Moving with unusual speed, the U.S. House
of Representatives voted narrowly on the evening of March 7 to repeal
new workplace safety regulations, just a day after the Senate voted to
rescind the same rules. The next day, March 8, the House approved the
heart of Bush's tax cut plan, an across-the-board reduction in income
tax rates that was the foundation of his election campaign.
The House backed the ergonomics rules repeal bill 223 to 206, with
16 Democrats voting to support the repeal. At the same time, 13
Republicans voted to keep the regulations.
Like the 56 to 44 Senate vote on March 6 to scrap the ergonomics
rules, the House vote was a major victory for business and a huge
setback for labor, which had lobbied for 10 years for strong
regulations to reduce ergonomic injuries.
"To anybody who cares about the issues facing working men and
women, it should be alarming that a worker health and safety rule was
overturned by Congress for the first time in OSHA's 30- year
history," said AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney. "And to
anybody who cares about our democracy, it should be equally alarming
that this deed was done with only a few hours of debate in each
chamber over just two days — and over the voices of workers
representing millions who have suffered from injuries on the
job."
"A Republican leadership juggernaut in the House resorted to
arm-twisting and steamroller tactics to assure a majority to crush the
ergonomics standard and deliver for their big business backers. In
doing so, they wiped out a 10-year effort to establish protections for
workers who suffer from crippling and disabling injuries. Surely this
legislative efficiency could have been put to better purpose,"
Sweeney said.
The House Democratic leader, Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, said,
"I have not in my entire time in the Congress seen such an awful
example of rushing to the floor just a few months after an election
and trying to get through special interest legislation."
And "this rapid one-two punch represented the first joint
legislative attack on the legacy of President Clinton," reported
the New York Times, "who issued the regulations in what he called
an effort to combat the wave of injuries resulting from repetitive
motions on the job."
The White House supported the repeal and President Bush was
expected to sign the legislation soon.
"The voices of injured workers were not heard in the halls of
Congress," Sweeney said. "They were drowned out by the
predatory demands of corporate greed. These demands have also
dominated decision-making in the White House. Not in recent memory
have big business interests hostile to the concerns of working
families held such sway with our President and the U.S.
Congress."
Just one day later, on March 8, without even the appearance of
deliberation, the Republican majority in the House voted to
rubber-stamp the centerpiece and most costly component of Bush's tax
cut plan, "undermining the nation's capacity to meet urgent needs
and putting at risk the economic futures of America's working
families," said Sweeney.
In what was called the first big test of Bush's standing in
Congress by the Times, the House approved the heart of Bush's tax cut
plan, an across-the-board reduction in income tax rates by a vote of
230 to 198. No Republicans voted against the bill and 10 Democrats
broke ranks and voted for it.
Sweeney said that "by voting for this massive tax cut, the
members of the House have rejected repairing our children's schools
— even though a third of our school buildings are in desperate
disrepair. They have voted against helping more families get health
insurance — even though nearly 43 million Americans, including 10
million children, lack insurance. And they have foreclosed the
possibility of a real prescription drug benefit and put Medicare and
Social Security in jeopardy."
"This vote only reinforces that the Bush Administration and
the Republican majority in Congress are beholden to the corporate
interests and the wealthy who bankrolled their election campaigns. The
Bush tax plan shifts billions of dollars generated by working families
to the super-rich — the richest one percent would receive an average
of $46,000, while the bottom 20 percent would receive $42."
"Coming at the beginning of the 107th Congress" these
votes "clearly define the battleground for the struggles between
working families and those who oppose us over the next two
years," said Sweeney. "We will redouble our efforts to speak
for working men and women in those struggles — to win advances and
defeat rollbacks in gains previously won."
"And we will be relentless in shining a spotlight on the
actions of this Congress: no member who votes to abandon the people
who elected him or her should expect the votes of working families in
upcoming elections."
|