Cass Ballenger

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, today we have the resolution before us, H. Con. Res. 41, which expresses sympathy for all the victims of the two devastating earthquakes. I would like to say that my wife and I have been working in El Salvador for 35 years and have many friends there. A few days after the earthquake, we were in our hotel, 10:33 in the evening, and that time can be confirmed by several of us that were there, we had an aftershock on the seventh floor of the hotel which was rather a fascinating way to spend the evening. These quakes on the Richter scale, we have all discussed that. I would just like to say that, after this disaster and we got back to the United States, people in North Carolina have come forward. And this people do not know: it was the beginning of their school year. Their first school day almost, the earthquake came, and it destroyed over 1,000 of their schools. So I was able to get volunteers in North Carolina to provide three container-loads of school furniture and three container-loads of baby diapers. I look forward to this being able to help those people, because it truly is a disaster. These quakes could not have come at a worse time. Since the end of its protracted civil war, El Salvador has been developing a thriving economy and instituting democratic reforms, making it one of the most promising nations in the region. However, the damage and human suffering caused by the earthquakes now threatens the future stability and economic success of this nation. Without immediately helping, we in the U.S. and elsewhere, the efforts made by El Salvador and its people have been made in vain. The Department of State and USAID have informed Congress that the Bush administration intends to provide $100 million in assistance. Additionally, and a very important thing, U.S. Attorney General Ashcroft has provided temporary protective status for some 100,000 undocumented Salvadorans, which allows them to stay here and continue to work without the fear of being sent back. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this resolution. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BALLENGER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter). (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BALLENGER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to offer to the gentlewoman from California that Myers Shipping Lines, out of California and out of the East Coast, will be happy to deliver at a cut rate, not a free rate, anything that the gentlewoman might collect in California. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).

Mr. BALLENGER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).

Mr. BALLENGER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

Mr. BALLENGER. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, I regret that I missed rollcall votes 43, 44, and 45 on the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001 (H.R. 3). Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yea'' to Table the Motion to Reconsider; ``No'' on the Motion to Recommit with Instructions; and ``Yea'' on Final Passage of H.R. 3. As Co-Chairman of the Interparliamentary Forum of the Americas, which met in Ottawa, Canada, last week, I had to leave the House chamber following my vote against the Rangel Substitute Amendment to H.R. 3 in order to make my flight to Canada. My attendance at this forum is in furtherance of my official duties as Chairman of the International Relations Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere. The Forum included representatives from 27 nations, and I was the sole representative of the U.S. Congress in attendance.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, President George W. Bush and the Republican Congress understand that we can achieve our budget objectives while providing this long overdue tax relief--while, simultaneously, protecting Social Security, Medicare and retiring the public debt. My constituents share this vision, and have written the following to me in support of our efforts: ``The bottom line is, we are a low to moderate income working class family with a college age daughter. We pay huge amounts of income tax in comparison to our net worth and earnings, and we do not qualify for any assistance. $1,600 is a lot of money to us. Let us keep more.'' ``Two of our children are in college while the other two are still at home. My husband and I both work. I prepare the payroll at my job and see how much is withheld from every paycheck. The American people already pay too much in taxes.'' ``We are not in the top half or the bottom--we are caught in the middle. We get no extra help, nor do we want any, but we pay one-third of our income in taxes. Please help.'' ``Please remember Mr. Ballenger, it's our money.'' ``As a mother of three, I feel this package would greatly help our family and allow my husband and myself to better provide for our children.'' ``As a Navy retiree and the father of two school age children, I would greatly benefit from this refund of my `overpayment' of taxes.'' ``It really does not matter to me if Bill Gates gets a big enough tax refund to buy himself a whole fleet of Lexus cars, my only concern is what I'm going to do with my tax refund.'' ``Please hold the Democrats accountable for their distortions about the Reagan-era tax cuts--remind them of the late 70's under a Democrat president and the inflation of that time.'' My colleagues, let's vote for H.R. 3, the first installment in our tax relief agenda.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, throughout my tenure on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I have opposed the costly and overreaching ergonomics standard that was finalized by the Clinton administration. I believe this ill-conceived regulation will have a detrimental effect on American business and its workers. This ergonomics regulation is very broad and presumes that every muscle strain and pain is caused by work instead of gardening on the weekend or playing football with friends. How can business correct or why should it be responsible for pains that do not occur at the workplace? How could business possibly be expected to control these costs? Last fall, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) and I passed the OSHA Needlestick legislation, and it was bipartisan and bicameral. The difference between that legislation that we passed and this one is the fact that we targeted a specific problem and we solved it with a flexible solution that is endorsed by both employers and employees. This ergonomics standard, on the other hand, targets every motion of every work activity and gives no specific solutions. Not giving employers specific targets and solutions is unfair for both workers and employers. American workers deserve better. Even OSHA is projecting that this standard will prevent only 50 percent of the problems it seeks to fix. However, that same regulation is estimated to cost the American business at least $100 billion. Why would one risk bankrupting business with a broad Federal regulation when many industries, such as poultry, have voluntarily implemented programs which have reduced repetitive trauma disorders to almost 50 percent or 46 percent, in 5 years? I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution. Let us protect American business and, most importantly, American jobs.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution recognizing the recent tragedy in India as a result of a devastating earthquake and the horrific loss of life experienced by the Indian nation. I want to commend the gentleman from Washington for introducing the original resolution. Mr. Speaker, at the same time we are expressing our sympathy and support for the people of India, I want to call to the attention of my colleagues another tragic earthquake which recently hit El Salvador with equally horrific devastation and loss of life. On January 13 an earthquake with a magnitude of 7.6, only 3 tenths of a point less powerful than the earthquake in India, rocked El Salvador. It is estimated that close to 1,000 people lost their lives, with another 4,000 injured. Recently, I visited El Salvador along with several of my colleagues and witnessed first hand the tragedy which has engulfed that nation. We were told that over 75,000 houses were destroyed and another 118,000 damaged ultimately affecting well over 1 million Salvadorans. Mr. Speaker, just when the people of El Salvador seemed to have recovered from the devastating effects of Hurricane Mitch, this tragedy hits forcing new sacrifices from an already battered population. But as they did after Mitch, the people of El Salvador have already begun to put their lives back together with a fierce spirit of self- determination, and a lot of help from friends far and wide. And although we are dealing here with the tragedy in India, I want to recognized the valiant efforts of the people of El Salvador, the hard work of their President, Flores and other government officials for their tireless efforts. I especially want to commend the dedicated people at the Agency for International Development and their Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance for their rapid reaction to this disaster and for the aid they provided on a moments notice and continue to provide today as Salvador recovers. Mr. Speaker, we all recognize the horror of these kinds of tragedies and the toll they take on the people of the nation affected. I want to salute those brave men and women in both India and El Salvador for the sacrifices they have made in these times of tragedy. I urge support of this resolution and for the people of India and El Salvador.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote 603 (H.R. 4577). Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 534, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, October 6, I missed rollcall vote 516, final passage of the FY 2001 Transportation appropriations conference report (H.R. 4475). Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''. I also missed rollcall vote 517, the rule for H.R. 3244, the Sexual Trafficking Victims Protection Act, and rollcall 518, final passage of H.R. 3244. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on both.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, our economy is good, interest rates are low and we have a record budget surplus. Due to the sound fiscal policies of Republicans, we have been able to pay off $354 billion in public debt and will completely eliminate it by 2012. That is why Republicans are committed to using 90 percent of the next year's Federal budget surplus to pay off the national debt while protecting the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. That leaves us with 10 percent of the surplus to boost our already substantial $600 billion commitment to our national priorities such as education, defense and health research. Specifically, we will use half the money to strengthen education with the flexibility, funding and support to give our children the world's best schools. In addition, we will provide a prescription drug benefit to seniors in need now, not 5 or 10 years from now. Republicans have made education funding a top priority, providing more money than ever before. And most importantly, we have cut the checks with fewer strings being attached. Currently, Washington provides 7 percent of the Nation's education funding but provides 40 percent of the regulations. We have made a real dent in removing some of these onerous, bureaucratic regulations. By eliminating our national debt, we will secure America's future for our children and grandchildren.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, just when we thought the Clinton-Gore administration could not sink any lower, they always figure out another way. I recently learned that OSHA paid for 35 posthearing comments for the record on its proposed ergonomics rule. In effect, OSHA bureaucrats paid for what they wanted the public to hear and did not allow real public comments to stand. To make matters worse, OSHA paid for these comments with taxpayers dollars. This disregard for the mandated public comment period tells a story of the Clinton-Gore-AFL-CIO Labor Department. Mr. Speaker, this outrage bears repeating. Instead of independent reaction from the public at large, OSHA filled the ergonomics public records with comments from its own paid witnesses. If you can believe it, the story gets worse. When the public comment period was closed, OSHA allowed the ever- biased National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH, to submit over 3 years of scientific literature more than 6 weeks after the deadline. This, again, shows OSHA is hearing what it wants to hear, not what small businesses and the average American wants it to say. I strongly urge OSHA to stop this corrupt ergonomics rule-making and start over with a clean, fair, and objective rule-making process.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Madam Speaker, first let me give you a quick history of my company. I founded a company in Hickory North Carolina, in 1957 with a loan on my house. This company prints and converts polyethylene, polypropylene and cellophane for packaging for companies like Procter & Gamble and Johnson and Johnson for overwrap for cookies, baby diapers, the packages themselves. That is what the company does. It started off in 1957. At the present time we have 250 employees. What I want to do is gripe. I would like to gripe about our government. Several years ago, air pollution regulations went into effect. There was a whole list of various and sundry things that were polluting the air and doing horrible things to everybody's breathing and so forth. But at that time, my company, you have to print something on polyethylene that will evaporate and leave the ink there, so we were printing with methyl alcohol as a solvent and nylon as the coloring. You print the film, blow hot air at it, and evaporate the solvent. Well, what happened is the methyl alcohol at that time was going out the roof. Along comes an outfit called EPA, and EPA, with this long list of pollutants, decided that methyl alcohol, this is 5 or 6 years after the whole thing started, 5 or 6 years later they decided that methyl alcohol was a positive solvent. Well, I had seven printing presses in this plant of mine, and at that time we asked EPA, since they said we were polluting, what should we do? And they said, well, you have got to collect the solvent, the evaporating solvent, and destroy it. So we asked, could you give us some advice as to what to do? They said, well, we do not give advice, that is against the rules of the Federal government, but you have to do it. Well, this thing right here that you see on my left is what is called a catalytic converter. What it does is it collects the printing inks above all the printing presses, all seven of them, and vents it through this unit right here. In the bottom here we have an oven that is heated by natural gas, and it costs, by the way, $50,000 a year in natural gas to run this. At the top comes out what is left over. Well, $50,000 a year to operate and $600,000 a year to build it, and we were all set to go. We thought we were operating according to what the government wanted, and everything was fine, until a couple of years later they come back and they say, well, we have got a slight problem with your operation. There is pollution leaking out of your presses all through the building and so forth, so you have got to do something to stop that. Well, again, they did not give us any information as to what we were going to do, so what we did is we built a wall all the way around this building and made it a separate room, and in this separate room we put forced air. The way we used the forced air was air conditioning. This is $500,000 worth of air conditioning that we installed, and that costs $50,000 a year to operate. What it did is it forced all the air to go through the system and go to the catalytic converter. Well, this is great and wonderful. We have got the catalytic converter going, and the good old government comes up to us and says, I hate to say this to you, but you know those seven printing presses you have? Your catalytic converter is not big enough, it will only handle six printing presses. So they said, you have to shut down one of these printing presses. One of these printing presses costs about $800,000. So we had to shut down a $800,000 printing press at the request of our Federal Government to be able to handle this situation. This all sounds like we were doing what I would consider the right thing as far as the ecology of the country is concerned, as far as what is expected of business people in this country, although in certain areas of the world I am quite sure this does not happen. But what really bothered me was eventually I found out that a competitor of mine who had, roughly speaking, the same size plant that I had, went to EPA and discussed it with them, and they came up with a new conclusion. Their conclusion was to allow him to spend $50,000 a year penalty for the right to pollute. Now, here is a man that I am competing with. I have spent over $1 million, that costs $60,000 a year, that costs $50,000 a year, I am spending $110,000 a year to take care of pollution, and he is paying $50,000 to do it on his own. This is