Charlie Norwood

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker). (Mr. WICKER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr).

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer).

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, who has worked so hard on this education bill.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out to the gentleman from Virginia who said that there is no good public policy that can be achieved by this amendment; and I would like to say that and tell that to the family of Linda Hendrick, 52 years old, who was stabbed repeatedly in 1999 by a special ed student that could not be removed from the classroom. I think there is very good public policy that can occur here. It has been pointed out by the other side that there are some students, I think Down's syndrome was mentioned, that this would apply to. But it also applies to so many other students who are in special education today for various and sundry reasons who actually do know the difference, and we need to give people like the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), who was a teacher for 10 years, the superintendents back home, we need to give them some discretion to make some decisions about when a student should or should not be in a school. Mr. Chairman, they say schools can eliminate a student from special education for however long you like. That is simply not true because the process is so cumbersome, the process is so expensive it effectively does not work. Mr. Chairman, I want to encourage my colleagues to take this opportunity to give people like the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) an opportunity to do this at home.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I will close this up by making an appeal to the good folks on the other side. I know that they are big defenders of the disability education program, as well they should be. This program was passed by Congress to address real and serious problems. Special needs students were often not given an opportunity to get an education in this country. The Disabilities Education Act fixed that. It does not mean that it is perfect, but it takes a step in the right direction. But that is yesterday's problem that we did take the right step. Mr. Chairman, today's problem with disciplining special needs students is just as real. In fact, it is causing a growing backlash against IDEA. My teachers and superintendents are pleading for relief here. Nonspecial need parents are seriously questioning special and unequal treatment of students regarding discipline. There is a backlash here. Mr. Chairman, I appeal to my colleagues, in their zeal to protect the legacy of this program, do not overlook this problem by supporting this reasonable change. My colleagues will do much to stop this growing backlash against IDEA without hurting education for special needs students. Let me assure my colleagues, this amendment will not encourage schools to engage in mass expulsions of special needs students. This amendment has solid safeguards to make sure this does not happen. Let me be very clear. If a teacher is trying to unjustly kick a special needs student out of their class, this amendment requires parents and local officials to have the authority to stop such a thing. Mr. Chairman, we can and should pass this amendment. We passed a very similar amendment in this Congress last year with 300 votes. This is something we as Federal legislators can do, something we actually can do that will make life better for our teachers back home.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this legislation for two very important reasons: One is a grandchild of Lurla and Richard Mane of Augusta, Georgia, who is an autistic child. The Manes are dear friends, and I have watched as they and their family have struggled with autism over the years. Mr. Speaker, it is my humble opinion that there are far too many American families suffering the effects of autism on a family member, with far too little being done to search out the cause of autism, or for effective treatments. It seems that no one really cares about autism until their child or a friend's child has autism. This disease affects nearly half a million Americans, yet there are no FDA-approved treatments. There are no clear diagnostic tests to even accurately determine when the disease exists. Properly directed Federal research aid holds the promise of correcting these deficiencies. We have failed to provide that direction in the past. Let us not fail again in this regard. Mr. Speaker, the second reason I support this bill is that it recognizes and calls for action on one of the most glaring injustices of this body; namely, our failure to live up to our word for disabled children. When we passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, known around here as IDEA, we ordered our local schools to provide disabled students, including those students suffering from autism, whatever they needed. In return, this body agreed to pay 40 percent of the cost of this Federal mandate, and it may come as little surprise to many of us, the Federal Government has not paid its share of the tab, but we have been sure to fully enforce our local school's obligation to pay theirs. This bill recognizes that fact and moves this Congress closer to honoring its word. It is time we provided every dollar of support for our autistic students in public schools to which we are obligated.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for the time, and as our ranking minority member said a few minutes ago, this is not a very complicated issue. This is not an issue about basically ergonomics and workforce problems with repetitive motion, this is an issue about a rule that is absolutely awful. It is about a rule that will stop repetitive motion injuries by making sure people cannot work. It is a rule that must be rewritten in a fair and balanced way. On November 14, 2000, OSHA finalized a fatally flawed rule that regulates every motion in the workplace. But OSHA did not stop there. As they did years ago with the blood-borne pathogen standard, OSHA also created a Federal workers' compensation system that will undermine State workers' compensation laws. This ergonomics regulation simply cannot be salvaged as written. This must be sent back to the drawing board, and that is what this debate is about, that is what this vote is about. This is a bad rule. Let us begin again and get it right. Although OSHA tells us that this is an ergonomics regulation, this regulation is not limited to those repetitive stress injuries generally associated with ergonomics; no, this ergonomics regulation covers all disorders of the muscles, the nerves, the tendons, the ligaments, the joints, cartilage, blood vessels, and spinal disks. To make matters worse, OSHA has made it nearly impossible in this rule for an employer to claim that an injury is not work related. Any MSD injury, no matter how caused, will be considered work related if work makes it hurt. Think about that. Instead of creating an ergonomics regulation that helps employers and employees prevent repetitive stress syndrome, OSHA has created a rule that makes employers responsible for softball injuries. Despite this wide-open definition, OSHA felt that some employees would still find some way to claim that softball injuries were not work related. So OSHA made it illegal for employers to ask the employee's doctor about nonwork causes of injury. Think about that. Despite the extreme difficulty of determining the cause of any MSD injury, OSHA requires employers to begin redesigning their workplaces based upon the report of one injury by one employee. The single-injury trigger raises the likelihood that employers will be required to embark on expensive redesigns of their workplaces because of injuries that were not caused at work. Think of the connotation of that and what it does to jobs. OSHA was not content, however, to merely require expensive redesigns of workplaces across the country, OSHA also set up a Federal workers' compensation system that will undermine existing State workers' compensation laws. OSHA has mandated a parallel workers' compensation system for ergonomic injuries that will pay higher rates of compensation than for other injuries covered by State workers' compensation. Think about that. The tragedy of this regulation is that workers do suffer injuries caused by repetitive stress. Fortunately, these injuries have declined by 22 percent over the past 5 years, thanks to the voluntary efforts of employers. Instead of building on these efforts, OSHA has issued a rule that assumes that every employer is a bad actor that will not help its own employees, even when it saves the employer money. Think about that. By finalizing a regulation that is universally opposed by the regulated community, OSHA has shown its contempt for employers, many of whom have made a great effort to establish comprehensive, voluntary ergonomic programs in the workplace. By disapproving the ergonomics regulation, Congress can support the voluntary efforts of employers that have brought real reduction in ergonomic injuries, and OSHA can focus on promoting reasonable and workable ergonomic protections for the workplace. This is about eliminating a bad rule.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I just want to point out this does not repeal anything. This is us standing up as the Congress of the United States and saying this Federal agency wrote a bad rule. We have let them get away with this over and over again. This does not mean that Secretary Chao, the new Secretary, will not write ergonomic regulations; but it does mean, however, we will repeal, we will disagree, we will say the way they wrote these rules will not do.

