Butch Otter

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, OSHA's final ergonomic rules are flawed and based on assumptions and speculation. Even a study done by the National Academy of Sciences on ergonomics, which implied their support of OSHA's ergonomics regulation, called for more research and better statistics. We can't run agencies on assumptions, instead, agencies must govern on sound principles. And sound principles do not include holding employers responsible for employee injuries that may have occurred outside the workplace. That's simple unfair and unjust to small businesses across the country. What we have here is another federal agency that doesn't trust the American people. In fact, small businesses, testifying before OSHA public hearings, suggested non-regulatory, educational and voluntary approaches to addressing ergonomic issues. However, OSHA ignored small business concerns despite the fact the American people and small businesses have voluntarily reduced injuries by 26% between 1992 and 1998. OSHA estimated the ergonomics standard will cost employers $4.2 billion a year, but a Small Business Administration report estimated the actual cost of compliance would be as high as $42.3 billion. This cost will come out of American's wallets just because OSHA wanted to put this rule in place, even though they did so without listening to the people through a Congressionally-mandated analysis. Mr. Speaker, along with the burden of another regulatory program, OSHA's program will invite a new wave of questionable claims and an increased number of lawsuits. Let us get back to common sense, leave it up to people in the workplace to decide, and vote for S.J. Resolution 6--a Measure of Disapproval for OSHA. Mr. Speaker, I also submit the two letters attached for the Record, because they too state the case of OSHA's misguided efforts. Micron Technology, Inc., Boise, ID, March 6, 2001. Rep. C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, 1st Congressional District, House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Otter: I am writing on behalf of Micron Technology, Inc. regarding OSHA's recent rules creating an ergonomics program standard. As Vice President of Operations whose responsibilities include the safety of Micron's employees, providing a safe work environment is an essential part of my responsibilities. Micron currently has a quality ergonomics program and knows such a program can enhance workplace safety. However, the standard adopted by OSHA would have a negative impact on Micron and would actually inhibit our ability to provide the safest possible workplace for our employees. Therefore, we strongly encourage you to vote for the Joint Resolution of Disapproval of the Standard under the Congressional Review Act. While the ergonomics rule may be well intentioned, it is seriously flawed. These flaws include: The proposed regulations exceed the authority granted OSHA under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 which reads in part, ``Nothing in this Act shall be construed to supercede or in any manner affect any workmen's compensation law or to enlarge or diminish or affect in any other manner the common law or statutory rights, duties, or liabilities of employers and employees under any law with respect to injuries, diseases, or death of employees arising out of, or in the course of, employment.'' By creating a controversial new government mandated compensation program, OSHA exceeds its mandate of injury prevention and supercedes and negatively affects Idaho's worker's compensation law. Work restriction protection is, in effect, a federal workers compensation system which conflicts with state administered workers compensation. State workers' compensation laws, would be undermined by OSHA's proposed regulations. The rule provides for compensation far in excess of that provided under Idaho's Workers' Compensation statues. The added compensation would leave such employees with little incentive to return to work following an accident. The rule seems to state that the injury need not even be caused by the workplace in order for a worker to be compensated under the rule. Also the difficulty in diagnosing the cause or even confirming the existence of musculoskeletal disorders is well known. These facts confirm the rule is a clear invitation to fraud. We are concerned that the regulation is ahead of the science and that individual solutions do not always work generally. We have learned through implementing our own program that for some employees, isolating workplace causes is straightforward. For others it is not, depending upon activities outside the workplace and unique physiology. Even if the causal link between the injury and the workplace can be identified, abatement is sometimes not clear. Yet, the rule now creates potential liability for the employer with no clear objective way to achieve compliance. This is not appropriate. With a single-event trigger and the broad remedies mandated when such an event occurs, we will be forced to allocate limited resources to solve problems that may not really exist, diverting those resources from where they can be best used to provide the safest possible workplace. Disputed claims would likely have to work their way through both the OSHA system and the states' workers' compensation system, greatly increasing the cost to employers. Since the OSHA rule does not establish a system for dispute resolution, it is likely that implementation of the rule would result in a flood of litigation that would inundate an already overtaxed federal court system. The paperwork created by the standard is extremely burdensome and does not necessarily lead to increased safety. As you can see OSHA's ergonomics program standard is flawed in virtually all aspects and will negatively impact jobs, safety, employee benefits, costs to consumers and profitability. It is incumbent on Congress to disapprove the rules and to consider more appropriate approach to reducing injuries in the workplace. If you have any questions regarding the ergonomics rule and its impact on my company, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Jay Hawkins, V.P. Operations.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 17, due to a broken foot, I was too slow. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday one of the largest and most well known employers in Idaho--Boise Cascade--announced plans to close two lumber mills in the First District of Idaho, located in Cascade and Emmett. As a result, almost 400 of my constituents will lose their jobs. Many of these people have worked in the forest industry all of their lives. Yesterday, I contacted the CEO of Boise Cascade about this unfortunate turn of events. He advised that the Clinton Administration's last minute executive orders squeezed their supply by shutting off access to thousands of acres of productive forest areas, and prevented any reasonable chance to harvest enough to keep their operations going. I'm pleased that the Bush Administration has pledged to review these damaging executive orders. But reviewing them may not be enough. I hope that the Bush Administration is just as aggressive with their use of executive orders as the Clinton Administration--in a way that protects the environment, the forests, and the livelihoods of our Idaho families and rural areas.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2, the Social Security and Medicare Lockbox Act of 2001. This measure guarantees that every penny paid into the Social Security and Medicare trust funds will be secure for the millions of seniors, including my 85-year-old mother in Nampa, Idaho, who rely on them today. It is also an important first step in shoring up the funds for young workers who will rely on them in the years to come. But, Mr. Speaker, there is much more to do. And I look forward to working with the new administration and reforming Social Security to ensure that we keep our promise to those current beneficiaries and to those who are soon to retire, and just as importantly, to guarantee to those younger workers that they will get them when they reach their retirement age. Mr. Speaker, we should also work to repeal the tax on senior citizens that was placed there by the last administration. H.R. 2 is a much- needed sign that the Federal government is keeping its commitment to senior citizens by creating a Social Security and Medicare Trust Lockbox to buttress these dollars against spending raids. Our action today sends a strong message that saving Social Security and Medicare is a top priority of this Congress. The senior citizens that have contributed so much of their lives to our country deserve the comfort and the peace of mind that their country is there and will be there for them because they were there for us. It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that we will move quickly to accept this legislation.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, today I am honored to join my colleagues and thousands of Idaho citizens in sending the very best of birthday wishes to President Ronald Reagan on his 90th birthday, or, in his words, the 51st anniversary of his 39th birthday. When President Reagan came to office 20 years ago, he was faced with double-digit interest rates, rampant inflation, high unemployment, long gas lines, a weakened military, low national morale, and with a Democrat-controlled House, he, too, sought a bipartisan agreement and support, and in that process, cut the tax rates 25 percent, reduced wasteful spending, strengthened our national defense, and restored America's pride and her respect. I was honored to serve on President Reagan's Task Force on International Private Enterprise. His vision of free markets, reducing tax burdensome regulations, and smaller, more responsible government, is as relevant in the year 2001 as it was in 1981. America thanks President Reagan for his vision and leadership. Our prayers are with him and our prayers are with Nancy.