what I consider the great and wonderful way that our Federal Government operates. So with that kind of information I called up EPA and I said, what is going on here? This does not make a whole bunch of sense to me. And they said, well you have to realize we have inspectors all over the country, and everything is left up to the individual decision by each inspector. So the inspector came up with this brilliant idea that I had to spend $1 million plus $100,000 a year in expenses, and my competitor only had to spend $50,000 a year. I heard talk earlier about the difficulty of competing with China and imports. Well, I compete with on a regular basis with Taiwan, Korea and Mexico, and I would be willing to bet that none of these countries have even the slightest idea about trying to stop pollution. Yet in our country we have forced people to spend that kind of money. I do wish the government would stop and think of what they are doing. They do not know what they are doing, and they ought to forget it.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. First it is inventing the Internet, then it is drugs for his mother-in-law and his dog. Now it appears the Vice President's imagination has really run wild again. When Governor Bush mentioned traveling to a disaster area with the head of FEMA, Mr. Gore added that he traveled with him too. Untrue. Then claimed to be a strong supporter of the lockbox for Social Security and Medicare. Surprise, surprise, the Democrat filibuster holding up this legislation is waiting for his first sign of support. What about that poor Florida girl forced to stand in her class of 36 because there is no room for her desk? Guess what? Not true again. What is that phrase about pants on fire? Any more stories?

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, do Members remember that all-American slogan: baseball, mom, and apple pie? We have a new campaign slogan today, thanks to the Vice President, the person who supposedly invented the Internet. It goes, dog, mother-in-law, and prescription drugs. This week, the Boston Globe, no member of the vast right wing conspiracy, and the Washington Times both reported that Gore made up an anecdote about the cost of drugs. Why would the Vice President mislead our Nation's seniors and the entire media by telling a bogus personal story that his mother-in-law pays three times the price for arthritis medicine as compared to his dog? Why would he stretch the truth on such an important issue that the Republican House already has taken action on to lower the cost of medicines by 25 percent? Why would he puff up a false personal story? Solely to score political points with our Nation's seniors? Whatever the motive, it is time for some straight talk, not invented rhetoric. America's families and senior citizens deserve no less. People should come before politics.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Today, we have an opportunity to reward an agency which has completely turned itself around. For the first time in over 8 years, we have the chance to give the National Endowment for the Arts a small increase. It should be noted that this increase is dedicated to grants such as Challenge America. Challenge America is an opportunity to serve smaller communities around the United States. Sixty percent of Challenge America grants will be distributed to communities under 200,000 in population in all 50 States. The intent of this program is to reach previously unserved communities in the same way that ArtsREACH programs work. My colleagues may recall that in the first 2 years of ArtsREACH grants were made to the 123 mostly new communities, including places like Ft. Washakie, Wyoming; Deadwood, South Dakota; and Hattiesburg, Mississippi. The remaining 40 percent of the Challenge America grants will be passed through the 56 State and Territorial arts agencies in keeping with the congressional practice of splitting NEA funds between State and national programs. These new grant initiatives are part of a new NEA which supports projects in over 4,000 locations in the country. Today, NEA is doing more for communities in need than ever before, and I urge my colleagues to pass this bill which gives NEA a minimal but monumental increase.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5178) to require changes in the bloodborne pathogens standard in effect under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, as amended.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 5178.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to talk about H.R. 5178, the Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act, a bill that I introduced last week. A tremendous amount of bipartisan discussion and effort has gone into this bill. Since its introduction last month, many Members, from both sides of the aisle, have joined as cosponsors, including many members of our full committee. I am especially pleased to have worked with my colleague from the Subcommittee on Workforce Protection, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), on this bill, and thank him for his support and sponsorship. This bill represents the consensus agreement of many groups, from hospitals to nurses to health care workers to industry. I know there are compromises that have gone into this effort. I want to commend all those who have been involved in this work and who helped bring us here today. I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) for his support of this bill, and also take another opportunity to acknowledge his distinguished service as chairman of our committee and for his leadership on so many workforce issues. I also want to acknowledge my colleagues from the other body, Senators Jeffords, Enzi, Kennedy and Reid, for their work on this important workplace safety issue. On matters related to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, it is not often that I find myself in such company. However, as we have all learned of the important basic public health issue at the heart of this bill, it was apparent the opportunity to work together and advance this legislation was at hand. This legislation is the product of a hearing held this past June by the Subcommittee on Workforce Protection on the public health concern about accidental needlestick injuries to health care workers. Even more than that, this legislation will help to ensure that our Nation's nearly 8 million health care workers will not have to risk their own health, and perhaps their own lives, when providing care for all of us. Our knowledge about needlestick and other ``sharps'' injuries and what can be done about them has greatly increased over the past decade. One estimate is that more than 600,000 needlestick and other sharps injuries occur in health care settings in the United States each year. The very consequences of such injuries to health care workers can mean exposure to serious viruses and diseases, including the HIV virus, hepatitis B and hepatitis C. At the same time as our knowledge about the risks and consequences of needlestick injuries has increased, the technology of devices used in health care settings which can protect against these injuries has also advanced. Today, our knowledge about the effectiveness of such ``safer medical devices'' such as needleless systems, is also better known. H.R. 5178 will assure that safer medical devices will be used, and the lives of health care workers will be made better for it. H.R. 5178 builds on the work of an OSHA guidance document, a compliance directive, issued last fall. Quite simply, H.R. 5178 amends the OSHA Bloodborne Pathogens Standard. It makes clear in the standard itself the direction already provided by OSHA in its compliance directive, that is, that employers who have employees with occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens must consider, and where appropriate, use effective engineering controls, including safer medical devices, in order to reduce the risk of injury from needlesticks and from other sharp medical instruments. This legislation requires employers to use safer medical devices only where the devices are appropriate, commercially available, and effective at reducing or eliminating sharps injuries. Under no circumstances, either through this legislation or through the underlying Bloodborne Pathogen Standard, are employers required to use a safer medical device or engineering control where such a device jeopardizes a patient's safety and an employee's safety, or where such a device is medically contraindicated. All affirmative defenses are available to an employer and are kept intact in this legislation. H.R. 5178 amends the OSHA standard in two additional ways. First, in considering and selecting safer medical devices, employers would be required to solicit input from the frontline health care workers who would actually use the devices. Testimony at our hearing in June indicated the importance of this requirement. Because there are so many new devices on the market and because each health care setting is different, careful evaluation of devices by the professionals who will use them is necessary to know what works and what does not in particular settings. Second, this legislation requires employers to maintain a sharps injury log. Now, I am certainly not one to favor increased paperwork for employers. In this situation, however, I understand the importance of such a law as a tool to track high-risk areas for injury and also as a means to evaluate the effectiveness of particular devices. This legislation ensures that such a log will protect the confidentiality of the insured employee. While it does all that, this legislation also provides employers with the needed flexibility to determine the best technology to use in particular circumstances. It is careful not to favor the use of a specific device. In fact, this legislation is crafted not to impede, but to encourage, technological development by encouraging the use of new technologies. It is left to the employer to evaluate the effectiveness of these available devices, and I would like to emphasize this to any Senator who may be listening to this: it is careful not to favor the use of a specific device. In fact, this legislation is crafted not to impede, but to encourage technological development, by encouraging the use of new technologies; and it is left to the employer to evaluate the effectiveness of the available devices. H.R. 5178 will help resolve an important public health worker safety issue. Mr. Speaker, this legislation has broad-based support from both employer and employee communities. The American Hospital Association; the American Nurses Association; Premier, the leading group health purchasing organization; the Service Employees International Union; AFSCME; the American Federation of Teachers; the Firefighters; and many manufacturers, are all supporters. And it certainly has the support of one nurse from Massachusetts, Karen Daley, who told us at our hearing in June of her personal experience with a needlestick injury and who so generously asked that we take this action; not to help her, for it was too late, but to make a difference in working lives of the Nation's nearly 8 million health care workers. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am offering a substitute to the version of H.R. 5178 that passed the Subcommittee on Workforce Protection. This substitute makes a technical correction to clarify that the documentation of the consideration and implementation of safer medical devices is to be done annually. Along with my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), I am offering a joint statement of legislative intent. I would like to go out of my way now to thank Vickie Lipnic and Greg Maurer for the time and effort in resolving the many problems that arose in this effort. I want to thank all of my colleagues who have joined together in bringing this issue forward, and I urge its support in the full House. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the joint statement of legislative intent on H.R. 5178. H.R. 5178--Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act: Joint Statement of Legislative Intent on Substitute by Hon. Cass Ballenger of North Carolina and Hon. Major Owens of New York in the House of Representatives, Tuesday, October 3, 2000 Mr. Speaker, I am joined today by the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, the Honorable Major Owens, in discussing the Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act. I am pleased to offer this bipartisan legislation which addresses an important public health issue confronting our nation's health care workers. At this time, pending is a substitute to the version of H.R. 5178 which passed the Workforce Protections Subcommittee. I am pleased to be joined by Mr. Owens in offering the substitute. What follows is both the text of the substitute to H.R. 5178 and a statement of legislative intent which I offer on behalf of myself and Mr. Owens. joint statement of legislative intent on substitute to h.r. 5178 This legislation follows a hearing held by the Workforce Protections Subcommittee in late June of this year. The legislation derives from the convergence of two critical circumstances which have a profound effect on the safety of health care workers in the United States. The first circumstance is the increased concern over accidental needlestick injuries suffered by health care workers each year in health care settings. ``Needlesticks'' is a term used broadly, as health care workers can suffer injuries from a broad array of ``sharps'' used in health care settings, from needles to IV catheters to lancets. The second circumstance is the technological advancements made over the past decade in the many types of ``safer medical devices'' that can be used in health care settings to help protect health care workers against sharps injuries. Because of the convergence of these two circumstances--and because of increasing concern over the public health issue related to the spread of hepatitis C, it is appropriate to take this action at this time. Section 1 of the Bill provides the title the ``Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act.'' Section 2 of the bill provides the Congressional findings. Section 3 of the bill directly modifies the Bloodborne Pathogens Standard, 29 C.F.R. 1910.1030, one of the health and safety standards promulgated by the Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The legislation builds on the most recent action taken by OSHA related to the Bloodborne Pathogens Standard--the revision in November 1999 to OSHA's Compliance Directive on Enforcement Procedures for the Occupational Exposure to Bloodborne Pathogens (``Compliance Directive''). In modifying the Bloodborne Pathogens Standard (``BBP standard'') this bill makes narrowly-tailored changes to the BBP standard. It makes clear in the BBP standard the direction already provided by OSHA in its Compliance Directive: namely, that employers who have employees with occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens must consider and, where appropriate, use effective engineering controls, including safer medical devices, in order to reduce the risk of injury from needlesticks and from other sharp medical instruments (``sharps''). The bill accomplishes this in several ways. First, the BBP standard is modified so that the definition of ``engineering controls'' at 29 C.F.R. 1910.1030(b) includes as additional examples of such controls, ``safer medical devices, such as sharps with engineering sharps injury protections and needleless systems.'' Following that step, the BBP standard is amended so that both ``sharps with engineered sharps injury protections'' and ``needleless systems'' are added to the definitions of the standard. While sharps with engineered sharps injury protections and needleless systems are examples of safer medical devices, it is not the intent of this legislation to limit engineering controls or, for that matter, safer medical devices, to the examples cited in this legislation. Nor should the citing of these examples be considered an endorsement or preference of a specific product or assurance of a specific product's effectiveness. Rather, it is the intent of this legislation to reflect innovation and evolving technology in the marketplace. It is also the intent of this legislation that any devices that have been considered or determined to be engineering controls by OSHA shall continue to be considered as such. This legislation anticipates that hospitals and other employers, in crafting their Exposure Control Plans, will adopt procedures and use devices that have been proven to reduce the risk of needlestick injuries. Employers use their Exposure Control Plans to evaluate appropriate practices and devices for reducing occupational exposure. To focus attention on the need for employees to look at changes in technology, this legislation further modifies the BBP standard by adding to the existing requirements concerning Exposure Control Plans at 29 C.F.R. 1910.1030(c)(1)(iv). Through these modifications, employers will be required to demonstrate in the review and update of their Exposure Control Plans that their Exposure Control Plans reflect changes in technology and also that they document annually the consideration and implementation of appropriate, commercially available and effective safer medical devices. The clarification that documentation of such devices is to be done ``annually'' is the only difference between the substitute bill described here and the bill as reported by the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections. It is through an employers' Exposure Control Plan that engineering controls and safer devices are considered and deployed in the workplace. To the extent that specific types of devices, such as catheter securement devices or needle destruction devices can reduce the risk of needlestick injuries, such devices could be appropriate components of an employer's comprehensive exposure control plan. Nevertheless, it is impossible for this legislation to recommend any one type of engineering control. Perhaps better stated it is not the intent of this legislation to disturb the underlying flexible, performance-oriented nature of the Bloodborne Pathogens Standard, whereby the employer must evaluate the circumstances of the workplace and assess what is effective and what is not in that particular work setting. It is important to note also that the requirement in this legislation for the consideration and implementation of safer medical devices is hinged upon the ``appropriateness'' and the ``commercial availability'' of such devices. Finally, while this may be stating the obvious, it is not the intent of this legislation, nor for that matter of the current Bloodborne Pathogens Standard, for employers to implement use of any engineering control, including a safer medical device, in any situation where it may jeopardize a patient's safety, an employee's safety or where it may be medically contraindicated. We do not expect an OSHA inspector to substitute his judgment for that of the professional clinical and medical judgment of health care professionals responsible for patient safety. Moreover, all of the affirmative defenses available to an employer under the current Bloodborne Pathogens Standard remain intact with this legislation. Section 3 of the bill amends the BBP standard in two additional ways. First, it adds a requirement that in addition to the recordkeeping requirements already found in the BBP standard, employers must record percutaneous injuries from contaminated sharps in a sharps injury log. The legislation sets out the minimum information to be included in such a log, namely the type of device used, an explanation of the incident, and where the injury occurred. Employers are free to include other information should they find it helpful. However, this legislation does require that in recording the information and maintaining the log, the confidentiality of the injured employee is to be protected. The requirement for a sharps injury log is consistent with current OSHA recordkeeping in two specific ways. First, the sharps injury log requirement does not apply to any employer who is not already required to maintain a log of occupational injuries and illnesses under 29 C.F.R. 1904. Second, employers are not required to maintain the logs for a period of time beyond that currently required for the OSHA 200 logs. It is the sole intent of the sharps injury log requirement that it be used as a tool only for employers so that they may determine their high risk areas for sharps injuries and use it as a means to evaluate particular devices that may or may not be effective in reducing sharps injuries. At a Subcommittee on Workforce Protection hearings in June, representatives of the American Hospital Association testified that many health care settings, particularly hospitals, already have in place some type of ``surveillance system'' for tracking needlestick and other sharps injuries. The AHA witness noted that hospitals have found this to be an effective tool to provide necessary information to help reduce such injuries. The second way in which Section 3 amends the BBP standard is by specifying that employers must solicit input from non- managerial employees responsible for direct patient care who are potentially exposed to injuries from contaminated sharps in the identification, evaluation and selection of effective engineering and work practice controls. Employers are also to document this in the Exposure Control Plans. The intent of this section is simple--to involve those workers who will actually be using the new devices in their selection. It is not the intent of this legislation to force a particular technology on employers or employees without some careful consideration and evaluation of the technology's effectiveness. Section 4 of the legislation explains that the modifications as delineated by Section 3 of the bill can be changed by a future rulemaking by OSHA on the Bloodborne Pathogens Standards. Finally, Section 5 of the bill directs that the modifications to the BBP standards are to be made without regard to the standard OSHA rulemaking requirements or the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act. Admittedly, preemption of the OSHA rulemaking procedures is not an action to be undertaken lightly. Indeed, the requirements of this bill are driven by the unique circumstances surrounding this narrow and particular public health issue. Although there is no such thing as binding precedent for Congress, it is not the intent of this legislation, through the process used here, to diminish the carefully constructed requirements and procedures for OSHA rulemaking. The legislation does prescribe, however, that the changes to the BBP standard are to be made by the Secretary of Labor and published in the Federal Register within six months of enactment and that the changes will take effect 90 days after such publication.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling). (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema).

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Barrett).