Eva M. Clayton: “I rise to speak in strong opposition against the Workplace Preservation Act. I do that with recognition that what we did…”

“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.”