Mr. NORWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman does recognize that this set of rules may well not protect workers because they may not have a job in which to be protected. OSHA people are not going to Mexico and they are not going to Canada to check on them. We need to write a set of rules that will encourage employers in the workplace to be healthy and safe, including ergonomic rules. But this rule is a bad rule, and that is all we are talking about. The Labor Department issued a bad rule. Let us get rid of it and write a good rule.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker from the Democratic side made the point very nicely that if you will not have onerous rules, the workforce today, the employers today recognize the value of having workforce protections, and they have indeed. There is no question about it. Left alone, they have reduced repetitive motion stress in the workplace. But you are not going to get it reduced any further with the kind of onerous rule we are putting on them now. Remember what this is. This is about repealing a bad rule. It is not about making ergonomics go away. Lastly, I would simply add, it dawned on me as I was listening about the 15-pound turkey. I am more interested in the 15-pound child. What about the mothers all across America that have a 15-pound baby who is 8 months, 10 months old? What are we going to do next? In leaving the Labor Department to its own devices, we might. Should the Federal Government furnish a helper for every mother in America that has a 15-pound child that she lifts up and down all day? There are things in life we have to do in terms of our workforce. Can we make those better? Yes, of course we can make them better. It is pretty clear to me that the small businesses and large businesses of America are working on that, but we are not going to help them at all if we pass this rule. Let us get rid of a bad rule. For once let us say a Federal agency has written a bad rule and a bad regulation that will not solve the problem and let us try to relook at that and see if in fact we can help the workforce.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, since supposedly Republicans are not interested in reason or science, one might conclude that we have not read the study done by the National Academy of Sciences and maybe others have not, either. Let me just give my colleagues one little quote out of that study: ``None of the common musculoskeletal disorders is uniquely caused by work exposure.'' The study notes that nonwork factors can cause MSD, also, which is why we believe this particular rule and regulation, this particular standard, should be opposed. I would like to point out that though President Bush and Secretary Dole did bring to the forefront the discussion of workplace injuries and repetitive motion syndrome, none of them approve of how we got there with this rule. This is a bad set of rules and regulations that will only worsen the problem, not make it better. Today let us disapprove of the work that the Labor Department did over the last 8 years, because it will not do what we all want to do, which is to make sure that our workplace is healthy and is safe.

Mr. NORWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. NORWOOD. I just quoted right out of the new study.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am glad the gentleman asked that because what we are basically saying is the Labor Department last year issued a bad rule. We want the opportunity for the Secretary of Labor and the Bush administration to look at this and issue a good rule that in the end does help patients and does help workers in the workplace.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this quickly and make it very clear what this is about today. This is legislation that simply says a standard written by the Labor Department is very bad. It does not mean we cannot come back and have decent standards. But when we have one that is bad and wrong and it will hurt the workers and patients, then we should do away with it and begin again. I do not think this is an argument about science. The National Academy of Science has said, yes, there is such a thing as musculoskeletal pain. We all agree there is such a thing as repetitive motion injury and it can occur in the workplace. But it gets very cloudy at that point. It is not clear what they mean by that. For the record I will tell Members exactly what the National Academy says. They said this is a very complex nature of musculoskeletal disorder phenomenon and it makes it very difficult to regulate in the workplace with any precision. They go on to say that the common musculoskeletal disorder is uniquely caused by work exposures. I urge us all to do away with this rule.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson), a fine member of this subcommittee. (Mr. CULBERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, just to set the record straight, the National Academy of Sciences does not support this standard in any way at all. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), the vice chairman of this subcommittee.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), a new and valued member of our subcommittee.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), my friend. (Mr. BONILLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just point out that the regulation is 9 pages, and it is of great interest to me that OSHA took 591 pages to explain to us why this was a good rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), my friend.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup).