 
scientific studies in the past, but in fact they have opposed it.
  It is not about science, because common sense tells us if we do the 
same repetitive motion for 8 hours a day, we are going to injure 
ourselves. We do not need more science, we need to implement the 
regulations we have put forward.
  There was a time, Mr. Chairman, when in our country workers were 
considered expendable. If they injured themselves on the job, tough 
luck, they were dismissed with no compensation, their family lost a 
breadwinner, they lost mobility, and they simply replaced them with 
whoever else was willing to work for the cheapest wage in the most 
dangerous conditions imaginable.
  That time was past, but this legislation would like to see us move 
back. This legislation is wrong.
  A very interesting thing just happened on the floor of this House. We 
saw a negotiation between the two parties, which was good. We said, 
folks, we are all tired. It has been a long day. It is going to be a 
long week. We have worked hard. Let us cut this debate a little short 
so we can go home to our families. I favor that negotiation. I am glad 
we supported it.
  But here is the problem. Working people, men and women in this 
country who work in unsafe conditions, or where they risk ergonomic 
injuries, do not always have that opportunity. They cannot go to their 
boss or their supervisor and say, I am getting injured on this job.
  We need to change the conditions. They do not have that right to 
negotiate, the very negotiation we just conducted here. They are forced 
to work in situations that injure them. We have an obligation to create 
standards that protect them from those injuries, to protect the 
mothers, fathers, and the working people throughout this country.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on this anti-worker, anti-safety, 
anti-family legislation.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger).
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, my subcommittee had several hearings 
with specialists in these fields. This is what the experts said.
  For example, Dr. Morton Kasden, a clinical professor of surgery at 
the University of Louisville, testified that ``There is a lack of 
scientific evidence that using our hands repetitively causes so-called 
cumulative trauma.''
  A quote on the chart from Dr. Stanley Bigos, professor of orthopedics 
at the University of Washington:

       We cannot provide a universal mandate without knowing 
     specific dimensions that might work. How high should the 
     bench be? How tall is too tall and too short? What about 
     differences in age?

  Who will all of a sudden determine, without data, what is right or 
wrong, legal or illegal, borderline or punishable? From whose pockets 
will the costs come? As usual, they will probably come from the 
employees take-home pay. Do not be confused by those who want to 
oversimplify the model of the human body. Usually the human body does 
not mean you wear it out. Discomfort from spring gardening and spring 
training is not caused by damage but deconditioning of the winter rest.
  Dr. Howard Sandler, a former medical officer with NIOSH and a 
consultant to OSHA, said

       Considerable interest and concern has been focused on the 
     relationship between work and musculoskeletal disorders. At 
     the present time, the risk factors, their interactions and 
     their thresholds for causing effects have not been 
     sufficiently identified. Once this information is 
     established, risk can be effectively predicted and 
     appropriate preventive actions can be instituted across a 
     wide range of business and industry. Research presently 
     underway should help to establish the scientific data which 
     is currently lacking.

  Finally, on the chart, Dr. Morton Hadler, who is from the University 
of North Carolina:

       Any attempt to construct an ergonomic standard as a remedy 
     for regional musculoskeletal injuries in the workplace is not 
     just premature, it is likely to be counterproductive in its 
     application and enforcement.

  Finally, Dr. Michael Vender, who is with the American Society of 
Surgery

[[Page 19258]]

of the Hand: ``With our present level of understanding, we cannot 
distinguish between on-the-job or off-the-job activities because the 
quantitative relationships'' are bad. This proves that we need a 
complete study.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, the following informational items can 
contribute greatly to the lifting of the veil of confusion being 
promulgated by the Republican majority.
  I am also submitting examples of victims of ergonomic disorders and 
examples of business owners in establishing their own ergonomic 
standards.
  Truth is on the side of the American working families.
  The material referred to is as follows:

                     Misleading Myths on Ergonomics

       Myth: There is no sound science tying musculoskeletal 
     disorders to work.
       Fact: There is a tremendous wealth of solid, scientific 
     evidence linking musculoskeletal disorders and work. NIOSH 
     evaluated 600 of 2,000 studies available in 1997 and the 
     National Academy of Sciences surveyed the literature in 1998. 
     The academy concluded there is compelling evidence that 
     reducing physical stress on the job reduces the risk of 
     injuries.
       Myth: There is no need to act until we know exactly how 
     many repetitions produce injuries.
       Fact: We don't know how many cigarettes someone must smoke 
     before developing cancer--individuals vary--but we do know 
     smoking significantly increases cancer risk. The same is true 
     with awkward postures, repetitive motion, heavy lifting and 
     forceful exertions. Reducing these risk can prevent work-
     related musculoskeletal disorders.
       Myth: Medical professionals disagree about the need for 
     ergonomics regulations.
       Fact: Most of the medical community has strongly encouraged 
     OSHA to act without further delay in promulgating a proposed 
     ergonomics program rule. This includes the American College 
     of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, the American 
     Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, the American Association of 
     Occupational Health Nurses, the American Nurses Association 
     and the American Public Health Association.
       Myth: A new NAS study will produce definitive conclusions 
     supporting/dismissing the need for an OSHA ergonomics 
     standard.
       Fact: Another review of the literature will not produce any 
     new information and is most likely to replicate the findings 
     and conclusions of the earlier NIOSH and NAS evaluations, 
     which critics refused to accept as definitive. And those who 
     are adamantly opposed to an OSHA ergonomics standard have 
     declined to commit themselves to support the findings of the 
     second NAS review, whatever they may be.
       Myth: Work-related musculoskeletal disorders are 
     decreasing; therefore, there is no need for an OSHA 
     ergonomics standard.
       Fact: All workplace injuries and illnesses are declining--
     that's great news. Repetitive motion injuries, as they are 
     reported on the OSHA 200 Log, constitute a small portion of 
     these injuries--just 4 percent. However, when these injuries 
     are combined with back injuries that are due to repetitive 
     motions or overexertion, they account for over one-third of 
     lost workday injuries and illnesses. An OSHA standard would 
     help protect the more than 600,000 workers who suffer serious 
     and potentially disabling work-related musculoskeletal 
     disorders each year.
       Myth: There is no proof that ergonomics programs reduce 
     injuries.
       Fact: There are many examples of companies that have 
     established ergonomic programs, reduced injuries, cut costs 
     and increased productivity and employee morale. Hundreds of 
     stakeholders have shared their successes with OSHA in 
     stakeholder meetings and best practices ergonomics 
     conferences.
       Myth: An OSHA ergonomics standard will be extremely costly 
     for businesses.
       Fact: Today, U.S. businesses are spending $15 to $20 
     billion each year in workers' compensation costs alone for 
     work-related musculoskeletal disorders. As employers fix 
     ergonomic problems in line with their ergonomic programs, 
     injuries--and costs--will decline. Ergonomics programs 
     ultimately save money--for everyone. Good ergonomics is good 
     economics.


                        Success with Ergonomics

       State: New York, 8th; Company: King Kullen Grocery, New 
     York; Industry: Retail grocery; Employees: 4,500; Success 
     Brief: Over four years, reduced workers' compensation claims 
     from 21 to 5.


                              The problem

       In 1992, King Kullen faced a rising rate of carpal tunnel 
     syndrome (CTS) among its cashiers. The company attributed the 
     increase in CTS cases to the checkout scanners introduced in 
     their stores in the late 1980s.


                              The solution

       The company implemented a comprehensive ergonomics program. 
     King Kullen modified its checkout stations and scanners to 
     reduce lifting and twisting motions. The company's medical 
     management program ensured immediate care and treatment to 
     employees who were experiencing problems on the job. 
     Employees also received training on the causes and symptoms 
     of work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) and on good 
     work practices.


                               The impact

       Over a four-year period, workers' compensation claims for 
     MSDs dropped from 21 to 5. Source: ``Keeping Grocery Checkout 
     Lines Moving,'' Risk Management, January 1998.
                                  ____

       Angela Diaz (ILGWU), New York, NY; Ladies Garment Workers.
       Angela Diaz has been a seamstress for 25 years.
       Now 48, Diaz has suffered with a severe case of carpal 
     tunnel syndrome for seven years.
       With help from the ILGWU, she finally has gotten some 
     relief through treatment at the union's Occupational Health 
     Clinic and surgery. The ILGWU also guided Diaz through the 
     maze of applying for workers' compensation; a two-year wait 
     is normal for victims of carpal tunnel syndrome. During that 
     period, most workers lost their health benefits and some must 
     apply for welfare benefits to support their families.
       Diaz says here life has been turned upside down. She cannot 
     physically do the work necessary to maintain her home and 
     family, much less the activities she once enjoyed.
                                  ____

       Nadine Brown (USWA Local 1753), Buffalo, NY; FEDCO 
     Automotive.
       Nadine works for FEDCO Automotive Components Company, Inc. 
     of Buffalo, a manufacturer of heat exchangers for the 
     automotive industry. She has worked at FEDCO for ten years. 
     For the past five years, Nadine has worked lifting heater 
     cores that weigh at least 2-4 pounds onto an assembly line. 
     Each day, Nadine lifts between 4,000 and 6,000 heater cores. 
     She gets 2 fifteen minute breaks a day, plus a half hour for 
     lunch. Last August Nadine underwent surgery to relieve the 
     pain in her hand caused by carpal tunnel syndrome.
       The pain in her hand started several years ago. It made it 
     difficult to grip things, to drive and to fix her children's 
     hair. She went to the company doctor, who referred her to a 
     specialist. He told her she needed surgery. Nadine spent 
     about four months recovering from the surgery and returned 
     back to work in the same job. No adjustments have been made, 
     so she is doing the exact same work now that caused her 
     injury. Several other people in the company have had surgery 
     for similar injuries.
                                  ____

       Lorraine Baker (USWA), Solvay, NY; Landis Plastics.
       Lorraine was injured on the job and was diagnosed with 
     bilateral carpal tunnel in 1996.
       Lorraine found out that she had been fired when she tried 
     to use her insurance for her daughter and was told that it 
     had been canceled even though she continued to make her 
     weekly co-payments to her employer.
       She was forced to file a lawsuit in Federal Court before 
     her employer would reinstate her and her insurance. In 1997 
     the company's doctors agreed that she did in fact have 
     bilateral carpal tunnel but they said that it didn't happen 
     at work. Her compensation was reduce by 50 percent and would 
     not approve the surgery that two orthopedic surgeons 
     recommended. Her attorney was seeking an expedited hearing 
     with the Workers' Compensation Board.

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, let me first of all commend the 
chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce for bringing 
this commonsense legislation to the floor today. This really is common 
sense.
  One thing we can all agree on in this Chamber, all 435 of us, is we 
do not want to have workplace injuries. We want to eliminate them. We 
want to minimize them. We all agree on that. The debate is where we 
want power and the influence to control that.
  My friends on the other side believe Washington knows the answer. The 
more power we can bring to Washington, the better it is for the 
Washington bureaucracy, and also for the benefit of organized labor. 
Those of us on this side of the aisle believe it belongs to business 
and State and local regulations. It does not belong in Washington. 
Washington does not know all the answers.
  I am a former small business man. Before I entered Congress, I served 
for 19 years in family businesses back in Florida. We were highly 
motivated in our business to keep workplace injuries to a minimum. 
First of all, it is the right thing to do. You do not want to see your 
friends and employees hurt.

[[Page 19259]]

But workmens compensation insurance was so expensive you were highly 
motivated to keep injuries at a minimum, because it made economic 
sense, because it affected your bottom line by not having people 
injured. So you were motivated to have people trained to avoid 
injuries, lifting injuries or hand injuries and such.
  The other reason you are motivated is that you do not want to have 
your employees lose work. You have a trained employee and that is a 
valuable asset. The last thing you want to do is have that person hurt 
and miss work. So employers are motivated to minimize those injuries, 
just like the government thinks they can decide it up here in 
Washington. This regulation is common sense. This says, let science 
address the issue.
  The other question that is unanswered, besides science, is cost. I 
know OSHA says, Oh, it is only $3.5 billion a year on business. That is 
costing jobs, $3.5 billion, and that is a ball park estimate. Other 
estimates are in the tens of billions of dollars a year. That is like a 
tax on small business.
  This makes common sense. Let us wait for science to give us some 
answers.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Brown).
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have been an elected official 
for 17 years, and never in those 17 years have I voted against the 
working people of the country. I rise today in opposition to this bill. 
This is another attempt by the Republicans to trample upon the rights 
of the American workers.
  Working men and women are the backbone of this country. As usual, 
this Republican bill ignores the problems of worker safety.

                              {time}  2045

  It is the working men and women who have built up this country, and 
the Republicans would rather conduct a study than take real action to 
protect these men and women. Work-related injuries are a critical 
problem that affect more than 600,000 workers each year.
  OSHA is 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 working men and women and 
vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), a member of the committee.
  Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of the bill, 
and I certainly thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the committee chairman, for 
their work to ensure that we make sure that we evaluate fully what we 
are doing before we begin to promulgate regulations that can have 
extensive effects upon the workers, the workplace, and job 
availability.
  I think we all agree on both sides of the aisle that paramount in our 
concern is worker safety, making sure that we have the kind of jobs 
that are needed, that are safe jobs, that folks do have the kind of 
protections that they need so that they do not have injury, permanent 
injury and problems that will affect their livelihood and their 
families.
  But when we look at past history of OSHA, sometimes they promulgated 
regulations that really do not make a whole lot of sense. Let me give 
my colleagues just one simple illustration of what they do in a 
physician's office.
  I generally keep a cup of coffee sitting right on the counter, so 
that when I come out from seeing a patient, I just grab it and get a 
sip of coffee. But OSHA passed a regulation that, because I have got a 
microscope right there on the counter, and I do some urinalysis on it, 
that somehow this is a major safety hazard, and this is against the law 
for me to have that cup of coffee setting there because it may be a 
detriment to my health.
  I think it is clearly that, many times, regulations are promulgated 
that are not fully thought out, that have not been investigated 
thoroughly.
  We have certainly petitioned, the Congress has, a study by the 
National Academy of Sciences to study this. We have allocated almost $1 
million of taxpayers' money so that they can do this study so that we 
can hopefully resolve the conflict.
  We find physicians in medical organizations on both sides of this 
issue. Clearly it is not resolved. Musculoskeletal disorders are very 
complicated disorders. There are folks that have opinions on both 
sides.
  I think it is paramount and very necessary that we make sure that we 
have definitive studies, a review of studies by an organization of the 
National Academy of Sciences. Then we can promulgate the regulations 
that are necessary to ensure the safety, ensure that we do things 
properly, right, and do not do some ridiculous things that OSHA has a 
history of doing in the past.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote for this bill.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to raise an enormous and strong opposition to 
H.R. 987. Mr. Chairman, just a few weeks ago, I visited a factory in my 
district that was about to close. As I was walking through, I inquired 
of those who were there, the working people of America, ``How long have 
you been at this plant, using your hands, and putting things 
together?'' Forty years, 25 years, 18 years. The working people of 
America are committed to their work.
  This is a horrific bill that takes away the respect and the humanity 
and the dignity of working men and women. It says to them we do not 
care about their injuries. We do not care about the fact that they need 
to work to provide for their family. If they get hurt, there will be no 
regulations. We will just throw them out the door.
  OSHA has worked yesterday, it works today, and it will work tomorrow. 
Any time we start hearing people talking about putting in a study on 
working people's rights, we know what they are trying to do. Cast them 
aside.
  H.R. 987 does not address the question of the commitment of working 
men and women to their positions. It is a bad bill. It should be 
defeated.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I am observing this debate 
in somewhat disbelief. About 25, 30 years ago, when I was a young 
lawyer just starting to practice law in North Carolina, I tried the 
first carpal tunnel syndrome case under the North Carolina workers 
compensation law. Ever since that time, in North Carolina, carpal 
tunnel has been recognized as a compensable workers compensation injury 
in North Carolina.
  It comes as a substantial surprise to me that my colleagues who say 
that they are using the States as laboratories on many issues are now 
back here 25 or 30 years later questioning whether carpal tunnel and 
other ergonomic injuries are even workplace injuries.
  It strikes me that, if a number of people were getting sick in a 
plant, and we did not know exactly the best way to solve the problem of 
keeping them from getting sick, maybe we should write some regulations 
and not pass any kind of safety rules to address the situation in the 
interim. That is what my Republican colleagues seem to be suggesting 
here.
  I am not opposed to the study that is being done. But what I do 
wonder is, what happens between now and the time the study is 
completed. Why should the American workers not be protected when we 
know that they are walking into these workplace situations, engaging in 
repetitive motion activities, developing carpal tunnel syndrome and 
other kinds of ergonomic injuries; and we should just turn around and 
walk away and pretend that this is not happening.
  This is an unbelievable, unreal debate that we are having here on 
this bill. It is like we want the perfect to be the enemy of the good. 
Because the department had not written the perfect

[[Page 19260]]

set of regulations to deal with this issue, we want to delay any kind 
of regulations when we know full well that these injuries are caused by 
repetitive motion and workplace conditions.
  This is an unreal debate that can only be engaged in in a Congress 
that has no acknowledgment of the rights of working people. Over 
650,000 workers were injured last year by repetitive motion and 
ergonomic-related injuries. The bulk of those were women who sit at a 
desk or do some repetitive motion kind of activity, and they do it over 
and over and over again. We are going to penalize those people trying 
to say that we ought to hold off on writing any kind of regulations 
until we can get a perfect set of regulations.
  We can revise a regulation at any point in the process. It is not a 
big deal. We revise regulations all the time in the Federal Government. 
So what is the problem with putting some regulations in place, 
operating under those, allowing the study to be completed, and then, if 
necessary, in response to that study, revising the regulations to make 
them better?
  We cannot afford in this situation to let the perfect be the enemy of 
the good. I urge my colleagues not to engage in this unbelievable kind 
of activity and slam against the working people of this country to vote 
against this bill and let us get on with some real business of the 
country.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Talent), a valued member of our committee and the 
chairman of the Committee on Small Business.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, we have had discussion on the floor of the House 
tonight about this regulation having taken 8 years, 9 years, 12 years. 
We do not know how long OSHA has been working on this. Does that not 
tell us something about the process?
  It has taken a long time. Because OSHA sits like this great brooding 
planning agency, planning for everybody in America, trying to shove 
down the throats of small business people a regulation that will hurt 
them, that will hurt their employees, and will accomplish nothing. The 
small business community is not going to take that anymore.
  It is exactly to prevent this kind of thing that the Congress passed 
SBREFA 3 years ago, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act. What we said to the agencies of the Federal Government is, Look, 
we do not want you to hurt small business people while accomplishing 
nothing. So listen to them. Tell them what you are going to do and 
listen. Do not discount what they are telling you. Make adjustments in 
the regulation. Work in partnership with them because they want worker 
safety. They are not out to hurt their people.
  OSHA has over and over and over again with this regulation and so 
many others systematically and deliberately overestimated the benefits 
of it, underestimated the costs, and tried to pass vague regulations 
that nobody understands and push it down the throats of America's small 
businesses; and they are not taking it, and that is why this is taking 
so long.
  In March, the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel met and said that 
OSHA has underestimated the costs of this regulation by a factor of 4 
to 10 times on America's small business people. A dentist, a lady came 
and said, Look, it is going to cost me $5,000 just to determine the 
extent to which I am covered by this regulation.
  OSHA says, Well, we do not take into account costs like that because 
they are indirect. We do not figure out the costs that people are going 
to have to incur to determine whether or not they are covered. We are 
not going to change the regulation to accommodate people like you.
  That is why we are here year after year after year. That is what this 
bill is trying to address.
  Mr. Chairman, look, it is time to stop treating America's small 
business people like they were the enemies of their workers, like they 
were the enemies of the public interest. They want worker safety. Let 
us work in partnership with them. Develop a regulation based on good 
science; that is what this bill is about.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired. If there are no 
further amendments, under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Miller of Florida) having assumed the Chair, Mr. Shimkus, Chairman of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 987) 
to require the Secretary of Labor to wait for completion of a National 
Academy of Sciences study before promulgating a standard or guideline 
on ergonomics, pursuant to House Resolution 271, he reported the bill 
back to the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CLAY. 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 217, 
nays 209, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 366]

                               YEAS--217

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--209

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)

[[Page 19261]]


     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Larson
     Lazio
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     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
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Bilbray
     Jefferson
     Lantos
     McDermott
     Metcalf
     Mollohan
     Peterson (PA)
     Thompson (MS)

                              {time}  2121

  Mr. BALDACCI changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________